Interesting articles thread

[Singu]

@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.

Which you can logically or rationally criticize, because no theory or perception is perfect.

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.

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.

I don't think you can rationally explain intuition by that definition. Which is why an intuition is supposedly placed outside of logic. And then it's illogically assumed to be self-evidently 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.