Concepts of intuition (Kant)

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
121

What do you mean by “old versus new” intuition?

Intuition is a genetic tendency for pattern-recognition, which differs from person-to-person. This is why no two people view or “interpret” the same image, message, information, etc. the same way. This is why people have different perspectives. Nature encodes this so that Life, as a process, may evolve and adapt exponentially to survival-challenges, or simply as the function by which Life confronts existence and persists against threats.

Intuition is first connected to Fear and threat-recognition. When an animal meets another animal in Nature, its first nervous impulse is to perceive the Other as a threat. This is echoed in Hobbes as when man in Nature confronts another man, or stranger confronts stranger. The Antithesis of Fear, then, is Familiarity. Animals do not perceive Family/Kin as a threat. So, from these two biological facts (Fear vs Familiarity), intuition is formed.

This can be abstracted, into Psychotherapy for example, by which Mania, Paranoia, and general Psychopathy are analyzed. People have different Fears, because people recognize threats in different phenomena: these connect to Jung, Freud, and Berkeley.

In my opinion, all intuitions are “old” intuitions. They’re not “new”. And they are very resistant to change. People can overcome particular fears, but the basis of fear does not change.

Intuition then extends to pattern-recognition. For example, in Nature, Predators have ‘sharp’ and angular facial features, while Prey animals have ‘rounded’ and obtuse facial features.

Most of humanity is unaware of these observations, and doesn’t need to be Conscious of them. Intuitions are Subconscious, and Unconscious (Somatic). You are not Aware of them, directly.

Intuition is only loosely connected to ‘Judgment’ (Decision/Choice), by the phenomenon of Bias. Everybody has specific Biases. Simply observe Political biases on this forum, and this answer is obvious. The challenge is not in the difference of Political Bias though–it is in the understanding of how particular persons and group develop and change Biases over time. These do change, but the change is slow. People may learn that some Biases are fundamentally flawed, or wrong more than often, to the point of abandoning the Beliefs which support flawed Biases.

Judgments are improved with expansive Knowledge/Information, along with Trial/Experimentation. Decisions which prove successful, more often than not, become favored versus inferior Decisions.

122

You missed THIS

DO NOT ANSWER IF YOU HAVE NOT READ KANT

123

Probably because ‘homework’ requested the inquiry, from the perspective of Kant…

124

Nope. I wish.

Anyway.

Imagination is only one third of the battle.

This is a rough sketch & sort of goes all over the place. I’ve been told I need to tighten my belt. Best I can do for now. Happy Easter.

This three-part Moral Truth Litmus tells us when a particular morality/ethical theory is artificial, when that morality fails any part of the litmus:

(L1) Part 1: Question Aspect: Moral truth must describe the answer to “How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?” (Judgment resonates with intuited/imagined wholeness/meaning.)
(L2) Part 2: Objective Aspect: Moral truth, like all other truth, must be discovered, not created. (Reason demands ordered wholeness/meaning be demonstrated in the actual or it isn’t real, and the actual to demonstrate ordered wholeness/meaning or it isn’t real.)
(L3) Part 3: Universal Aspect: Moral truth, like all other truth, must be true for all or none. (Understanding grasps the order of thought/being as it actually appears.)

If no theory passes all three parts of the litmus, there is no moral truth.

Being discovered in/by every culture in history is good for part 3, but to pass part 2, you need a being whose essence it describes—who always exists its essence.

It isn’t true without demonstration—Kierkegaard’s “subjectivity is truth”. And there is a lot of evidence of this ultimate demonstration: Jesus taking our perspective and giving us his on the cross and rising to prove it.

The Golden Rule passes the litmus. How we should be (virtues), what we should do (deontology), the ultimate end (teleology subsuming/transcending utility) is treat/love the other as self (in a word: love). It is God’s essence he exists (God is the Good resolving Euthyphro’s dilemma), demonstrated fully in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. So his sacrifice…& the meaning of his body & blood… is interpreted within the context of middle eastern Judaism. It’s not difficult to learn the meaning. You don’t even need to pretend to be into the avant-garde.

