|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted December 22, 2013 09:41 PM |
|
|
|
I know, it was the words of a famous song... The biological roots are not irrelevant though, nothing wrong with that. Of course, where humans are involved there's always abstraction and sublimation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 02:03 PM |
|
|
Small addendum to "love at first sight".
Question for the unbelievers: What about the concept of "intuition"? Are you believing in intution? And if you answer that with yes (the "heureka" effect), wouldn't you say that "love at first sight" could simply be explained as a special form of intuition.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 02:25 PM |
|
|
Intuitions are educated guesses. Don't take the word educated too literally though, experience and insight also feeds intuition. Let's say you heard a song on the radio and you said to yourself "this band may turn out to be my favorite band of the year." You head to the store, buy one of their albums, it again turns out great, you then buy all their discography and they become your favorite band ever. Your intuition was spot on, but does that mean the band became your favorite band ever the minute you heard their song on the radio?
My objection wasn't about the accuracy of the intuition, that's why I gave the example with the alternate timeline. In my example, the guys intuition doesn't turn out to be wrong, it just doesn't necessarily evolve into love and we don't call it true love until it does. So, this time, if I continue my analogy with the radio song, again imagine an alternate timeline in which you get a phone call just while you were listening to the song. You're instructed that a very close friend passed away. You forget about the song and the band and never listen to them again. They are not your favorite band because of that few minutes, are they? They only had the potential.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 03:48 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 16:03, 23 Dec 2013.
|
I think it may have to do with the thought, or maybe what you do with it. it's not because you think it is the greatest band you've ever heard that you necessarily feel the need to listen to it ever again.
isn't eureka more about scientific resolution of problems? I don't think it has anything to do with love. also eureka is the point where you stop thinking about the problem. love is the point where you can't stop thinking about it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 04:20 PM |
|
|
|
Eureka literally means I find it, or that's it with a less mot a mot translation. The association with science is because of Archimedes, who famously screams out "eureka eureka" running out of the bath when he discovers buoyancy of water. It doesn't necessarily have to be used only about scientific discoveries.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 05:22 PM |
|
|
You don't describe intuition - you describe a "feeling" or a "hunch".
Intuition is more than that - some philosophers define it as a priori knowledge. I define it as sudden enlightenment on a level that's not conscious.
The main thing is that intuition is NOT a guess - it's KNOWLEDGE, non-empirical, but certain, nonetheless.
There are enough examples for intuition on a very high level, there is even a philosophy - Intuitionism - and it has to do (of course, I may add), with mathematics.
My question was - if you allow for the existence of intuition (in the sense it's used, not in your watered down version), you could easily describe love at first sight as an intuitive - a priori - knowledge with regard to, umm, compatibility. Couldn't you?
Which means, I think that your position is undefendable, because it would mean that you have to categorically deny the existence of intuition as well.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 06:02 PM |
|
|
The terminological use of intuition you are talking about is totally about something else:
"The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of intuitionism is its interpretation of what it means for a mathematical statement to be true. In Brouwer's original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition"
Mathematical statements being objective or subjective can be debated but we both agreed that love is subjective, so that's irrelevant. If we take intuition in a more general way, yet still remain in philosophical terms, we would still be dealing with TWO basic definitions, idealist and materialist, which you can check even from Wiki:
1. Intuitions are a priori. This view holds that distinctions are to be made between various sorts of intuition, roughly corresponding to their subject matter (see George Bealer). The only intuitions that are relevant in analytic philosophy are 'rational' intuitions. These are intellectual seemings that something is necessarily the case. They are directed exclusively towards statements that make some kind of necessity claim. For example, a rational intuition is what occurs when it seems to us that a mathematical statement (e.g. 2+2=4) must be true. Intuitions, as this view characterizes them, are to be distinguished from beliefs, since we can hold beliefs which are not intuitive, or have intuitions for propositions that we know to be false.
2. Intuitions are a species of belief, and based ultimately in experience. This view holds that intuitions are not especially different from beliefs, although they appear subjectively to be more unrevisable than other beliefs. Unlike the previous view, these intuitions are liable to differ between social groups. Evidence for this is shown in various psychological studies (e.g. the one by Stich, Weinburg and Nichols)
Even with this distinction and even with the 'a priori's of idealism, since this is not a thread about philosophy and the kind of intuition we talk about is strictly about feelings and not intellectual seemings, you are way off track. You are trying to replace the everyday meaning of the word (which is really not much different than a hunch) with the terminological one, when there is absolutely no logical reason to.
