- Jan 23, 2006
- Buenos Aires
- Basic Beliefs
ruby sparks said:What you seem to be trying to say is that because of this, every claim about the world could be said to be based on what you are calling intuitions. Fair enough. But you can't necessarily put the existence of or facts about everything in the world trivially on a par like that merely because everything humans know about them comes through what you are calling intuitions. Well, you can, but only if you deny there are facts about the world which don't depend on intuitions. I'm sure you don't do this.
But the problem is that an argument that rejects intuitions as a general method is bound to fail, for the reasons I've been explaining.
And again, we assess intuitively that some facts are independent of the attitude of the person making them. Examples: facts about whether a condition a person has is an illness, or whether an object is red, or whether a person behaved immorally. The point is that in some of those cases, you reject the intuition that those are facts independent from the attitude of the person making the assessment, and in some other cases, you accept such intuition, but you do not explain why do you reject some of the intuitions.ruby sparks said:Some things we have intuitions about are related to attitude-independent facts about humans. Eg Death.
No, you miss the point. You reckon intuitively that the fact that cataracts is an illness is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether cataracts is an illness. But when I reckon intuitively that the fact that some apples are red is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether some apples are red, you tell me I am wrong in using intuition, and when I reckon intuitively that the fact that Ted Bundy was a bad person is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether he was a bad person, you accuse me of being religious, mock me, etc.ruby sparks said:Intuitions about human morality may or may not be like that. It hasn't been shown yet.
Again, how do you reckon that the fact that those conditions are illnesses is independent of the person making the assessment?ruby sparks said:For judgements about human bodily health, I would cite freshly severed limbs or heads, or a crushed skull, or massive haemorrhaging of blood for any reason, or ECGs which reliably detect the presence of a very severe type of (eg STEMI) heart attack, or a series of x-rays showing the rapid advance of a very aggressive and lethal cancer to the point that death is imminent.
Intuitively? If not, how? (of course, intuitively).
Sure, and there are people who reject the idea that facts about whether a condition is an illness is attitude-independent. In philosophy of health and illness, you have the 'naturalists' (they would be roughly the equivalent of moral realists), and the 'constructivists' of different sorts (roughly the anti-realists).ruby sparks said:It's far from being just my idea. Many (in fact I read most) colour psychologists and some philosophers do not hold that colours really exist, of themselves, as properties of the world outside our heads, inside which they are colour experiences.
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/health-disease/ for more information.
It is indeed extremely unusual. The vast majority of the human population disagrees.ruby sparks said:It's not an unusual idea at all.
And the vast majority of those people are correct, as the challenges clearly show confusion and provide no good reason to reject those intuitions. Regardless, if you are going with that, I will point out that the same the same can be said about whether a condition is an illness. The vast majority rely on human intuitions about whether something is an illness.ruby sparks said:The issue is up for debate and is unresolved. The vast majority of lay people may simply rely on limited, potentially fallible, 'ordinary/everyday' human intuitions, colloquial understandings and folk-psychological beliefs about it and haven't thought about it deeply enough or read about it widely enough, as with many things.