Treat the other/them as self/us. There are various versions found in every major culture in history, because the real hunger for true (ordered, actual) meaning (wholeness) is transcultural. When transcultural principles/virtues are in conflict in a situation, choose the one that best applies the Golden Rule in that situation/context, all morally relevant consequences considered for that situation, for all morally relevant stakeholders (including the enemy/competition). This is the “bread of life” and “living water” (the meaning) that satisfies our “hunger of hungers” and “thirst of thirsts” (for true meaning). Nothing that fails the litmus will satisfy our hunger for ordered wholeness (the ground) and forgiven disordered incompleteness (the figural nihil—whether transgressing or merely falling short).

Where things go wrong is if we leave out any of the three parts of the litmus (intuition/imagination/judgment, reason, or understanding) (judicial, legislative, executive). If reason (will) allows imagination to resonate on nihil (abstracta gone too wild) that is out of harmony with real actual, it will cement into vice, clouding judgment (messing with our ability to intuit perfection/wholeness in goals/intentions/consequences). If we use reason to further actualize vice, it results in evil conduct that poisons everything it touches and further cements vice, clouding the ability to properly order thoughts/character. This is when unjust laws are created and unlawful orders commanded. Abstracta (figural) not in line with real actual (concreta) (ground) is nihil.

Thank Good we are co-creators with the Author & Perfecter. Hebrews 12:2. Jesus was temporarily able to grow and learn when he took human form in the permissive/immanent/actual (Phil 2:5-11), maintaining perfection in living/dying Golden Rule love, but the Father (always perfect/transcendent/real, though also immanent) always knows the whole thing complete. The same is true of the Word/Logos before birth and after ascension. All actual is internal to him (real). See Romans 11:36. The immanent is his permissive will that includes our choices (we are co-creators under him) subsumed under his perfect (transcendent) will. In him we live, move, and have our being.

Let World I be the world of I AM: transcend/perfect.
Let World II be the world of immanence/permissive existing in (getting its being from) World I
Let World IA be the world of I am: transcend/permissive existing in World II existing in World I
Let World IIA be the fallen World IA in World II
Let World I reconcile World IA by entering World II and switching perspectives with World IA.
Let World I reconcile World IIA by making a new World II existing in World I.
Rest.

So Christ’s kingdom is not founded on this earth, though heaven & earth do meet here/now. We pray for his will to be done on earth (immanent/permissive - restrained chaos) as in heaven (transcendent/perfect—not physical—& more wild than one can fathom). He did use the Jews & others to explain who he was & wasn’t, obviously, but there has always been an “all peoples” promise in the law and the prophets fulfilled in Jesus’ life, death, & resurrection, hence Paul etc going to the gentiles (everyone!). He had to choose the in-group in order to later bring in the out-group - sparking communal spirit in us that is eternal in him.

125

urwrong,

“What do you mean by “old versus new” intuition?”

Old: the hunger for true meaning (transcultural golden rule love written on our hearts)
New: vibing with creative demonstrations of what satisfies the old hunger: love others as Jesus demonstrated his love for us

Sorry, back to my homework. I have bad time management lol.

126

Ecmandu, let’s do this here cuz relevant & this is my thread:

Perfection/wholeness/greatness … we don’t even come close. What makes you think we could even attempt at an accurate definition of it “for ourselves” in order to say none of us are it until we are all it? We’ll never reach it, except we are made in the image of the Best Idea. So…we can accept the Signal rather than block it. Listen…

Regarding repeat resurrections & memory wipes: If we keep having to be WOWed out of the mud/vomit we keep returning to (like a pig/dog) (salted with fire) (gross)… eventually we’re gonna be toast (super burnt—not the way you like it). Kinda stole that from my ethics prof.

One more go round responding to your narrative:

All solutions to the “three structural problems of existence” are variations of treat the other/them as self/us and vice versa (equality/cooperation principle)… correspondence principle…

1.) The goal of life is to give everyone forever, everything they want at the expense of not one single being in existence.

