What is Intuition? As a introduction to philosophizing.

[Guide]

[Note, arrogant and senseless persons such as "Meno", who have no respect for philosophy or inteligence, are kindly requested not to interfere with this thread]

Preparatory consideration (and presupposition of the question): Persons with no respect for philosophy would never be able to approach determining this (or, indeed, any) conception in a way adequate to thought, for they have been overcome by the heritage of a bunk and vacant attack on definitions. They do not understand this, they have no ability to understand why they hold such prejudices, or why one need fight them, at ever turn, in order to steer them towards intelligent discussion; they are playthings of the heritage and its freight. This does not mean, of course, that for the intelligent, who understand the heritage, there is no difficulty with the old use of reason (giving reasons, speaking, writing sentences) towards principles ripped out of the human being put into the definition. Ergo, definitions are not used in the same way they once were (since they are means in the service of the investigation allowing the group to enter the investigation).

Some persons believe that Plato is more "intutional" than is Aristotle. What would that mean? Does it mean "woman's intuition" in the 1950's sense? Or, the Jungian intuition as a for-seeing? Or, inner intuition of ideal objects such as parallel lines? Or, the intuition of Bergson?

The standard meaning of intuition is brought out as a translation of the German anschauen, to see (the look of a thing), or to observe the look of the given (what is there). The paraphrase "to observe the look of the given" already speaks the distinction between a thing and the "seeing" as such (cf. Plato's Theaetetus). The split, and the speaking without the split "to see" (with no further addition), opens a space of exactitude of detail of the conception.

Intuition (as "to see"): not understanding, but seeing. Ergo, intuition as a counter conception to (immediate) understanding (i.e., intuition when it means "to observe the given". Intuition as "to see" is not intuition as Immediate understanding, i.e., Vernunft (cause).

[Meno_]

[Note, arrogant and senseless persons such as "Meno", who have no respect for philosophy or inteligence, are kindly requested not to interfere with this thread]

Preparatory consideration (and presupposition of the question): Persons with no respect for philosophy would never be able to approach determining this (or, indeed, any) conception in a way adequate to thought, for they have been overcome by the heritage of a bunk and vacant attack on definitions. They do not understand this, they have no ability to understand why they hold such prejudices, or why one need fight them, at ever turn, in order to steer them towards intelligent discussion; they are playthings of the heritage and its freight. This does not mean, of course, that for the intelligent, who understand the heritage, there is no difficulty with the old use of reason (giving reasons, speaking, writing sentences) towards principles ripped out of the human being put into the definition. Ergo, definitions are not used in the same way they once were (since they are means in the service of the investigation allowing the group to enter the investigation).

Some persons believe that Plato is more "intutional" than is Aristotle. What would that mean? Does it mean "woman's intuition" in the 1950's sense? Or, the Jungian intuition as a for-seeing? Or, inner intuition of ideal objects such as parallel lines? Or, the intuition of Bergson?

The standard meaning of intuition is brought out as a translation of the German anschauen, to see (the look of a thing), or to observe the look of the given (what is there). The paraphrase "to observe the look of the given" already speaks the distinction between a thing and the "seeing" as such (cf. Plato's Theaetetus). The split, and the speaking without the split "to see" (with no further addition), opens a space of exactitude of detail of the conception.

Intuition (as "to see"): not understanding, but seeing. Ergo, intuition as a counter conception to (immediate) understanding (i.e., intuition when it means "to observe the given". Intuition as "to see" is not intuition as Immediate understanding, i.e., Vernunft (cause).

I do not know what the essence of.this vitriol is, only my intuition serves me right? Them the following conclusion s I may make

Knowing human nature , the speaker of the group is either a sore PhD slighted outcast, no one on tenure for sure, or a poor hostility bound person , disgruntled with his lot.

No one on his right mind would attack a person upon entrance, and accuse him iaong ad-hominy as he did.

