What is Intuition? As a introduction to philosophizing.

Prolonged discussion with the stranger enemy (xenos), who is no guest friend, would almost amount to admitting him to the group. Ergo, nothing can be said. Your message has been duly read.

Guide…why don’t you like Meno?

For the reason that one has to vigorously fight with him to get him to do things which anyone with normal intelligence has a passion for of their own inclination. For instance, distinguishing the meaning of words through giving definitions or statements about what one means.

This leaves then the problem of putting into words these understandings.

A lot of questions would need to be answered. Who are they for? Why the need to speak them?

So words are intuitive rather than understanding oriented. Between philosophers, so that another can see the look of the given and guess then which given without the split it is. The other philosopher will be able to judge the quality of the first’s understanding as opposed to intuition.

This is what both Plate and Aristotle refused to accept. Plate first, as master, and so less than Aristotle, the enthusiastic disciple. Plate indeed has been the only one so far to pose the problem of why and how to come up with words for understandings.

Perhaps he was too young when he heard Socrate, had not a good grasp on the experience of understanding which requires a level of danger that a young aristocrat is less than often exposed to. But was wise enough to do know that it was there to be had. But so his pride led him to open the doors for intuitjon to precede, capture and render understanding.

A noble mistake.

And more than that, a hard challenge. So a noble take.

Perhaps the most damaging concequence was disdain for those in the cave looking at intuition shadows. As if even the least inclined to thought never understood anything!

It is possible that a woman never understood anything and this is why they are so proficient at intuition.

What does intuitive mean here? The group doesn’t conceive your meaning. Give an example if possible.

The group has no interest in so-called class analysis. One doesn’t want to discolor and distort the text (the conversation with Plato or anyone else of genius) by presuming to know more about Plato, and the wars he fought in, the blood he sprinkled, or the excessive harshness of the spirit of the ancients, than Plato himself. (Nietzsche and his idiot epgione Popper, the latter wholly unworthy of the attention of thinking persons, would be spoken to on their own ground. And, for that matter, Marx/Engels (so far as they are understood philosophically rather than public-politically))

Aristocracy is not a class. Before “class” was concieved of, aristocracy already existed. Anyway, it was just speculation.

As far as intuition, I refer to your own exposition above.

Example, I intuit that this machine I am holding is a smartphone. Observing the look of the given.

That’s a lot of work though. Defining the terms pretty much solves the whole debate. You’re asking him to do all the heavy lifting.

The heavy lifting is history’s! Or genealogy, to be more precice.

I find Guide to be quite clear.

Defining terms is like trying to cheat them out of their genealogical burden. Best one can do is show what one can tell about a word, I find Guide does that.

Of course by asking me what intuit means in some or other context betrays him, buy nobody’s perfect.

Intuition is precisely thus: Not the inability to distinguish meaning from definition ( of what it means ((the definition)), but the reduction to what the meaning may .or, should be, given the assumption of what it was intended for.

It is putting existence before existence could be defined as the proto conditional of what it means to "be’.

How .ca You be , before existence? Only after, can existence be reduced to what it means to be.

The differentiation can only be through an aposteriori differentiation , an a-priori will intuit this , and that isn’t he basis of the synthetic .

But that is not, why Guide doesent like me, unless, that’s the only way to avert having to .face this as am intra-inter association.

I see no different way out of it. It is an inter - intra re-integration. Without which the differentiation becomes of a second rate.

The only way out of this is begging for a linguistic anomalies as as 'existing at the root of it.

Intent is deep and misterious and rarely understood by the speaker.

Rather, we see what he writes and see if it checks out with what we got. If it doesn’t, one of you is an idiot.

The intent of discussion is to see where each is at in their thinking. To progress dialectically is to relinquish thought to the machine, which machine is just a fancy furnace.