The scenario I presented was quite simple and if we skip all the irrelevant semantics about what an intuition actually is, I still have no valid answer from you about that. You feel loss when you lose someone you really love, you never feel that about someone if your relation remained in that first-sight phase. Why?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
|
Intuition of the kind artu describes certainly exists, but you can't have knowledge of compatibility at first sight*. You can guess that you'd be compatible and turn out to be correct, but that's not knowledge, that's like making the right bet when gambling.
*At literal first sight and if you didn't know anything about them before. If you read about them on a dating site, that can be different, depending on how informative their profile is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 07:48 PM |
|
|
artu said:
you are way off track ... skip all the irrelevant semantics about what an intuition actually is ...
Yet again, you are not debating on a level I can accept, sorry. You can't just brush away things you don't like without any point.
By the way, the assumption of your question is wrong.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 07:56 PM |
|
|
|
The quote is a misleading, artificial combination of my sentences. I haven't just said you're off the track so let's skip it and brushed it away. I elaborated in detail why the terminological use of the word and the one within the context of love at first sight are very separate things.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:02 PM |
|
|
No. You CLAIMED they were separate things.
However, you claim that, explicitely demanding to Quote:
skip all the irrelevant semantics about what an intuition actually is
.
Which is exactly what you can't do; you can't claim something different from something else, when at the same you have no idea what those somethings really are.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:17 PM |
|
|
|
No, I don't claim that, I gave encyclopedic definitions very clearly presenting that. So I haven't demanded anything, I skipped the philosophical use of the word BECAUSE I PRESENTED it was irrelevant. The intellectual intuition is based on a concept of collective approval, if something is a priori true, it does not need experience to be proven true (every tautology is therefore a priori true such as every hungry person wants to eat). Falling in love with this or that person can not be apriori, since even the first experience would be considered a cause, making it a aposteriori concept for the mind. For something to be apriori for the mind, people with totally different experiences should be able to reach the same conclusion, using their mental capabilities ONLY.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:40 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Intuition is more than that - some philosophers define it as a priori knowledge. I define it as sudden enlightenment on a level that's not conscious.
The main thing is that intuition is NOT a guess - it's KNOWLEDGE, non-empirical, but certain, nonetheless.
do you think about soul mates? like in Plato's story for example?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:45 PM |
|
|
Let me remind you of the wiki quote you made and thar you should not be content with to read:
Quote:
Intuitions are a priori. This view holds that distinctions are to be made between various sorts of intuition, roughly corresponding to their subject matter (see George Bealer). The only intuitions that are relevant in analytic phianlosophy are 'rational' intuitions.
Now, where did I say, that "love at first sight way a problem of analytic philosophy? I certainly didn't. Therefore, if you look and read the bold print, we are at post 2 again: we are not talking about educated guesses, we are talking about a priori knowledge - because that's what intuition is; and while they have to be distinctions to be made between the various sorts of intuitions that the sort of intuition we talk about here might be called "Love at first sight".
So you actually presented nothing here except trying to obscure the issue.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:59 PM |
|
|
Maybe, I wasn't clear enough. A priori type of knowledge can not be about your tastes or feelings (at least in the philosophical sense, which you brought to the table not me). To be able to draw a distinction between a hunch and an intuition, you must be referring to the terminological use of the word. If you are, it is irrelevant, if you are not, and you are talking about intuitions about the feeling of love, then it is very well just an educated/experienced guess, a kind of memory like muscle memory.
The very nature of a priori knowledge is based on the concept of being able to be arrived at without external experience or observation. Things such as chicken is the best meat, Bach is better than Mozart, Helga is the love of my life, categorically can not be a priori knowledge.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 24, 2013 09:03 AM |
|
|
You make a claim without any support - and a wrong claim at that:
Quote:
The very nature of a priori knowledge is based on the concept of being able to be arrived at without external experience or observation. Things such as chicken is the best meat, Bach is better than Mozart, Helga is the love of my life, categorically can not be a priori knowledge.
While the first sentence is right, the second is nonsense:
Your first two examples are absurd because they can never be true, since there is no grounds for any such OBJECTIVE comparison - they MIGHT make sense, though, if you'd add "for me" for both examples - like in the third: this is a subjective thing.
There is nothing that would make intuition centered on yourself impossible, absurd or not feasible.