Unless: the person advertised as 'Guess' is a disgruntled ex member, who has like any others misunderstood philosophical personages qua personages, and cleaning society into various segments, as per social class particularly and appealing to ' The Group' , in the manner of contradictory logic . There may be value to this politically and psychologically, but not philosophically, and as my intuition proved that this was the intent to Heidegger, e.I, to differentiate the types of disciplines against conflating them: it is surprising he did not comment on this . given the venue of fair play 'swirling' around Dasein.

Therefore , and thusly, I rest my case.

I tried to remind the group that I am a minimalist with added masochistic tendencies in line with Swann of Proust, in enjoying this tete-a-tete immensely.

We and the group can learn from anybody, that is a great sign of accruing wisdom.

And to more specific, modification of the above is called for. I am not proud of my 'gift', in fact at times it is painful. As the present case present a itself.

No this is not a 'professional' for professionals so not speak thus.
This is somebody still here, with adopting another persona. I'm sure of it

A person, who adopted this technique so as to avoid damaging his other ones, and that is fear, the presence of the very fear he trumpeting in another forum. And for sure, the feeding source of the hate that another forum describes, fitting into the complacency that such collusive rhetoric can generate within the general divisive atmosphere of today.

That this person had an ax to grind toward me o cam attest to by the very confusing pm's that were addressed to me in pretty much the same time, and so an undeniable continuity can be drawn between the two not so subtle incarnations.

That I'm not going after a red herring after this is certain, but I remind this person that there was a time that I was offering comfort to ease his admittedly guilty conscience about what some of omissions he committed with others.

I will rest here, and offer an olive branch, because if he thinks that i am fazed, or harbor ill will or anger, or anything else about him, then I must assure him he doesn't know me.

[Guide]

Prolonged discussion with the stranger enemy (xenos), who is no guest friend, would almost amount to admitting him to the group. Ergo, nothing can be said. Your message has been duly read.

[Mr Reasonable]

Guide...why don't you like Meno?

[Guide]

"Guide...why don't you like Meno?"

For the reason that one has to vigorously fight with him to get him to do things which anyone with normal intelligence has a passion for of their own inclination. For instance, distinguishing the meaning of words through giving definitions or statements about what one means.

[Pedro I Rengel]

This leaves then the problem of putting into words these understandings.

A lot of questions would need to be answered. Who are they for? Why the need to speak them?

So words are intuitive rather than understanding oriented. Between philosophers, so that another can see the look of the given and guess then which given without the split it is. The other philosopher will be able to judge the quality of the first's understanding as opposed to intuition.

This is what both Plate and Aristotle refused to accept. Plate first, as master, and so less than Aristotle, the enthusiastic disciple. Plate indeed has been the only one so far to pose the problem of why and how to come up with words for understandings.

Perhaps he was too young when he heard Socrate, had not a good grasp on the experience of understanding which requires a level of danger that a young aristocrat is less than often exposed to. But was wise enough to do know that it was there to be had. But so his pride led him to open the doors for intuitjon to precede, capture and render understanding.

A noble mistake.

And more than that, a hard challenge. So a noble take.

Perhaps the most damaging concequence was disdain for those in the cave looking at intuition shadows. As if even the least inclined to thought never understood anything!

[Pedro I Rengel]

It is possible that a woman never understood anything and this is why they are so proficient at intuition.

[Guide]

"So words are intuitive rather than understanding oriented. Between philosophers, so that another can see the look of the given and guess then which given without the split it is. The other philosopher will be able to judge the quality of the first's understanding as opposed to intuition."

What does intuitive mean here? The group doesn't conceive your meaning. Give an example if possible.

“Perhaps he was too young when he heard Socrate, had not a good grasp on the experience of understanding which requires a level of danger that a young aristocrat is less than often exposed to.”

