Intelligence as Philosophy

Shawn April 28, 2020 at 19:03 3550 views 9 comments

I have a conception of intelligence. Namely, it seems to me that rationalism got it wrong as did Hume and empiricism. Intelligence seems to me to be a faculty to model or mirror reality. This is possibly the strongest argument I can imagine for the correspondence theory of language and meaning. But, then the question seems to arise that how is "grasping" of concepts possible. To "grasp" a concept seems like some fundamentally transcendent conception of the mind a priori.

Plato, most likely, coined the term "noesis" as this "phenomenon". I wonder when did the stipulation or neologism of of the term arise. Plato passed on his knowledge of noesis to what I was told in college, as the last man who understood everything, being Aristotle. Aristotle then began something unseen of creating disciplines and fields of philosophy that later became the foundations of "science".

I wonder what did Wittgenstein think about Plato. Supposedly he was disliked by him, and so, he pretty much concluded, after the Tractatus, that language was both a correspondence and coherentist theory about reality.

I wonder what other people think about this idea of intelligence and philosophy?

Comments (9)

Shawn April 28, 2020 at 19:05 #407028 0 likes

The highest degree of philosophy has, in my mind, been classified as the practice of philosophy. It could be said that philosophers are lover's of, not wisdom, but rather intelligence. I hope not to anger anyone about this, or people , like Nietzsche, who think that philosophy is the love of power or some such gibberish...

jacksonsprat22 April 28, 2020 at 19:18 #407034 0 likes

Quoting Shawn

Plato, most likely, coined the term "noesis" as this "phenomenon".

Not sure what you mean. Noesis is intellectual apprehension of an idea.

Shawn April 28, 2020 at 19:32 #407039 0 likes

Quoting jacksonsprat22

Not sure what you mean. Noesis is intellectual apprehension of an idea.

I rest my case, so, how do you explain this phenomenon of "grasping".

jacksonsprat22 April 28, 2020 at 19:33 #407040 0 likes

Quoting Shawn

I rest my case,

What case? You misstated what "noesis" means. Sorry, I really am not following.

Shawn April 28, 2020 at 19:37 #407043 0 likes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noesis_(disambiguation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics

Neuron420 April 29, 2020 at 00:04 #407127 0 likes

Sorry, but I agree with jacksonprat22, and I too am finding it hard to determine exactly what you are asking. I will however highlight a couple of things, particularly Grasp and Intelligence; a definition of intelligence - "a mental faculty - the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning,... "en.wikipedia.org and, "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". The term "Grasp", means to figuratively to take hold of an idea, to understand the information being put forth, which is what would happen if you study a concept enough to understand it, [i]with out actually experiencing or observing the concept., which is a good definition of "a priori".

You state, "The highest degree of philosophy has, in my mind, been classified as the practice of philosophy. It could be said that philosophers are lover's of, not wisdom, but rather intelligence." Huh? Literally, the word philosophy comes from the Greek words of Philo - (love) and Sophia - (wisdom). While you will often find that someone that is wise is usually intelligent, but one is not a prerequisite for the other. Sorry, maybe I am being thick headed today, it happens!

I like sushi April 30, 2020 at 08:59 #407575 0 likes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema

Valentinus May 02, 2020 at 01:23 #408239 0 likes

Quoting Shawn

Intelligence seems to me to be a faculty to model or mirror reality. This is possibly the strongest argument I can imagine for the correspondence theory of language and meaning. But, then the question seems to arise that how is "grasping" of concepts possible. To "grasp" a concept seems like some fundamentally transcendent conception of the mind a priori.

Aristotle presented the process as a mirror of a kind. Whatever worked to allow you to perceive the world must be connected somehow to how those things actually exist. The concordance is a phenomena before it is an argument. It is like this:

Crazy but true, you are equipped to perceive when you are mostly like the other organisms who cannot to varying degrees.

I like sushi May 02, 2020 at 04:43 #408276 0 likes

Reply to Shawn If I was pinned down I’d say philosophy is nothing to do with either knowledge or intelligence in any direct sense. Philosophy is a cultural phenomenon that I would loosely frame as ‘applied curiosity’ - ‘knowledge’ would dictate where your curiosity was directed and ‘intelligence’ would dictate your success in expressing something given in a ‘fresh’ light or something ‘fresh’ in a given light.

Note: Expressing something given in a given light would be to confirm for others, whereas expressing something ‘fresh’ in a ‘fresh’ light would be mostly unintelligible babble to others.

In this basic outline ‘science’ would be foundation upon the ‘confirmed’ and metaphysics would skirt around the edges of the ‘given’ and occasionally fall prey to mysticism if it flies far beyond the edges of the ‘given’ (in terms of both expression and heuristic).