The first sentence, by the way, is exactly what "love at first sight" would fall under. And it would be (and would HAVE to be) more than a "hunch" to qualify. A hunch would be very tentative; intuition is immediate KNOWLEDGE (or better: CONVICTION).
Now, the main point here isn't to uphold the truth of a certain concept that's beyond empirical investigation. The point is to ascertain that there is no grounds on which to categorically deny the existence of these things.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 24, 2013 10:09 AM |
|
|
Subjectivity isn't the only thing common in the examples in the second sentence, you need experience for them all. Loving someone specific (at first sight or not) can not be a priori because it is dependant on external things. (Unless a theologian is speaking about love of God that is there a priori in everybody and that sort of stuff). One can maybe argue that the knowledge of the feeling of love itself is a priori in people, that would make sense but falling for that or this person, if you're not a psychic, cant be a priori. Remember, a priori knowledge is not something you can easily change your mind about the day after, it's about the "rules" of the mind itself. The conviction shouldn't be just strong but also inevitable. Meanwhile hunches (and claims of love at first sight) can very well be and often taken back when the adrenalin rush is over.
You talk about conviction, but that conviction has nothing to do with what you know, it's about how massive you desire. Now, my original starting point was that people retrospectively perceive that as love if things work out, yet they just put the memory in the shelf as a sweet little crush if things don't lead to the next phase. So, what is it that you exactly know in that moment? Do you know you will be together from that moment on, no, but love doesn't necessarily produce a happy ending or a life-time commitment, so we can say, you don't have to know that. Do you know that person will be special beyond attraction, no, you can only form a basic opinion that you'll get along well, that may easily turn out to be wrong the minute she opens her mouth and starts to talk. Do you know you wont feel the same for any other person, (when you share things and time together you can feel that but here's another aspect not possible at first sight). Is there a limit, I mean love doesn't have to be once in a lifetime to most people but if you go out every Saturday, can you fall in love 70 times in your life time? What makes it different than raw passion which when you're going through feels almost exactly like love (but doesn't necessarily mean you value the person.) To KNOW stands as a very vague term here, what is it that you know?
Btw, I elaborated all my objections with clear definitions and detailed argument, while you still haven't replied to a very simple question of mine, telling it is a faulty assumption without explaining why you think so. Therefore, I think it is quite ironic that you accuse me of brushing away things and obscuring the point.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
|
I already answered your question, so why would I do that again?
You also makes a quantitative 100% assumption, that is a guess at best.
And you constantly assume things about something that isn't defined in an empirical sense. Your "definitions" are trying to press the phenomenon into an empirical straightjacket which isn't possible, because, for example, you state that "people retrospectively perceive that as love if things work out".
Oh, hey, we are still together after a couple of years, so it must be love?
I don't think so.
Your (and Mvass's) problem is, that there is no rational empirical foundation that would allow "scientifically valid statements". Since that means, that it's difficult to argue at all about anything you desperately try to find such a foundation.
Makes no sense, though, and it's a waste of time therefore.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I already answered your question, so why would I do that again?
No, you haven't answered to the question why don't anybody feel any loss about love at first sight if loss of loved ones always causes pain.
Quote:
Oh, hey, we are still together after a couple of years, so it must be love? I don't think so.
This shows you completely misunderstood me. They don't consciously say that. If things work out and they really fall in love, they retrospectively perceive the beginning moment of their love as the first moment, when in fact at the first moment it was yet just a strong attraction that later evolved into love. That's why I use the alternate timeline, if things don't get a chance to evolve, the beginning moment, then, does not have the same meaning and it's recalled as a different memory of less importance.
Quote:
Your (and Mvass's) problem is, that there is no rational empirical foundation that would allow "scientifically valid statements". Since that means, that it's difficult to argue at all about anything you desperately try to find such a foundation.
There is nothing in what I said that requires a scientific definition of love and to repeat myself:
Quote:
And, although love is quite a subjective thing that many people define differently, I also point out that there are some VERY common denominators. Like, missing that person, feeling sad if you lose her etc etc. So although people may never agree on what love exactly is, they can still agree on what it is not, using those denominators or their absence.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 04:48 PM |
|
|
Artu is exactly right. When you first hear the name of an artist, and know nothing else about them, you have no idea whether you'd like their music. (Unless their name is indicative of the kind of music they produce, or if you don't like music in general.) You have to listen to at least one of their songs, or at least know what genre they belong to - but you can't know that you like or dislike them without having any information about them. The same goes for love.JollyJoker said:
I already answered your question
No, you haven't. You just brushed it aside.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
