Thread: Is reason enough?

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Intuition and empathy (especially intuition) are just fancy mythical words that mean "subconscious evolutionary hard-wirings of reason". Usually, if something feels right, logic and reason will eventually prove it to BE right anyway. That's WHY it feels good with intuition, because you know deep down, immediately how the most basic facts about the situation add up.

You can't take 'reasoning' out of mental discussion like some sort of separate ingredient. ALL decision making is some form of reasoning. There is no "ghost in the machine".

I would put it the opposite way. There is no 'hidden reason' in intuition; when we investigate our intuitions after the fact, we do not "prove" them, we rationalize them, a process that would not be necessary if they were rational in the first place.

Your last paragraph is semantic and I'll try to avoid getting bogged down there, but it certainly sounds to me like you view methodical, analytical thinking as eclipsing the other two, which I suppose would be option #3. Personally, I opt for #2, thinking and feeling that Reason, Intuition and Empathy operate best when each is well informed by the other two. I find the three terms symbolically balanced, holding equal symbolic weight when we discuss the form that consciousness takes in making a decision. As I said in the OP, the terms were chosen intuitively; I can invent reasons why I opted for them, but the experience of choosing them was not rational.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would put it the opposite way. There is no 'hidden reason' in intuition; when we investigate our intuitions after the fact, we do not "prove" them, we rationalize them, a process that would not be necessary if they were rational in the first place.

Your last paragraph is semantic and I'll try to avoid getting bogged down there, but it certainly sounds to me like you view methodical, analytical thinking as eclipsing the other two, which I suppose would be option #3. Personally, I opt for #2, thinking and feeling that Reason, Intuition and Empathy operate best when each is well informed by the other two. I find the three terms symbolically balanced, holding equal symbolic weight when we discuss the form that consciousness takes in making a decision. As I said in the OP, the terms were chosen intuitively; I can invent reasons why I opted for them, but the experience of choosing them was not rational.

All I know is that with the way the world is going recently, the very last thing in this whole world that we need is even LESS reason. We need more pure analytical logic and reason than ever before. Our society is clearly desperately deprived of this.

That's why I think this thread would have been relevant maybe 50 years ago, but now there are just too many ideological psychotic zealots running around, who do and say more than think...

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

All I know is that with the way the world is going recently, the very last thing in this whole world that we need is even LESS reason. We need more pure analytical logic and reason than ever before. Our society is clearly desperately deprived of this.

That's why I think this thread would have been relevant maybe 50 years ago, but now there are just too many ideological psychotic zealots running around, who do and say more than think...

I could not agree more, however, I am putting "Language and Experience" which among other things demonstrates the foundation of all logic, and demonstrates how easy it is to refute non-Euclidean Geometry, and something about Lucid-dreaming, which I take also as a branch of logic, but a bit too advanced for us yet--into audio-book form. Since some of it has to do with math, I included, in an appendix, a demonstration of a figure that actually multiplies and divides a line by a line, which means that one can do the four basic moves of arithmetic exactly, whereas one cannot in arithmetic.

Anyway, at this moment I am doing the audio. Posted it will have doc, rtf, txt, pdf, and abridged audio.

I set my sights on writing a metaphysics that covers both science and religion for a reason, as, there is no use of language which is valid that violates the original naming convention. Long story.

anyway. I need a critic, and I means someone who knows what critique is, to go over it. Perhaps if I post it, I will get one.