What the group means is the style of analysis that says, e.g., because Darwin was a Victorian, his theory of sexual selection was analysed through the lens of courtship rituals of his social peers, ergo we have cought the rascal out in a perfidious and inadmissible bias which runs through his whole thinking. It’s not a question chiefly concerning what existed when, but rather the style of the approach to the text. Of the way of listening to, or, on the other hand, correcting the text.

The group says: Here, does intuition allow the synonym understanding? I understand that I am holding a smartphone.

It seems that, in this sense, there is no meaning to the view that one human being is more intutional than another.

Here, too, is the word and thought “given” necessary? In other words, when does the thing get the chance to be “there” as the “object” of the intuition? Isn’t all that simply assumed by common sense. Can it be observed?

The group has often done all the “heavy lifting” by providing multiple possible developed guesses, as it were, has to where he is headed. Since one may not know on their own, the group attempts to give avenues of ingress through offering multiple determinations. Ergo, the great waste of time in speaking to such ones.

The group says: However, one need not keep to the definition. It is only a means to getting to the matter under investigation collectively.

The group thinks it is an infruitful means.

A

My mentuon of aristocracy had nothing to do with sociology or antropology.

B

Obviously understanding as you exposited does not do the same as intuition. To begin with, one needs a good reason to understand. The given seens. Because smartphone is a given seen being obsezzerved.

But if I see it, with the split? That can only ever be my problem. Words aren’t concerned with this. Just ask any acid head.

Indeed common sense is intuitive.

What is meaning here? Pointing to something and understanding what it is? E.g., a keyboard made of plastic? As opposed to: “a way of entering text into a computer” or some such definition?

How exactly is Plato more intuitional? And what does intuitional math mean? The group still has not answered what it long since raised.

The group must have more to go on.

Of course, under this determination, the paradox that one is defining or bounding intuition is in our midst, or does the group dyniey that? Determining can mean, that which is said on a metaphor with bounding a field with a river, stones, or through fences marked out after topographical marking, say with exacting scopes.

Is this your profound intuition speaking?

Perhaps that is because a woman realizes that intuition is not set in stone, it is not infallible, as our senses and our instincts are also not infallible.

Here are definitions of intuition.

Does intuition actually bring with it understanding or just a sense of something? Understanding to me means that we are clear about something, know it.
I am an agnostic but my intuition at times tells me that Something may be possible. Would you call this understanding? I would not. You can only go so far with intuition I think.

Our intuitions can also be based on our built-in beliefs and fears and so we are not necessarily receiving clear and right signals from below or above, as the case may be.

psychologytoday.com/us/blog … -we-use-it

The above definition to me almost sounds like intuition is a form of faith, where someone assumes to know something because they get that sense of it.

The group finds nothing obvious in this, rather, it is a quite vague cluster of notions. Not sure what the group wants understanding to mean that it “needs a good reason”. In ordinary usage understanding, knowing, and seeing, amount to the same thing. I understand this is a keyboard. I know a keyboard is here. I see something, it is a keyboard. Common sense. Common sense is split between spontaneous understanding, and learned phronesis. In other words, through experience and reflection, common sense is altered. If someone learns that smoking causes lung cancer, their spontaneous understanding of what a cigarette is changes.

The group finds this part of the group’s provocation profoundly boring and idiotically polemical. Therefore unworthy of answer or even decomposition. However, the group registers receipt of it.

in·tu·i·tion
ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
“we shall allow our intuition to guide us”
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
plural noun: intuitions

The group says, when one sees a house, is one unclear about what is there? Where is the unclarity supposed to be in seeing things such that it would lack understanding?

The group calls this apprehensiveness, or a forsight concerned with what is to come. Apprehensiveness is thereby distinguished from apprehension, which is understanding or knowing (simple seeing; a house is here, how do you know?, I see it).

The group could consider this a part of apprehensiveness, as so-called biased apprehension. However, this assumes a common sense knowing which is the measure of the bias as the mistake.

The group says, common sense is also a form of faith. The ground stands still, such is the claim of common sense.