The buffer between ”intuition” and ”experience”
Hello Rabbi.
I have read quite a few of your works, and if I understand correctly (I may not of course, and I would be happy if you would correct me), Rabbi Dogal advocates the following:
- A person has a fundamental cognitive intuition, which in itself constitutes a certain indication in philosophical inquiry, without further justification. For example, the intuition that an external universe exists that is beyond our knowledge, or the intuition that we are free to choose.
- There is a spiritual, metaphysical part in man, which in some way constitutes a part of God (as I believe the Rabbi spoke about in the introduction to one of the books in the trilogy, regarding the subject of reduction).
- It’s less a perception, but more a general attitude – a certain alienation from the fields of psychology/existentialism, etc. Or, let’s say, a slight contempt for any inquiry that is not intellectual inquiry.
My question is, how do these concepts fit together? If intuition, which is not backed by logical inquiry, has a spiritual value, why limit it to four measures of rationality? That is, if it can be said that in some way our consciousness (or a component of it) is connected to God, is there no meaning to the internal investigation of experience?
It is important to emphasize: This does not mean that the existing genres necessarily provide some kind of appropriate and coherent exploration of the subject. Also, I am not talking about a therapeutic meaning along the lines of “whoever finds it pleasant, let him be ashamed,” but rather a value-based meaning for exploring the truth about God, His appearances, and His will for us.
Thank you in advance.
You could equally ask why we shouldn’t accept the words of a fortune teller, if we already accept intuition. And so you could ask why, in my opinion, the appearance of the eyes should be accepted (why are you making it difficult only by intuition).
In my opinion, relying on intuition stems from my understanding that it is a reliable and correct cognitive tool. By the way, this is not a systematic one, but no one can dispute this unless they are a complete skeptic, or simply unaware of the use they make of intuition. My innovation is to acknowledge this and try to offer an explanation (that it is non-sensory cognition).
For our purposes, there are situations (such as spiritual feelings) in which, in my opinion, this does not hold. Of course, if someone has a similar feeling about spiritual feelings, they will probably believe in them. I do not have such a feeling. And in my opinion, their feeling is usually not recognition but an illusion or social assimilation. And the fact is that these feelings exist mainly in those whom the society in which they live pushes towards it.
I also never said that a particular intuition is always and necessarily acceptable without the ability to control it. It is very important to criticize intuition, precisely because of these phenomena (of illusions as if there is intuition). What cannot be criticized is the very validity of intuitions (i.e. the tool itself).
Sorry for interfering in the discussion,
Rabbi, you define intuition as much as you think is reasonable and correct, right?
And only to this do you add the innovation that intuition is also something that “sees” like the eyes. Therefore, it is appropriate to trust them.
So if I am right here, in my opinion this is something that is quite confusing in your teaching because many times you mix the two and people understand that you only mean ’ while you also mean ’not’.
As if it is the same thing and a bit tautological… but it is an additional layer to some extent, I hope you understood.
2. I think that you do actually receive spiritual intuitions because you, the Rabbi, mention this when he talks about Kabbalists and Kabbalah, etc. Did you repeat yourself?
3. What is meant by the final sentence, "What cannot be criticized is the very validity of intuitions (i.e., the tool itself)?" Do you mean only that from the perspective of the experience we experience that there are things that seem true to us or from a substantive perspective that intuitions do indeed correctly predict reality (such as analogies, etc.) because first you raise a narrow possibility of criticizing it, and in general in a true and unstable book you raise many questions about why to trust it unless there is a correlative factor between them and the world, such as an idealistic view or God's providence, so there is indeed much room for criticizing it.
1. I don't see the importance of the distinction between the two claims. This is what seems most reasonable to me, and the reason I believe it is because there is recognition here. So no, I didn't understand.
2. True. But not the spiritual intuitions of a person who felt that a miracle had been performed on him when there is a natural explanation for it, or that Elijah appeared to him in a dream or a daydream, or that he communicates with aliens.
3. My argument is that it is impossible to criticize him because the criticism itself is also based on intuition. Intuition is a framework for any discussion we will have, like logic. The only alternative way is to remain silent in complete skepticism, and that is it.
