|
what's your philosophy of life (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
pure knowledge. direct apprehension.
Ever read Immanuel Kant? |
are you talking about pure reason? or the public use of practical reason??
pretty sure Kant would find intuitions to be extremely fallible since he believed we should base our lives on reason... he's pretty much the leading exponent of reason and rationality (logic) in modern times... :wtf:
unless your referencing something i havn't read, intuition is our connection to the transcendental: He believed in god, BUT he admitted we shouldn't base our lives on any kind of transcendental beliefs (intuition) because we are incapable of ever knowing it well enough to use it (being subjective beings)...
he said we should use Reason to asses transcendental ideas, but that nothing should supersede our reason (logic) or our practical lives, because to ignore the realities (and follow intuition) was completely idiotic |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
unless your referencing something i havn't read, intuition is our connection to the transcendental |
I'm not sure if Kant ever explicitly said anything concerning intuition, but if we take intuition to mean something like "that which we know to be true without experience", then it could be argued that such a view was actually a major part of his epistemology in the form of synthetic a priori judgments. That is, we can make a number of true and meaningful inferences about certain postulates (namely those concerning space and time) without any recourse to empirical knowledge whatsoever.
On the other hand he believed that such judgments were created by reason, so I can't really see him agreeing with a statement like "Intuition > reason". |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I'm not sure if Kant ever explicitly said anything concerning intuition, but if we take intuition to mean something like "that which we know to be true without experience", then it could be argued that such a view was actually a major part of his epistemology in the form of synthetic a priori judgments. That is, we can make a number of true and meaningful inferences about certain postulates (namely those concerning space and time) without any recourse to empirical knowledge whatsoever.
On the other hand he believed that such judgments were created by reason, so I can't really see him agreeing with a statement like "Intuition > reason". |
Yeah thats exactly what I was assuming- :)
I was giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming she meant a priori principles were intuitive, but the a priori principles never ever take over reason- by real world I didnt specifically mean empirical, but related to the world- kant didnt like empiricism, but his focus was on seeing the real world thru reason, or rationalkty which he thout provided far grester truths than the a priori transcendental intuitions, or the empirical studies |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
I studied Kant briefly in the second year of my undergrad in German.
I recall feeling enlightened by his discourse on Anschauung, when connecting it with my previous understanding of the concept of intuition.
Basically, I take it as "knowledge by acquaintance" or the connections that we make subconsciously; i.e., "nonconceptual content" that circulates under concrete understanding, but that is nevertheless potently present in human cognition. And should be valued as a significant portion of the reasoning process - not merely dismissed as a haphazard feeling of recollection or "a gut feeling"
Hope this isn't too inarticulate. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
bitches, get money |
money. get bitches! |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
I studied Kant briefly in the second year of my undergrad in German.
I recall feeling enlightened by his discourse on Anschauung, when connecting it with my previous understanding of the concept of intuition.
Basically, I take it as "knowledge by acquaintance" or the connections that we make subconsciously; i.e., "nonconceptual content" that circulates under concrete understanding, but that is nevertheless potently present in human cognition. And should be valued as a significant portion of the reasoning process - not merely dismissed as a haphazard feeling of recollection or "a gut feeling"
Hope this isn't too inarticulate. |
yeah i really can't see that fitting into Kant, or at least into his more acknowledged works: I havn't come across Anschauung as far as i can remember, but his whole philosophy is based on the use of reason... it wouldn't make sense for him to place much stock in intuition, as it is reason's opposite...
As i said, he believes in these kind of 'things we already know' (a priori stuff) which is what i think you mean by intuition, but he says that its not as important as logic, and rationality... He acknowledges its there, but so does he acknowledge subjective experience and empirical proofs...
they can be useful, and they exist, but they aren't as important as pure reason, and the practical use of our logic. |
|
|
| PhilBxR |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Thread over.
Seriously, anyone who comes up with cute little phrases to describe their attitude towards life is probably a cunt. |
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Seriously, anyone who comes up with cute little phrases to describe their attitude towards life is probably a cunt. |
And I'm all wet :gsmile: |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And I'm all wet :gsmile: |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
holy , good work. |
|
|
| DaRoZa |
| altruistic hedonism |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ygrene
My philosophy is difficult to explain. Loosely translated, it is the melody in Sandstorm. |
:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
