What I'm saying is that an intuition is just a certain kind of a theory or background knowledge that we have yet to understand how it works.intuitionism
the theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are known directly by intuition.
Anyway, there's actually no such thing as something that's "self-evident", it just means that it hasn't been challenged yet and we have yet to have an explanation for why that thing is the way it is, which is a normal state for most things, because we have no ultimate justifications for anything. And we don't need ultimate justifications. We just propose an (unjustified) idea, then we criticize it so that it can be improved.
@Singu That's not the case. If you question intuitions you just validate or falsify them the same way as if you question empiricist data. I do that all the time. It doesn't invalidate intuition as a faculty. You can try to invalidate intuition but first you need a proper definition of intuition. If people here want to be cool, don't know what intuition means, and think it means common sense, that's their problem. Intuitive as an adjective is used sort of like common sense but that's still not really what it means.
I'm not trying to get rid of intuition, I'm just saying that it has yet to have an explanation. If we literally have nothing else to go by other than intuition, then we'll go with intuition. But if we had an explanation for something, then obviously something with an explanation will be superior to something without an explanation.
And even if you have no reason for anything, you still can go ahead with it anyway. Unless you have an alternative and you can criticize that idea. Then we'll go with an alternative instead.
https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_tOriginally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
@Singu You already said that you arrive at the data through intuition. So, yes, you can arrive at data through intuition. There is a difference between explaining the data (reasoning) and explaining how you arrived at the data (in this case, intuition.)
I think your problem is confusing the idea of something with the actual thing. Explaining that you arrived at something through intuition is a form of reasoning, but intuition itself is not reasoning. Intuition is a logical necessity because in order to arrive at anything through reasoning, you have to have something you didn't reason first. And a technicality for anyone who notices: you could have all your data given to you by authority, but in that case the process(es) of reasoning itself would still have to be an intuition. So by definition it's impossible to explain away intuition. I hear a lot of people arguing that you can never really know anything and it's always an argument against direct knowledge a la Kant's tirade against human intuition. I think it's patently wrong that you can never really know anything but maybe it's just the case that they can't really know anything because they don't want to but I can. If they argue that's not the case (good, they get some self-respect) then they know something. Muahahaha.
I think the real question is, knowledge with respect to what? And making purely academic arguments for the sake of what sounds good is a horrible what.
Last edited by coeruleum; 03-02-2019 at 07:01 AM.
We calculate things in our head but we don't know how we do it. But we know how calculators and computers work.
The only thing that we can conclude is that there is certain logic to intuition, we just don't know how it works yet.
As for the bolded part, people have been trying to find the "ultimate justification" for logical premises forever. They've been saying that if something isn't justified, then it's meaningless or worthless. Saying that an intuition is the ultimate foundation is just one of the proposed justifications, which is what we call Intuitionism. And if you say that something is self-evidently true, then it is true and it can't be proven wrong, albeit it's only circular reasoning.
However ever since Popper, we've done a 180 degree turn and said that we don't need to have justifications. We just propose an unjustified idea, and then we criticize it if we find it to be problematic.
@Singu If you use intuition to gain knowledge, then you probably do know how you gained that knowledge, which is through intuition. Intuition is direct perception.
Intuition is logically necessary because in order to have logic, you need to have non-logic, and while "non-logic" doesn't have to be a form of knowledge, the fact is that if you try to derive everything logically, you end up in an infinite regress of logic which is impossible to go through linearly. Intuition is the inverse to infinitary logic, since even an infinite logical set can't explain all things so you also have zero logic. You can rationally explain any fact you can intuit but you can't get rid of intuition as a faculty in the process since any (abstract) knowledge you have is the result of both intuition and reason to some extent as a matter of course.
I would place intuition above reasoning due to the fact that it's more basic but that's different than intuition without reasoning. I thought pure reasoning was obviously problematic though.
1) Intuitionism isn’t the same thing as intuition in general. These are different concepts.
2) Intuition doesn’t have to be a theory if you don’t want it to be lol.
3) Well, it can be argued I guess that what is considered self-evident or common sense can be subjective sometimes.
Intuition is always numerous steps a head of empiricism, which can only really operate in hindsight. If it weren't for intuition, we would do or say anything because it wasn't scientifically proven yet. We use it everyday in numerous different situation and is a large driver of our behavior. However, due to their subjective nature we should not hesitate to question intuitions that go against strong empirical data and evidence, as long as the data has a high confidence of being right. The data should count.
Live by intuition, learn by science.
Life is more meaningful with intuition as a guide. It is important for so many things, from art, to the humanities, to the sciences. It is a large component of who we are. Without it, we would not have imagination, and as Einstein once said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
An Intuitionist would say that such a criticism is invalid, because an intuition is placed outside of logic. Then they will continue to say that an intuition is self-evidently true. So this just sort of turns into Solipsism, where they say that only what they can personally perceive or intuit is true.
So I would say that an intuition is merely something without a theory of how that works. We can start with an unjustified intuition, but that doesn't mean that an intuition can't be explained or be criticized and improved.
@Singu that's all nonsense. Please go back to teaching us about Popper's books and about empiricism and the scientific method. Thanks!
Last edited by coeruleum; 03-02-2019 at 06:27 PM.
I know more than one with this addiction, so I wanted to understand more, and read a lot, and this was the best article of the many I read. Especially because of what she says at the end. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ddiction-today
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"