Hello Reichsfuhrer SS:
— You don’t address the Reichsfuhrer SS with a Hello, you say Heil Mein Reichsfuhrer.
O- You are lucky and blessed already. Lucky that I address you at all, and bless that when I do address you and humor your vanity to this extent.
— Nope, intuition is not prejudgement. But it is immediately judgement. I know that I have the truth, and you disagree, so intuitively I know all that disagree with the truth is wrong. this is how intuitive reasoning goes. Prejudgement on the other hand is about making hasty conclusions when one does not know the whole picture. But I do, so I act out of intuition and not prejudgement.
O- It is not that you have the “truth” but that whatever you hold, or fancy that you “know”, however false it might be, you, out of vanity and a simple faith, turn into “truth”. But because you cannot see your error, in fact you do not even allow the possibility in your religion, that does not mean that you have understanding, or that you “judgment” is worthy of such self-praise. I call an intuition such as yours a prejudice. A judgement occurs after a careful deliberation. Yet you do not arrive at that. Because you imagine that you have the “truth” already, your intuition is not a careful deliberation, or even uses a method.
“I know that I have the truth”, you say, but isn’t that “making hasty conclusions when one does not know the whole picture”? And if you do, then demonstrate. Oh but wait! That is right, the truth of it is in your subjective feelings towards beings you consider external and alien to you. That is the extent of your careful deliberation. You have the truth, you know the truth not because you actually do, but because you feel that you do
— Intuition is understanding if you are aware of the truth. You can intuitively know when something is about to happen when you don’t fully understand why. In terms of cogntive psychology, understanding involves all pieces which was previously hidden in long term memory be bought into the working memory, so you see the whole picture, while intuition is knowing the criticial aspect of the whole picture, thus inferring the whole picture from a obscure, yet defining identity.
O- What you describe here is similar to a sixth sense. Yet talking about it does not make it true and intuitions are often quite wrong. Just because you have an intuition about something, it does not follow that you auto matically have the truth. At best you have a “hunch”, at worst you have an illusion.
Regardless, this is not a judgment because it does not come from an evaluation of facts and evidence, but tries to pass as it’s own evidence and that is it is a prejudice. Prejudice does not mean that you has made a hasty conclusion, it is the process of “pre-judging” something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies.
— So, if we apply it to race. By looking at the face of people, (have you done so recently), you intuitively understand their racial category or at least distinct from your own.
O- No. If we are at a zoo, then I can see in the face of a zebra that my race is not it. Looking at a person’s face does not inform me of any racial diversity, unless of course, I have been indoctrinated into the categories of “white”, “black” and others. For example, the actual evidence one finds is that by “Black” one mingles together a series of brownish skin colors. Those that use such words force the diversity of nations and peoples into a single category. The singleness however is all in your mind.
Same with “White”. Within you pass over diverse tones of yellow, pink and light brown and run it all under the simplicity of “White”. But again the simplicity is within the system you imagine and is divorced from experience. It is a prejudice.
— Intuition has nothing to do with prejudice, because you are not passing a judgement (whether you like a person or not) but an understanding (whether that person is black.white.asian)
O- The distinction comes not from what you think of a person but what you think or take as being, the truth. You might think that you are simply stating what is obvious to anyone’s senses, but as I said above, no skin color is truly black. Skin tones vary but generally are whithin a shade of brown. Ghost might be imagined as white, but no skin, in a healthy person is actually white. These distinction of “Black/White” are effective only as concepts within a linguistic tradition and not because our senses, instinct or unconscious sees actual black people or white people.
— here you are denying the application of the intuition. I can see trees, without knowing that they are name trees. Language does not create experience, but it describes experience.
O- Incorrect. Language works on a sort of faith. reality exceeds the senses. Language is our way of arresting what empirically is beyond our grasp. We create divisions when none is applicable and this is a prejudice.
— The cogntive ability to unite, group trees comes naturally, it is not a learnt process.
O- You group trees? Then how come you are having such problems at uniting humans? Let me remind you that I do not deny that I see trees, but that in seeing a tree, I do not also see “Oak”, “Cherry”,“Palm”. These distictions are not intuitive at all and neither are racial divisions.
— how do they know it is their soul? don’t they have a mirror or a bucket of water? the intuitively understand that it is their face you have capture, and if you are a westerner, they could certainly tell.
O- I was describing anthropological accounts of the 20th century. It has happened. A soul is not a western invention but a natural dualism. Seeing their face reflected in the water’s surface becomes habitual and thus looses mythological significance, but having one’s picture taken is quite different to going to the water’s edge.
— ok. so the color ‘black’ or ‘white’ is imaginary. ??? stop lying, your lies stink.
O- Some cultures lack for example a word for what you call “black”. Instead of, say 32 colors, they recognize only 12. They see what you see, but simply capture their experience in a simpler way. Let me use myself as an example. When I was younger, much younger, my mon got me some Crayons. A box of 6. Yellow, black, red, blue, green, violet, if I remember correctly. My ability to describe the colors of the world where expressively six. An orange, back then, to me was simply “red”, thought latter on, i learn that we could describe, even it’s color, by it’s name. My wife and i went shopping the other day. She pointed to a shirt that she liked and I asked which one, and she said “The fuschia one”. I said, “isn’t that just pink?”
— No, I am not dehumanising anyone, but merely asserting the truth that there is more to human than mere humanity, that to be English is different to being French, a point you deny.
O- What more is there? Whatever your response, it seems unlikely that such point can be objectified. Rather it is trivialized. What is extra to the human condition? Our color, our sex, our nation, our religion, our noses or feet? Pick your divider, I would say, but remember that these dividers are not empirically true, only conceptually consistent.
— Birds which can procreate is a specie. so is fish, so are the elephants. The fact people can procreate only means we are of the same species. But that does not mean races do not exist. You are saying, we are all humans, therefore we do not belong to any race, then how come as a pure stock I look so different to other races?
O- Let’s look first at your claim for “pure” stock. What proof do you have that you are this or that such stock even exist? So you look different. Big deal. I don’t deny that people are differenty from one another, but that what constitutes this diversity is found in the eye of the beholder. For you, the criteria for dividing the “species” lies only skin-deep and thus it strikes one as arbitrary, because in actuality skin is a poor indicator of a subgroup. Skin, if anything, simply reveals the region in which that family has spend much of it’s recent history. It does not reveal a “pure stock”.
— You say we are all men. I say some of us are white men, some of us are black men and some of us are Asian men. It is true that only black men and women can have black babies.
O- Here we go again with this “black”. If you pursue the selection of skin color and maintain a strict breeding program, then perhaps races will emerge. That does not mean that there are Black men or White men, but that there are men who, through selection, have maintained a certain pigmentation of the skin.
— You must look beyond the mere human, into the diversity of nations, colors and races. It important to preserve the identity of human beings. I consider it a sacred duty. All my ancestors belonged to my race, therefore I intend to do the same for my offspring.
O- Why is it important? What detriment can come from ignoring all artificial divisions? What is the problem is saying, when asked what is one’s race, “Human”?
— I am not JUST a human being you idiot! stop degrading me, we are equal you Marxist fanatic!
O- Why do you feel degraded? Because you consider that in being “white” you add some distinction, an enhancement not found in an other, say for example, non-whites?
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}