The group has no interest in so-called class analysis. One doesn’t want to discolor and distort the text (the conversation with Plato or anyone else of genius) by presuming to know more about Plato, and the wars he fought in, the blood he sprinkled, or the excessive harshness of the spirit of the ancients, than Plato himself. (Nietzsche and his idiot epgione Popper, the latter wholly unworthy of the attention of thinking persons, would be spoken to on their own ground. And, for that matter, Marx/Engels (so far as they are understood philosophically rather than public-politically))

[Pedro I Rengel]

Aristocracy is not a class. Before "class" was concieved of, aristocracy already existed. Anyway, it was just speculation.

As far as intuition, I refer to your own exposition above.

Example, I intuit that this machine I am holding is a smartphone. Observing the look of the given.

[Mr Reasonable]

"Guide...why don't you like Meno?"

For the reason that one has to vigorously fight with him to get him to do things which anyone with normal intelligence has a passion for of their own inclination. For instance, distinguishing the meaning of words through giving definitions or statements about what one means.

That's a lot of work though. Defining the terms pretty much solves the whole debate. You're asking him to do all the heavy lifting.

[Pedro I Rengel]

The heavy lifting is history's! Or genealogy, to be more precice.

I find Guide to be quite clear.

Defining terms is like trying to cheat them out of their genealogical burden. Best one can do is show what one can tell about a word, I find Guide does that.

Of course by asking me what intuit means in some or other context betrays him, buy nobody's perfect.

[Meno_]

"Guide...why don't you like Meno?"

For the reason that one has to vigorously fight with him to get him to do things which anyone with normal intelligence has a passion for of their own inclination. For instance, distinguishing the meaning of words through giving definitions or statements about what one means.

Intuition is precisely thus: Not the inability to distinguish meaning from definition ( of what it means ((the definition)), but the reduction to what the meaning may .or, should be, given the assumption of what it was intended for.

It is putting existence before existence could be defined as the proto conditional of what it means to "be'.

How .ca You be , before existence? Only after, can existence be reduced to what it means to be.

The differentiation can only be through an aposteriori differentiation , an a-priori will intuit this , and that isn't he basis of the synthetic .

But that is not, why Guide doesent like me, unless, that's the only way to avert having to .face this as am intra-inter association.

I see no different way out of it. It is an inter - intra re-integration. Without which the differentiation becomes of a second rate.

The only way out of this is begging for a linguistic anomalies as as 'existing at the root of it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Intent is deep and misterious and rarely understood by the speaker.

Rather, we see what he writes and see if it checks out with what we got. If it doesn't, one of you is an idiot.

[Pedro I Rengel]

The intent of discussion is to see where each is at in their thinking. To progress dialectically is to relinquish thought to the machine, which machine is just a fancy furnace.

[Guide]

Aristocracy is not a class. Before "class" was concieved of, aristocracy already existed. Anyway, it was just speculation.

What the group means is the style of analysis that says, e.g., because Darwin was a Victorian, his theory of sexual selection was analysed through the lens of courtship rituals of his social peers, ergo we have cought the rascal out in a perfidious and inadmissible bias which runs through his whole thinking. It’s not a question chiefly concerning what existed when, but rather the style of the approach to the text. Of the way of listening to, or, on the other hand, correcting the text.

As far as intuition, I refer to your own exposition above.

Example, I intuit that this machine I am holding is a smartphone. Observing the look of the given.

The group says: Here, does intuition allow the synonym understanding? I understand that I am holding a smartphone.

It seems that, in this sense, there is no meaning to the view that one human being is more intutional than another.

Here, too, is the word and thought "given" necessary? In other words, when does the thing get the chance to be "there" as the "object" of the intuition? Isn't all that simply assumed by common sense. Can it be observed?

[Guide]

"Guide...why don't you like Meno?"


For the reason that one has to vigorously fight with him to get him to do things which anyone with normal intelligence has a passion for of their own inclination. For instance, distinguishing the meaning of words through giving definitions or statements about what one means.



That's a lot of work though. Defining the terms pretty much solves the whole debate. You're asking him to do all the heavy lifting.

