How do we know we know?

[Tank]

True.  Philosophy is dangerous.  Always wear your safety goggles.

While at RDF we called the Philosophy Forum the Bear pit. Mods ventured in there at their own risk. We ended up conniving a regular contributor into becoming the forum mod, it was not a pretty sight, particularly after he worked out what we'd done

[The Black Jester]

This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

[Davin]

So intuition has never served you?

Intuition is useful for thinking of ways things might work and for finding possible solutions to problems. I use intuition all the time, however I never accept my intuition as true without reasonable evidence to support it.

(You sound irritated...)

Not in the least.

[Davin]

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

I didn't want to speak for you, so I'm glad that you responded. Edit: I intentionally used the word glad as bait. Though I have very little emotions to speak of, it doesn't mean that I think that I'm completely devoid of emotions. This bait is meant to help make that point.

“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." ~ Demosthenes

I love this quote.  Of course, it can as easily apply to your assumptions as it can to Davin's.

I think the best way to avoid the problem described in this quote is to not wish anything to be true but to wish to know the truth.

Having said that, many neurobiological studies are now beginning to investigate the unconscious processing that goes on behind the scenes, that may in fact underlie things like "intuition."  It will be interesting to see what those studies determine in terms of how we actually make decisions.

I've been moderately following this development with interest. The brain is capable of doing some amazingly complicated things and while it won't produce the calculations or solutions that show that the brain has been successful, the fact that the hand has caught the ball shows that the brain was successful. I think it would be very useful to find out how exactly the brain does all those seemingly complicated processing so quickly.

[Davin]

This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

I've found that that it's much more efficient for me to avoid ad hominems, hasty generalizations and appeals to authority by simply considering the message instead of the man who expresses it. Of course there is merit to consider also the amount of bad philosophies that are produced by a single person.

[The Black Jester]

This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

I've found that that it's much more efficient for me to avoid ad hominems, hasty generalizations and appeals to authority by simply considering the message instead of the man who expresses it. Of course there is merit to consider also the amount of bad philosophies that are produced by a single person.

I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

[Davin]

I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my own perspective to the same. I'll try to be more clear with my position on the view that I'm responding to.

[The Black Jester]

I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my own perspective to the same. I'll try to be more clear with my position on the view that I'm responding to.

No need!  I think, on second glance, that you were clear...it was I that was confused.

Edit: I intentionally used the word glad as bait. Though I have very little emotions to speak of, it doesn't mean that I think that I'm completely devoid of emotions. This bait is meant to help make that point.

Intuition is useful for thinking of ways things might work and for finding possible solutions to problems. I use intuition all the time, however I never accept my intuition as true without reasonable evidence to support it.

 

I've been following this discussion with interest.  I'm fascinated by the idea of someone who is so little driven by their emotions, and who can reliably resort to reason in their personal decisions and actions.  I'm envious, to some degree.  While it was useful to me in my acting, I have always been prey to quite powerful emotional upheavals.  I almost, at times, felt as though I was possessed by them, rather than it being I who possessed them.  A case of possession?  It's taken me many years to achieve any kind of balance in my emotional life.  The frustrating thing is that, while I could quite clearly and logically think my way through a situation, such thinking very rarely resulted in my following the recommendations of my logical training.  My emotions would override the decisions my reason made.  I think this is partly what lead me to religion when I was younger.

[Davin]

I've been following this discussion with interest.  I'm fascinated by the idea of someone who is so little driven by their emotions, and who can reliably resort to reason in their personal decisions and actions.  I'm envious, to some degree.  While it was useful to me in my acting, I have always been prey to quite powerful emotional upheavals.  I almost, at times, felt as though I was possessed by them, rather than it being I who possessed them.  A case of possession?  It's taken me many years to achieve any kind of balance in my emotional life.  The frustrating thing is that, while I could quite clearly and logically think my way through a situation, such thinking very rarely resulted in my following the recommendations of my logical training.  My emotions would override the decisions my reason made.  I think this is partly what lead me to religion when I was younger.

I wouldn't be so envious, I think the ability to be driven by ones emotions can be very useful, many have accomplished things merely because their emotions are what kept the drive. If I were to improve myself magically, I would have some kind of toggle function that allowed me to have emotions for certain things and not for others. Without a good connection to ones emotions, empathy is usually lost. Without empathy personal relationships are very difficult to have, further complicated by the lack of understanding of why some things affect people.

