Inspiration Occurs When “Logic” Is Out of the Way

[Diuretic]

I see what you are saying and agree. I guess in using the word "inspiration" I do think we can have inspiration through thinking things through logically as well. It just seems to me that there is great potential in receiving "inspiration" about something when logic is not involved and we should not just ignore this potential for gaining knowledge from an individual perspective.

I'm not an adherent of the view that we can be "inspired" by divine revelation. I do think that we possess a brain sufficiently effective that it can produce "solutions" to problems but only based on what is stored in the individual's memory or what the individual can absorb from another source (eg a book).

Your first sentence is where we differ. I believe we can be inspired by divine revelation, because of my own personal experiences.

Differing is fine of course. I have never had a personal experience anywhere near what might be called inspiration from a divine source, I suppose that's because I don't believe there is a creator so I'm not predisposed to owning up to having had a "eureka!" moment inspired by such a being.

But what are your views on the idea that we have innate knowledge that can be drawn out of us by careful questioning? Socrates I think was perhaps the first known thinker to have that approach. I forget the technical word but there's a sort of metaphor that's used to describe this approach as a "midwifery" approach to helping the individual learn, the questioning brings out pre-existing knowledge. I disagree with that view though. I think it belongs in the same category as the one where the ancient thinkers thought there was once an original human language that we all knew but which was lost in antiquity.

And then there's the tabula rasa idea. I'm more comfortable with that than I am with the Socratic.

 

[JW Frogen]

Maybe it is a bit of both?

A blank slate when born but then formed significantly in early youth, much of it subliminated and then recovered through Socratic questioning?

Where I find Socrates valuable is when I get on my high horse (while I am still sober enough not to fall off) with any idea. That bearded bastard always pops up in my head and says "are you sure? How do you know that for sure?"

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe it is a bit of both?

A blank slate when born but then formed significantly in early youth, much of it subliminated and then recovered through Socratic questioning?

Where I find Socrates valuable is when I get on my high horse (while I am still sober enough not to fall off) with any idea. That bearded bastard always pops up in my head and says "are you sure? How do you know that for sure?"

I'm going bit off point here but while I think Socrates had a good approach, self-examination (of thought I mean) is a good thing, we should all question our assumptions. But when it comes to teaching I'm a bit wary of it. It's fine where it's required for convergent learning, for example knowing a mathematical formula or a universal law in physics, but in many respects I think we need divergent thinking and for that reason I think the Socratic method should be used sparingly. That and I've seen some real wankers put on a classroom show using it so that taints it in my mind I suppose.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not an adherent of the view that we can be "inspired" by divine revelation. I do think that we possess a brain sufficiently effective that it can produce "solutions" to problems but only based on what is stored in the individual's memory or what the individual can absorb from another source (eg a book).

Your first sentence is where we differ. I believe we can be inspired by divine revelation, because of my own personal experiences.

Differing is fine of course. I have never had a personal experience anywhere near what might be called inspiration from a divine source, I suppose that's because I don't believe there is a creator so I'm not predisposed to owning up to having had a "eureka!" moment inspired by such a being.

But what are your views on the idea that we have innate knowledge that can be drawn out of us by careful questioning? Socrates I think was perhaps the first known thinker to have that approach. I forget the technical word but there's a sort of metaphor that's used to describe this approach as a "midwifery" approach to helping the individual learn, the questioning brings out pre-existing knowledge. I disagree with that view though. I think it belongs in the same category as the one where the ancient thinkers thought there was once an original human language that we all knew but which was lost in antiquity.

And then there's the tabula rasa idea. I'm more comfortable with that than I am with the Socratic.

Sorry for the late reply, life has been busy over the last week.

I agree with Socrates, that we do have innate knowledge. This is because I believe we existed and gained knowledge before we were born, as spirits.

 

[Samson]

Using sleep to solve real problems has been shown to work.

Indeed, there is certainly some use in "sleeping on it."

But I'm not sure that sleep itself prevents logical thought. In fact, it may be more likely that sleep inhibits illogical fears from interfering with clear thought and problem solving.

 

[Christopher]

Using sleep to solve real problems has been shown to work.

Indeed, there is certainly some use in "sleeping on it."

But I'm not sure that sleep itself prevents logical thought. In fact, it may be more likely that sleep inhibits illogical fears from interfering with clear thought and problem solving.

From what I have read, during the REM stage of sleep, the logical part of our brain shuts down. Which is why I think logic would seem to inhibit some problem solving capacities.

Maybe you are right, though, and our brain is like Microsoft software and just needs to reboot to be more effective.