The group has often done all the "heavy lifting" by providing multiple possible developed guesses, as it were, has to where he is headed. Since one may not know on their own, the group attempts to give avenues of ingress through offering multiple determinations. Ergo, the great waste of time in speaking to such ones.

[Guide]

“The heavy lifting is history's! Or genealogy, to be more precice.

I find Guide to be quite clear.

Defining terms is like trying to cheat them out of their genealogical burden. Best one can do is show what one can tell about a word, I find Guide does that.

Of course by asking me what intuit means in some or other context betrays him, buy nobody's perfect.
“

The group says: However, one need not keep to the definition. It is only a means to getting to the matter under investigation collectively.

[Pedro I Rengel]

The group thinks it is an infruitful means.

A

My mentuon of aristocracy had nothing to do with sociology or antropology.

B

Obviously understanding as you exposited does not do the same as intuition. To begin with, one needs a good reason to understand. The given seens. Because smartphone is a given seen being obsezzerved.

But if I see it, with the split? That can only ever be my problem. Words aren't concerned with this. Just ask any acid head.

Indeed common sense is intuitive.

[Guide]

Intuition is precisely thus: Not the inability to distinguish meaning from definition ( of what it means ((the definition)), but the reduction to what the meaning may .or, should be, given the assumption of what it was intended for.

It is putting existence before existence could be defined as the proto conditional of what it means to "be'.

What is meaning here? Pointing to something and understanding what it is? E.g., a keyboard made of plastic? As opposed to: “a way of entering text into a computer” or some such definition?

How exactly is Plato more intuitional? And what does intuitional math mean? The group still has not answered what it long since raised.

The group must have more to go on.

Of course, under this determination, the paradox that one is defining or bounding intuition is in our midst, or does the group dyniey that? Determining can mean, that which is said on a metaphor with bounding a field with a river, stones, or through fences marked out after topographical marking, say with exacting scopes.

[Arcturus Descending]

It is possible that a woman never understood anything and this is why they are so proficient at intuition.

Is this your profound intuition speaking?

Perhaps that is because a woman realizes that intuition is not set in stone, it is not infallible, as our senses and our instincts are also not infallible.

Here are definitions of intuition.

in·tu·i·tion
ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
plural noun: intuitions

Does intuition actually bring with it *understanding* or just a sense of something? Understanding to me means that we are *clear* about something, know it.
I am an agnostic but my intuition at times tells me that Something may be possible. Would you call this understanding? I would not. You can only go so far with intuition I think.

Our intuitions can also be based on our built-in beliefs and fears and so we are not necessarily receiving clear and right signals from *below* or above, as the case may be.

Intuition is a process that gives us the ability to know something directly without analytic reasoning, bridging the gap between the conscious and nonconscious parts of our mind, and also between instinct and reason.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -we-use-it

The above definition to me almost sounds like intuition is a form of faith, where someone assumes to know something because they get that *sense* of it.

[Guide]

“Obviously understanding as you exposited does not do the same as intuition.”

The group finds nothing obvious in this, rather, it is a quite vague cluster of notions. Not sure what the group wants understanding to mean that it “needs a good reason”. In ordinary usage understanding, knowing, and seeing, amount to the same thing. I understand this is a keyboard. I know a keyboard is here. I see something, it is a keyboard. Common sense. Common sense is split between spontaneous understanding, and learned phronesis. In other words, through experience and reflection, common sense is altered. If someone learns that smoking causes lung cancer, their spontaneous understanding of what a cigarette is changes.

[Guide]

Pedro I Rengel wrote:It is possible that a woman never understood anything and this is why they are so proficient at intuition.


“Is this your profound intuition speaking?

Perhaps that is because a woman realizes that intuition is not set in stone, it is not infallible, as our senses and our instincts are also not infallible.”

The group finds this part of the group's provocation profoundly boring and idiotically polemical. Therefore unworthy of answer or even decomposition. However, the group registers receipt of it.


in·tu·i·tion
ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
plural noun: intuitions

“Does intuition actually bring with it *understanding* or just a sense of something? Understanding to me means that we are *clear* about something, know it.”

