Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm
The universe is not inconsistent.
Mine is. I am regularly dealing with anomolies, significant ones, less often. But then my inconsistancy come in dealing with complicated specific cases. Should I really make sure I hold to a monism all the time? Are there not times when spontenaity and expressiveness are safe and others where they are not? Am I really smart enough to know that this specific situation, should I process it/analyze it/classify it as X, means that I am not responding to subtle cues that it is different from other situations where I do Y, but in fact I am a hypocrite. It would take a genius well beyond anything humans have, I think, to think that the little voice in my head monitoring consistency is tracking (in real time also) all the factors.
Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy).
I disagree. But we could be talking past each other. I think humans have always mixed paradigms. Certainly all Christians have, for example, given that there are several paradigms in their Bible. There are perhaps some tribes that manage to stay within the same paradigmatic metaphors and ideas all the time, but I actually doubt it.
Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
I dunno. I think eclectic people with eclectic epistemologies can say many useful things. I have never met anyone who seemed to have a consistant view (presented in their metaphors and sentences) of identity, relationships, time, communication, free will vs. determinism, and certainly other issues as well. They may well have official positions on these things, but if you follow them around recordning them and tracking their behavior, I don't think anyone comes out clean. And honestly, I'd be afraid of someone who managed.
I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false.
That I agree with.
Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis.
I can say with great certainty that I cannot eliminate my attachments to most hypotheses I consider. Some I care about little, some tremendously, but preferences are always there. And if I couldn't find one, I'd assume there's a good chance I don't want to notice it, which might be a more dangerous (in the sense of fooling myself).
When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are. IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
We get intuitional skills via training and experience that is not organized like training, though it's training of a sort.