We are all patterned off the same basic original consent structure (God’s image). So everyone wants, at bottom, truth, goodness, and beauty, all of which are completely free (even of inclination or compulsion). And everyone who seeks, finds. Boom. Solved. No micromanaging required. Since Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice with the joy set before him (in his mind, but for real), which made it all worth it, the plan is for us to do likewise. If we seek the kingdom first, it puts all our other wants in order.

The nonhuman animals (and as far as most know, the AI) don’t have that same hunger—and if they do, they should be treated as a person. If they, or even a human, don’t appear to understand the difference between good and evil, they should be protected (from themselves and others) like a wild animal.

2.) There are three structural problems with existence:

a) consent violation: the assumption only equals can consent, and any differences constitute power imbalance and thus violation of consent, meaning, “I don’t want this” - maybe we should solve that problem for all beings!!

Everybody wants the first stuff. Boom. Solved. You have the concept of “no turns into a yes” — so you know “yes” is consent — so you know not all “yes” involves bullying (consent violation). The greater/rich should redefine great/rich and be servant leaders/sharers. Size is irrelevant to consent… a large nation should respect the no … or the yes … of a small nation, and vice versa. Thoughts on arranged marriage possibly relevant: facebook.com/10000369670299 … 22579/?d=n

Jesus is God demonstrating his eternal perfection/mercy covers our crap attempts at/away from perfection … so we would stop TRYing (& running out of steam… Kierkegaard’s ethical sphere, or religiousness A) and start living in & out from the the fullness of his JOY/love (infinite well - into which we take Kierkegaard’s leap of faith…like a canon ball).

For some, it’s like you’re Indiana Jones and … you have all these clues confirming the reality of a way over the abyss… but you have to step out in order to learn the path is really there.

b) the negative zero sum problem: the assumption that everyone should win, or for every winner there is more than one loser.

Not if everyone is seeking after that first stuff. All who seek, win. Boom. Solved. Work this out in conversation that tweaks terms until double standards are removed. Be happy when others win more, as long as everyone’s needs (including Maslow’s or comparable hierarchy) are met.

c) the pleasurable exclusive access problem: the assumption that all resources should be shared (everyone should win) equally. Also meaning, while you’re having a decent time, you’re invariably stomping, shattering and crushing another’s heart.

Not if their heart is busy seeking after that first stuff. Boom. Solved. Everyone who does their part should have their basic needs met. They should be free to choose what part that is within their abilities. No one should be able to take anything from them that would result in their basic needs (all on Maslow’s or comparable hierarchy) not being met. Be happy their needs are being met. Just bring your loaves & fishes & see what God does with them. Store ‘em up in heaven, though…this world is a sandcastle for the tides.

How could God allow it to continue, when it’s looking more & more like hell than helleaven in many people’s lives?

Answer: He won’t. Be patient, as much as you want him to be patient with you/us—more, if you’re like Jonah. And check the plank in your own eye.

Only one being is capable of absolute perfection. The rest of us are just stuck with knowing we’re loved despite our imperfection. Do we not know? Have we not heard? We are held accountable according to how we respond to the light we’ve been given. The more light/forgiveness we’re given, the more we will show it and keep trying when we fail because the Perfect One made us to be loved & love no matter what.

Only the sort of king or Greatest Being described by the Golden Rule (self=other) (demonstrated in switching perspectives with us on the cross) would make us a royal priesthood — all kings/queens (yada).

We don’t need a new plan. We need to read the current one and … enforce it in our own lives.

i.e. properly rule/order our inclinations

What did you think he meant by the last will be first & the first will be last?

This becomes a soup sandwich if we try to do this apart from the Vine, the source of Being, Goodness, and Beauty.

If you jettison the Golden Rule (the God who is first but made himself last so we could be first) no plan will work to get us where you (he) want(s) us to go.

“The best people suffer forever. And the worst people are punished forever until they become the best people, and then they also suffer forever.” — Ec

It isn’t the best people who accept God’s forgiveness. It’s those who know they need it (psychopaths turned empathic, sure). And by your theory, that’s eventually everyone. I don’t rule it out. But we’ll all be salted with fire.

If no one chooses hell because everyone chooses what we want, then we’re all choosing heaven right now, so we’re already in heaven.