The group says, when one sees a house, is one unclear about what is there? Where is the unclarity supposed to be in seeing things such that it would lack understanding?

“I am an agnostic but my intuition at times tells me that Something may be possible. Would you call this understanding? I would not. You can only go so far with intuition I think.”

The group calls this apprehensiveness, or a forsight concerned with what is to come. Apprehensiveness is thereby distinguished from apprehension, which is understanding or knowing (simple seeing; a house is here, how do you know?, I see it).

Our intuitions can also be based on our built-in beliefs and fears and so we are not necessarily receiving clear and right signals from *below* or above, as the case may be.

The group could consider this a part of apprehensiveness, as so-called biased apprehension. However, this assumes a common sense knowing which is the measure of the bias as the mistake.

Intuition is a process that gives us the ability to know something directly without analytic reasoning, bridging the gap between the conscious and nonconscious parts of our mind, and also between instinct and reason.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -we-use-it

The above definition to me almost sounds like intuition is a form of faith, where someone assumes to know something because they get that *sense* of it.

The group says, common sense is also a form of faith. The ground stands still, such is the claim of common sense.

[Meno_]

One of my most tested claims to the possession of intuitive power lies in the FACT that during my college hiatus, I was employed as a professional psychic, paying good money.

Other then that my readings have mysteriously led me to esoteric Sources, among them Madame Blavasky. I have proceeded on this journey for at least 20 years, and very odd things have happened to me.

One of the most notable ones,( and if anyone read me in the past), came as attesting - to my mentioning oddity regularly, that is my audio dream with M.Polanyi.I have never, ever heard or seen this philosopher in my life, even though he was Humgarian , as I am.

I know for Some, this claim is suspect, butI am genuinely convinced that something significant is going on here.

[barbarianhorde]

[Note, arrogant and senseless persons such as "Meno", who have no respect for philosophy or inteligence, are kindly requested not to interfere with this thread]

Preparatory consideration (and presupposition of the question): Persons with no respect for philosophy would never be able to approach determining this (or, indeed, any) conception in a way adequate to thought, for they have been overcome by the heritage of a bunk and vacant attack on definitions. They do not understand this, they have no ability to understand why they hold such prejudices, or why one need fight them, at ever turn, in order to steer them towards intelligent discussion; they are playthings of the heritage and its freight. This does not mean, of course, that for the intelligent, who understand the heritage, there is no difficulty with the old use of reason (giving reasons, speaking, writing sentences) towards principles ripped out of the human being put into the definition. Ergo, definitions are not used in the same way they once were (since they are means in the service of the investigation allowing the group to enter the investigation).

Some persons believe that Plato is more "intutional" than is Aristotle. What would that mean? Does it mean "woman's intuition" in the 1950's sense? Or, the Jungian intuition as a for-seeing? Or, inner intuition of ideal objects such as parallel lines? Or, the intuition of Bergson?

The standard meaning of intuition is brought out as a translation of the German anschauen, to see (the look of a thing), or to observe the look of the given (what is there). The paraphrase "to observe the look of the given" already speaks the distinction between a thing and the "seeing" as such (cf. Plato's Theaetetus). The split, and the speaking without the split "to see" (with no further addition), opens a space of exactitude of detail of the conception.

Intuition (as "to see"): not understanding, but seeing. Ergo, intuition as a counter conception to (immediate) understanding (i.e., intuition when it means "to observe the given". Intuition as "to see" is not intuition as Immediate understanding, i.e., Vernunft (cause).

Coincidentally, "Guide" is only one character different from my favourite Street Fighter 2 character. Can you guess who he is?

[Arcturus Descending]

Guide,

The *Group* says...

Are you a part of the Borg or are you one personality belonging to multiple ones?

What is the Group? Are you part of a collective? Do you have the freedom to think for yourself and to question the Group or is it always "The Group says"?