Thank you. 1. So it is indeed natural that I understood you correctly, but I don't really have much to add except to repeat what was said.
2. Thank you, if so, what would you say to Abraham? Should he have listened to the prophecy?… And should we have given him confidence in it?…
3. If so, it sounds a bit like the laws of logic, so that if we can think of an intuitive thought, we cannot think otherwise. Just call it part of logic, right?
Intuitions are just shortcuts shaped by prior thinking.
If there were no prior thinking, that intuition would not exist.
Example. What is the chance that 22 people chosen at random will have their birthdays on the same day of the year?
Normal intuition says that the chance is much lower than 50%, since there are 365 days.
But a person who has solved a lot of problems in statistics (besides this one, of course) has developed an intuition about it and may be able to say that it is close and needs to be calculated.
Intuitions are just shortcuts.
The judge, when orderly thinking issues a contrary result, then the sense of evidence itself throws up its hands and admits the conclusions of orderly thinking (this is an empirical observation: when orderly thinking reaches clear results, then the initial evidence agrees that these results are the correct ones). Here we are dealing with a place where evidence (or, to a lesser extent, the certainty of intuition) insists and stands its ground or where there are no explicit arguments against it at all. The claim that there are cases in which intuition fails is of course true, but so is any other thinking tool, and therefore we have no choice but to treat it with caution and not to throw it away.
Once you understand how intuition develops, you also understand what weight to give it.
Intuition is a combination of emotion and reason. (Emotion works quickly, thinking is processual and slow, so there is special importance to an emotion that is shaped by reason. Both fast and smart).
More precisely, intuition is an emotion that is shaped by reason, the more reason there was, the more accurate the design, that is, the intuition will be more often correct than incorrect.
The intuition of a person who is an expert in his field on the subject of his expertise is not similar to the intuition of an ordinary person who has not dealt with the subject.
Therefore, in such a case, much greater weight is given to that intuition of that expert. Even if he did not sit down and make an exact calculation.
But if from the beginning it is an intuition that the mind that shaped it was unfounded, then that intuition will be like that mind, unfounded.
The mind is ultimately a tool for thinking, and if it is about reality, then the mind has a basis, and if it is about things that are in the person's delusions, they have no basis. And this is how intuitions shaped by those minds should be treated.
Z”a Ultimately, good intuition is intuition shaped by thinking about things that are based.
(Intuitions of experts on demons and ghosts are not interesting even though they are experts because they are hallucinations)
That's true, and I also understand and agree with your allusions to references, but not all intuitions are like that. Kant's synthetic a priori (which is the mainstay of Rabbi Michi's army) are really not like that. And Don Mina and Oki on every website.
I would not call such things intuitions but prejudices. Because that “knowledge” is based on ancient instincts or on evolutionary shortcuts.
Of course, evolutionary shortcuts should not be completely ruled out because they are based on reality and the need for survival, but they should not be given weight beyond their primary purpose. Which is survival and reproduction.
And so, in fact, religions are based on those evolutionary shortcuts. The solutions to the fear of the unknown and the good feeling and security that is granted to the believer. None of this has any intellectual basis.
And where does the idea that everything that is true is the result of evolutionary shortcuts come from? Is it purely logical or does it have a part of a premise (of course it does!)? In addition, I refer you to the example of Taylor Shmargala's train in the poem by Rabbi Michi.
“Where does the idea that everything that is true is the result of evolutionary shortcuts come from?”
I said the opposite. These are prejudices and this is a sufficient reason to deny their correctness. But not outright. Because they are linked to reality through the genes that have been preserved thanks to survival and reproduction.
For example, this is the only consideration that gives a certain weight to information that comes from the senses. There is no other rational consideration that can do this. But it is not out of consideration to come and claim that we see all of reality because our sight evolved to survive, so it is likely that we see only the range necessary for our survival and that there are other ranges that we do not see.
From this argument and because sight is very developed, it follows that the rest of the more primitive and less developed intuitions should not be relied on in generalizing about reality in the way that religion does.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
