firemaiden said:
I defy someone to convince me there is a difference between logic and intuition.
I am not sure I can convince you as we all create our own reality's based on our own perceptions. Yours are skewed toward a false peace between logic and intuition (cheeky or believed
). They work together if you have the ability to work them as a dymanic team but are not the same. Not even close to me.
I think you are more thinking of a form of deductive reasoning, sort of Heraclitus light.
We need to separate the two: deductive as what "appears" self evident and inductively, from what we observe. You are making a classical Hellenic mistake: belief in deductive luminous axioms, invented in a clever mind, rather then scientific method and logic..
I would like to quote a man I respect: Bertrand Russell: Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind."
I feel this sums up beautifully just how well logic and intuition can work together. Now I want to show why they differ. I feel to most the differences are rather obvious, but we are looking for a sort of philosophical discussion rather then dictionary. Cool with me.
The roots of logic( as I see it) can be traced to the Greeks. Logic can be thought of as a proposed means to precisely communicate knowledge and its underlying justification. This is of course the root of scientific method (think Aristotle as Glymour for the foundation and a pretty good essay of early idea's of logic rules) and this is the rudimentary's of logic that involves alot of gods and Mystictisum to boot.. I feel you are arguing from here.
Your are not arguing logic but inductive vs deductive reasoning I feel.
One is valid or not valid rather then true or false, this is deductive. Inductive logic goes beyond our current evidence or percepts , this is sort of "averages" for example all the ice I have felt is cold, so all ice is cold, or out of 100 pieces of ice 100 were cold, therefore ice is cold....
So that is logic, simplified, but I hope reasonably clear. I can expand if need be.
Intuition, on its own is not logic, but the outcome can be logical once we take the time to derive it.
Intuition is the acquisition of knowledge with out the use of logic. I guess we could say beliefs we can not prove, and that is certainly not logical eh? Gut feelings are intuition, not logical, because they are based on what? Nothing logical, but are often right. Intuition can be a sort cut to the truth but it is not logical. Intuition by default lacks deductive reasoning which by default logic must have.
They are very different but can compliment each other and I believe some of mans greatest discoveries could not have happened with out the teamwork of these two very different processes.
I forgot about the fish in the cup! Perhaps later.
