The views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any institution I am associated with.
Just as Beowulf’s men preferred the older, sturdier, and stronger weapons to fight the new monster, Grendel, this blog focuses on the crisis of late modernity from the standpoint of Christian Aristotelianism which provides the firmest foundation for the lasting truths of Western civilization. These truths are transmitted through the greatest works of human achievement including the concepts we all depend on for civilization to cohere and thrive—sturdy and bold ideas such as the rule of law (that which gives consensual government its power and also restrains it), the free and open exchange of ideas, and an appropriate sense of rationalism which gives the human person meaning, significance, and purpose.
These ideas which are in danger of becoming lost or forgotten, first came to us from the ancient Greeks and Hebrews. The great ideas of Western civilization, however, will not hold in an era of flux and discontinuity unless the nature of reality is understood which is why I focus on metaphysics. Although it is an accident of history, this is exactly why the editor of Aristotle’s works put his metaphysics after his work on physics. The deeper truth that needs to be investigated in our time and place is how do the fields of law, education, free inquiry, science, and art correspond to reality? Why is it that
I write about metaphysics with the conviction that a presentation and defense of reality is the greatest concern Western civilization faces in our postmodern era.
The essays on this site are focused on the nature of Being (metaphysics) and others that will explore the intersections of philosophy, technology, culture, and what it means to be a genuinely liberally educated individual.
At his trial in Athens, Socrates explained why he is so passionately committed to seeking the truth. He said, “The unexamined life is not worth living for a man.” Socrates understood that it is our rationality as humans that makes us human. If we use our rationality well, we will have a fulfilled, happy, and meaningful life. We all know what happens to someone who has not used their rationality very well. Cephalopods can have a wonderful life without using rationality. It is the human ability to reason that defines what it means to be human and pursue that which is good, true, and beautiful.
Dave Seng
I disagree with the rejection of Bergson in your post about intuition https://socraticdictum.com/more-than-a-feeling-metaphysical-intuition-in-aristotle-and-bergson-part-three/
Bergson’s concept of intuition is the most aligned to the discovery in neuroscience of the differences in right-brain and left-brain attention. The right-brain is intuitive in much the same way that Bergson describes, as Dr. Iain McGilchrist explains in his book The Master and His Emissary:
”
“The left hemisphere knows things the right hemisphere does not know, just as the right knows things of which the left hemisphere is ignorant. But it is only the right hemisphere that is in direct contact with the embodied lived world: the left hemisphere world is, by comparison, a virtual, bloodless affair. In this sense, the left hemisphere is ‘parasitic’ on the right. It does not itself have life: its life comes from the right hemisphere, to which it can only say ‘no’ or not say ‘no’. The relationship between the hemispheres entails an asymmetry between the principles of division (left hemisphere) and unification (right hemisphere), ultimately in favour of union…”
“The right hemisphere needs the left hemisphere in order to be able to ‘unpack’ experience. Without its distance and structure, certainly, there could be, for example, no art, only experience. But, just as importantly; if the process ends with the left hemisphere, one has only concepts — abstractions and conceptions, not art at all. It seems that, the work of division having been done by the left hemisphere, a new union must be sought, and for this to happen the process needs to be returned to the right hemisphere, so that it can live. This is why Nietzsche held that ‘in contrast to all those who are determined to derive the arts from a single principle, as the necessary source of life for every work of art, I have kept my gaze fixed on these two artistic deities of the Greeks, Apollo and Dionysos.’ These two gods represented the two fundamentally opposed artistic drives (Kunsttriebe): one towards order, rationality, clarity, the sort of beauty that comes with perfection, human control of nature, and the celebration of masks, representations or appearances; the other towards intuition, the over-riding of all humanly contrived boundaries, a sense of oneness or wholeness, physical pleasure and pain, and the celebration of nature beyond human control, as she really is. This contrast does not correspond neatly to the left hemisphere versus the right hemisphere — more, in neuropsychological terms, to the frontal lobes versus the more ancient, subcortical regions of the limbic system; but such distinctions carry with them implications for the division of the hemispheres in that the right hemisphere is more in touch with these ancient and ‘primitive’ forces.”
– pp 199, 200
-Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think that quote does correspond with much of Bergson’s conception of intuition.
And thanks for providing a chance for me to do some more reflection on the topic. I actually believe the nonrational aspect of human knowing and experience is very important.
I see intuition falling into the category philosophers call the ‘nonrational.’ Nonrational is simply that which is apart from reason but not against it (‘irrational’ being that which is against reason). So the nonrational would include things like intuition, emotions, subjective experiences, artistic creativity, etc. At the same time, if not checked by reason, the nonrational can quickly become irrational. The human experience is certainly complex.
Intuition is valuable when understood correctly. I think intuition can be very useful and important when seen as the result of the accumulation of one’s past experience and thinking. Valid intuitions are the result of subconscious induction or deduction. Those who have had considerable experience in a particular field are more likely than others to have good intuitions in that area. This could be considered the intuition of the expert. Experts see things more rapidly and intuitively than those not familiar with the expert’s area of knowledge. Therefore, I think it is totally reasonable to say that scientific inspiration and intuition comes to those who have labored persistently over scientific problems, poetic intuition comes to those who have spent long hours writing poetry, musical intuitions and inspiration comes to those who know their scales and theory and diligently practice their instrument, and philosophical and religious intuitions come to those who devote time and attention to these fields.
I agree with the intuitionists who think that much of life can not be reduced to mere analytic or strictly logical mathematical propositions. That is why I find some analytic philosophy very unappealing. Romantic love rarely comes about by analytical or deductive or inductive reasoning.
In some ways, those of us who are foundationalists have to be intuitionists at some level. As a foundationalist, I hold that the law of noncontradiction is both intuitively correct and objectively true because it is a property of being. Foundationalists believe that at the basic level of reality rest laws and properties that are indemonstrable (as in discursive reasoning). The reason why that is the case is that one has to use the law of noncontradiction in order to describe it or deny it. Pascal said much the same thing about Being. Because foundationalists hold that at some point reality is grounded on some idea or ideas that are certain and basic and undemonstrable, the nonrational also makes a contribution to philosophy and our understanding of the world. I would go so far at to say that philosophy is the rational discussion of basic intuitive ideas. Socrates was the best model for this approach.
Bergson’s use of intuition is very different, however. Bergson held that intuition is higher mode of knowledge, different in kind from that disclosed by the senses or by the intellect. (By definition, Bergson comes close to Gnosticism. And one could argue that his notion of the Élan vital is Gnostic.) For Bergson, intuition and intelligence are pointed in the opposite directions. Only intuition extended and joined by the vital impulse of all reality provides the correct interpretation of the universe. It is unclear how an immediate inward subjective joining of an external object is done or how it helps one to understand reality.
So it all depends on how one defines and understands intuition. There are positive aspects we certainly do not want to throw out. The weakness or danger of intuition is that it does not seem to be a safe method of obtaining knowledge when used alone. It can easily go astray if not controlled or checked by reason and the senses. To pit the senses against intuition is an error. The five senses are our only connection to reality. While foundationalists and realists admit that there is some level of intuition at work in all human knowledge and understanding, intuition by itself is insufficient. Intuition, reason, and sense experience need to work together in the human quest for knowledge.
Thanks again for the post! I don’t often get to dive into epistemological issues. And thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my position. You’ve provided much food for thought and I’ll have to re-visit the subject again in a future post. This is a fascinating topic.