tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post1139839953720545068..comments2024-01-08T00:08:53.008+00:00Comments on ombhurbhuva: Illative senseombhurbhuvahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-71881919698174391182010-08-03T09:28:27.802+01:002010-08-03T09:28:27.802+01:00I see and I agree that in most cases, one 'sen...I see and I agree that in most cases, one 'senses' something well before one can prove it to be the case. However, should not this be just one's first step? Would you trust a physician you relies just on her nose? Wouldn't you expect him/her to rather do all control-checks even if s/he knows X to be the case?<br />As for clarity vs. obscurity, I am against unnecessary obscurity, obscurity used in order to make others believe that one is too smart to be understood, obscurity which is against communication. Sometimes, on the other hand, proper communication requires an appropriate language, which may seem obscure to lay people. Or do you mean that obscurity is due to one's deep grasp of things? If so, shouldn't one make the effort to emerge from it and share her insights —or stay silent, if s/he doesn't want to share?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-75562095761034669592010-07-22T11:45:37.063+01:002010-07-22T11:45:37.063+01:00Hi Elisa,
There does seem to be some backing for t...Hi Elisa,<br />There does seem to be some backing for the idea that snap decisions made by experienced people are as accurate as their more considered decisions (medical research). You get a 'nose' as they say for these things. Without having to work it out in detail there's a sense that something is not quite right about an argument or that with a lateral twist might be put right. We are all idiot savants to some extent achieving results and drawing consequences we know not how. Is this beyond all possibility of error? Certainly not. Some thinkers are clear for want of lack of depth others are opaque because of the deep matter that is a struggle to access. 'Anything that can be said can be said clearly and if you can't say it you can't whistle it either' said Wittgenstein (roughly) but he himself was often intuitive and direct by routes which we must painstakingly discover.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-25201025267730051572010-07-21T15:50:51.009+01:002010-07-21T15:50:51.009+01:00I am not sure I understood all of this (but thanks...I am not sure I understood all of this (but thanks for making me aware of it). How could one then counter-check whether one illative sense is not in error? Does Steinmann share with Descartes the idea that there are some basic, clear, ideas we can intuitively grasp and WILL NEVER go wrong about?<br />But then, your last proposal (here and about the Vedanta Paribhasa in your last comment) seems rather to point to the possibility of applying such sense to every content, even the more complex ones. Or do you believe that what one grasp through the illative sense is their fundamental core? Last, what if one were to deny to have such a faculty?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.com