There has been a lot I've had to learn in order to function well with people. Reading people's body language is a very good skill, however it's very error prone, which kind of leads back to intuition. In an extreme example: if someone is crying it usually means they're sad, but unfortunately that doesn't help with knowing how to speak with them, so other body queues and paying attention to language choice is needed if you want to help them or at the very least not make things worse. So while I've gotten very accurate with my intuitions about how to interact with people, I must still take the assumption that without evidence to support my intuitions, I could very easily be wrong. Another problem is deciding at what level do I trust my conclusions enough to act on them. If I always waited until I was sure that my decision was the best decision, I would be waiting far too long to have a reasonable discussion with almost anyone. So while I put a bit of trust into my intuitions, I always keep in mind that they are wrong.

All of the interpreting, analyzing and deciding my choice of words is very exhausting. I learned a long time ago that it's much more efficient for me to adapt to the behavior of others than to expect them to adapt to me. Because I want to ensure that what I accept as true is as close to reality as possible, other people are necessary for that goal, so I do choose to interact with people. So while all people have problems, I do see the efficient nature of emotions, which is why I don't think people should strive to live without them, but I do think they shouldn't base decisions on them where the outcome of an incorrect conclusion could easily result in any kind of harm (except minor harm).

[The Black Jester]

So while all people have problems, I do see the efficient nature of emotions, which is why I don't think people should strive to live without them, but I do think they shouldn't base decisions on them where the outcome of an incorrect conclusion could easily result in any kind of harm (except minor harm).

It is an extremely difficult tightrope to walk, this determination of when we should be lead by which process.  I like how you are narrowing in on how emotion is extremely useful in telling us how to make decisions about how we should interact with people, and enables us to care about people.  While I have typically characterized my extreme emotional responsiveness as a bit of a liability, it has certainly provided me with a deep sense of empathy for others.  Emotion is such a broad category, as well, so that we must be careful to define what exactly we are speaking about.  It is also interesting to note that current research on people with an extreme lack of emotion (probably even more of a lack than that about which you speak), who seem to rely exclusively on an intellectual and "logical" approach to life, have great difficulty making decisions because they cannot decide what things to prioritize.

But my personal catalog of mistakes gives rich testimony to the fact that emotion cannot drive the car in many situations - it cannot be trusted with the interpretation of non-social, non-personal facts.

[idiotsavant]

Interesting -  Jester and Davin on opposite sides of the spectrum...  Like Spock and Dr. McCoy.  Captain Kirk was the tightrope center, melding logic and emotion to produce decisive action...

I’ve read a bit about the  neurobiological research.  One fellow compared the working of the human psyche to the English Parliament, where the House of Lords debate an issue until a majority agrees on a specific action.  A Page is then sent to inform the Queen, who then makes the formal decree.  As you all know, I believe all our actions are emotion inspired (House of Lords), but our logic (“I”), unlike the Queen, has veto power, including line veto.  Emotion is the  why.  Logic is the how.  

If I’m right, then finding and understanding the why matters.  Logic is hamstrung without proper emotional input.

Jester - You mentioned good philosophy.  I’d like to hear some of that.

Peace - I/s

[The Black Jester]

Jester - You mentioned good philosophy. I’d like to hear some of that.

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Philosopher!"  

I suppose it depends entirely on your predilections - I get the sense that you wouldn't much take to many of them.  I can only express my own preferences (thus far) for certain thinkers.  Epicurus.  Spinoza.  Voltaire.  Nietzsche.  Russell.  Dennett.  I quite like a modern young Philosopher name Jesse Prinz.  I don't necessarily agree with everything they assert - but I admire their ideas and their expressions of them.

I’ve read a bit about the neurobiological research. One fellow compared the working of the human psyche to the English Parliament, where the House of Lords debate an issue until a majority agrees on a specific action. A Page is then sent to inform the Queen, who then makes the formal decree. As you all know, I believe all our actions are emotion inspired (House of Lords), but our logic (“I”), unlike the Queen, has veto power, including line veto. Emotion is the why. Logic is the how.

Christof Koch discusses this in a book of his on Consciousness that I'm currently reading.  I have read other studies that make a strong case that areas of the brain typically attributed to emotion are active during the decision making process, but so are the areas more commonly associated with rational analysis and judgment, as I understand it (and there very well may be variation among individuals, re: your debate with Davin).  You have to be careful what conclusions you draw from this, however, because they are still very much learning precisely what those respective areas and their contributions actually amount to, and the picture is likely far more complex, neurologically speaking, than common-sense ideas of "logc" vs. "emotion."  My suspicion is that these areas are far more intertwined than we suspect, and that areas associated with conceptual analysis can influence responses from the emotional areas of the brain.

[idiotsavant]

End of Line.