If you’re not great until everyone is great, but great is subjective, then everyone is already great/perfect and there is no room for improvement, and everyone is already in heaven. If we’re already in heaven, no one goes to hell. What do you do with that?

Psycopathy (too much mind/reason) & sociopathy (too much body/impulse) are on a spectrum & there is only one Golden Virtuoso (perfect blend of mind/body—the Godman), right?

Psychopaths & sociopaths (everyone, to varying degrees) have the same deepest hungers (goodness, beauty, truth), though stunted according to their genes/learning. Both extremes & all in between can choose to treat self/us as other/them based on those hungers.

Impulses like empathy can even get in the way - like a parent being overprotective, or a spouse being overjealous, or vengeance being overblown.

If genes or learning bumped us too close to an extreme, God gets that. And he can use it for Good. And it is still malleable. We are co-creators.

127

The reason I don’t do quotes in quotes is because my phone doesn’t allow it. And that’s a very long post.

Even my copy and paste function isn’t that long.

So… we can go piece by piece.

…

Now, let me add this.

If I could prove that all sex is rape or prostitution and that those are sins…

Why would I masturbate to rape images? Just because I thought Jesus forgave?

Why would I rape (even what humans call ‘consensual’ sex) just because I thought Jesus forgave?

Let’s get to one of the problems here “no always means yes”

Do you see a problem with that? I guess not, because ??? Jesus forgave.

Let’s look at it in a simple way as well.

There’s only one man on earth who got to see the most beautiful breasts on earth… all the other men want to see those breasts… billions of them.

Let’s say this woman is not even that beautiful on the inside. So there’s not much point winning love fair and square … I just got to see her tits and nobody else did.

You explain to me how that makes existence moral.

128

We’re sorry—you have reached a username that does not respond to sex analogies.

Charles says use the device whose keyboard he loves to traverse.

129

Not another hell realm.

130

I saw him in one of your vids. Please share Charles pic :slight_smile:

131

Btw… my computer doesn’t allow precise copy and paste

132

True, but six pages on and discussion of Kant hasn’t gotten off the ground and the author of the thread is off on yet another tangent.

133

Can you please show you have correctly represented the options with quotes (going back to “Hermes” heh)?

points the fingertips of a peace sign from my eyeballs to yours

I’m on to you, dakat.

134

As seems to be her MO…

135

My MO is doing my homework.

136

Ichthus.

This isn’t about intuition. Everyone has different intuition.

This is about facts we can all agree upon.

Kant tried it. He failed.

I succeeded.

Not for changing reality itself, but for laying down immutable truths.

Nobody wants what they don’t want.

Everyone has a different heaven.

The purpose of life is to give everyone everything they want at the expense of nobody.

I gave up all my corporeal passions to solve this problem and this problem alone.

Kant is forgiven for being mentally retarded.

137

I’m going to tell you something Ichthus…

I’m not Jesus

I’m not a Buddhist.

I’m not god.

youtu.be/aE4tJOUvhp8

youtu.be/FCL_xP9VvL4

Are you starting to get the picture?

I’m a plan changer.

You’ve never met one before.

138

One problem with Kant’s metaphysics of morals is he overemphasizes the reason/will. That is only 1/3 of the battle. He doesn’t seem to realize a good disposition or a good will actually shares something with the passions. All three (reason/conduct, judgment/passions, understanding/virtue) are needed in harmony.

139

Pretty sure that’s how Kierkegaard gets back what he gives up, man. Pretty sure that’s the blood pulsing through subjectivity is truth.

140

Back to Kant. It’s weird because there is a section that almost approaches what I’m getting at… but. Dang. It really doesn’t. It’s tangled, too. The section on form, matter, characterization. Unity, plurality, judgment. To bring nearer to intuition/feeling. Close. So close.

Also, he doesn’t get that we are sovereigns patterned after the perfect sovereign (well… he may… he says a perfectly good will is equally subject but not obliged… weirder). It would be better to say the law, obligation, or duty describes a holy being. The word in English throughout Scriptures is faithful. He keeps his covenants or promises. Ultimately, demonstrably, on the cross. Obv there’s more.