tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post7626800839316239926..comments2024-03-28T16:05:01.592+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: 'Constraints' on intuitive knowing (or Primary Thinking)Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-70646474737407408402019-05-15T13:12:10.809+01:002019-05-15T13:12:10.809+01:00@Simon - Insofar as they are true; they *would* be...@Simon - Insofar as they are true; they *would* be the same among all men. <br /><br />But each man has an unique persepctive on the totality of reality, and a different ability/ capacity - and not all men are honest and diligent in their enquiries and reports. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-66000882461871518822019-05-15T11:38:43.063+01:002019-05-15T11:38:43.063+01:00> We can (and should) be 'using' intuit...> We can (and should) be 'using' intuitive knowing to understand well-formed questions about 'concrete' (especially personal) realities such as the goodness or evil of individuals in public life, or the effect of new changes, the quality of actual buildings or landscapes, the beauty of some piece of music - and of course in dealing with the human beings (and animals, and plants) of our lives; the Creator, Jesus, spiritual beings etc...<br /><br />Do you believe the results of primary thinking about these topics would be the same amongst all men? Or would it differ between individuals?Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-51742809716529363872019-05-13T14:44:02.905+01:002019-05-13T14:44:02.905+01:00@William - I'm aware that I am using abstracti...@William - I'm aware that I am using abstraction - the point is not to avoid abstractions but about which is primary - abstractions or beings/ persons. And the non-abstract being/ person is an individual - directly apprehended. Abstrcations then are secondary, simplified models - hence ultimately wrong. <br /><br />@David - Yes, the things people are most 'dogmatic' about are usually precisely those things they do not really have a clue about. Whereas they regard as unknowable or irrelevant (because a subjective matter of opinion) things they can know directly.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65871366299973086052019-05-13T13:23:05.877+01:002019-05-13T13:23:05.877+01:00I find that I have made the same observations over...I find that I have made the same observations over quite some period of time now. It is quite frustrating and indeed largely impossible to try and discuss interesting/Important things without getting immediately stuck and mired in the issue of examining the underlying assumptions that the other person is bringing to the conversation. Which they invariably dont want to do or seemingly cant do anyway. We seem to live in a world of Dr Spock's who deny the reality of anything subjective, as not real. The supposedly objective 'facts' however are patently clear (or at least they should be according to them) and the 'evidence' is plain for all to see that Brexit is the best thing to do, climate change is man made, etc. But to ask 'how do you know what you claim to know?' and my Socratic attempts to discuss why people think they really do know what they insist about these things that are 'bleedingly obvious' to every intelligent, reasonable person. Well, lets just say people dont like that one little bit and it is largely regarded as insane and hostile, fighting talk. And so, my tendency is to smile, attempt to change the subject or only very lightly engage by repeatedly highlighting the underlying problems with their metaphysical assumptions. So, you can imagine, I am rapidly accumulating friends nowadays!Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-46511276917740934952019-05-13T12:54:37.507+01:002019-05-13T12:54:37.507+01:00When I look at a small collection of items and imm...When I look at a small collection of items and immediately know that there are Three of them, not Two or Four, isn't that a direct intuition of how an abstraction (a number) applies to something in the real world?<br /><br />When I consider something that has happened or has been proposed and immediately know that it is Good or Evil, as the case may be, isn't that a direct intuition of how an abstraction applies to something in the real world?<br /><br />And, of course, what if not abstractions are such concepts as Intuitive Knowing, Verifiability, and Abstraction itself?Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.com