intuition
Peace and blessings.
In your first book, you explained that there are two ways to reach faith in God: A. Empirical, scientific B. Logical, philosophical However, there is no way to reach faith as explained there, and therefore you explained that there is a third sense called intuition and it understands the deeper layer of things, and just as we trust it with regard to science, we trust it with regard to faith that there is God.
Two notes:
A. There is no reason to maintain that intuition is a deeper understanding. In my opinion, it is a repository of data preservation. In other words, there are many things that I know throughout my life and the conclusions are preserved there. Every time a question about the world or a fact about the world comes to my door, I know exactly the answer or the fact that will come to me. I think this is often expressed by someone who knows how to study GM and his friend says an incorrect assumption and he immediately tells him it is nonsense and the friend asks for an explanation and then he has to think for a few minutes, etc. But the initial answer comes from the fact that that person who already knows the GM style and the boundaries of the discourse knows which things should be ruled out and which ones should be satisfied. And so what is the point of relying on intuition, all of whose learning is from the world, about things that are outside the world?
on. Even if we say like you about intuition, we still have an indication from the world about science, because we said theory and something moved, but about God, everything remains the same, and if we have an indication about intuition that it worked on the world, then maybe also about other things, such as belief that God exists, to say the least, because intuition about the world belongs to Tefi, because there is trial and error, and that is how a theory is formulated with intuition. Intuition is not everything, it is only part one. However, about God, we have no possibility of formulating a theory through trial and error, but it is only intuition. What is the use of trusting our ideas about facts, such as the existence of God?
thanks
You only partially describe what I said. My argument is that the way to reach faith is philosophy (not science), that is, thinking and not observation. There is a way to reach it. Intuition is not a third way, but it is the one that underlies the philosophical way.
I also explained that, contrary to popular belief, intuition is nothing more than a collection of insights we have gained from experience, but I disagree with this. It is an alternative way of observing the world (including ideas). If everything were derived from observation, we would know nothing today, because there are many ways to generalize from the data we have.
A. Apparently it is a third way because it is not empirical science and it is not logical alone but intuition – logical
B. I did not write that we learn everything from observation but rather, according to your opinion, that we learn from intuition about science. I asked how it is possible to learn from the way we learn about the world so that we learn that there is a ’ after all, in the world there are us and the world and there is an indication of it and regarding the ’ there is no indication, it is only us and nothing else, so what does it have to do with learning from our heads about facts outside the world
A. I explained why not. Why do I need to repeat it over and over again? If you don't agree – then no.
B. First, we don't learn about science from intuition, but rather use intuition in scientific research. There is no reason to draw conclusions using intuition about what is outside the world, since it does not begin with our experience but with a priori insights.
Note that here too you are repeating yourself again. If you assume that intuition is just a collection of insights from experience, then perhaps there is room for the argument that it cannot be applied outside the world. But I wrote that in my opinion intuition is not that, but rather a priori insights (non-sensory observation, also of ideas, and not just of our world), and then your question is basically irrelevant.
I repeat, yes, I wrote in the letter A in the question at the beginning that everything is from observation and logic and the way to decide is probably subjective, but it is still difficult even for your method as explained in the letter B.
I assume it was written before my last response. That's it, I think we're done.
This is what I don't understand, how is it appropriate to learn from intuition about a fact if I have no indication, it's just a theory, how is it different from any Hasidic theory?
And that's exactly what I answered. If you can't learn from intuitions about facts, you should throw away everything you know about the world. Not necessarily religious belief. For example, science is also based on intuition.
And to that I [the little one] also answered that it is true regarding things that we have an indication about which is a complement to intuition, but about the ’ Likha Bhaiya there is no indication at all and as explained above at the beginning that I asked in the letter B’ Work carefully and accurately
You go back and forth from one question to another, God forbid, both of which I have already answered in detail before. We've exhausted them.
As usual
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
