gimboarretino t1_ixc2sgq wrote on November 22, 2022 at 9:08 AM

The power of intuitions

If you reject the value of primary and fundamental intutions (for example, I exist, the external world exists, it is composite, there is a "becoming in time" , there is a consciousness, an intentionality etc.). , in favor of some kind of all-around rational-scientific "proof"... we should ask ourselves first: why are we inclined to give more weight and validity to that proof, rather than to the primal intuitions?

Because we have a rational-scientific proof of the validity of the rational-scientific "proof? And What about a proof of the proof of the validity of the proof? And so on and so forth ad infinitum?

Nope, the reason is that the belief in the validity of the rational/scientific proof is itself a primal intuition, or rather, a corollary of the intuition that rationality has strong descriptive and explanatory power of reality (or that reality is intrinsically intelligible)

so... to deny all the other primal and core intuitions in favor of this other core intuition... well it makes little sense, I guess. Why would you do that?

As Husserl said "every original presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition: everything originarily -- so to speak, in the flesh -- offerd to us in intuition is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there"

SquareIsCircle t1_ixehcpc wrote on November 22, 2022 at 8:50 PM

>why are we inclined to give more weight and validity to that proof, rather than to the primal intuitions?

It depends on what you mean by "proof." The two forms of "proof," deductive and inductive, each address a different issue with "intuition," i.e. internal consistency and observability.

Deductive reasoning (internal consistency) says Socrates cannot be both alive and dead. Inductive reasoning (observation) can test the statement "Socrates is alive" by showing that he is not.

You can't actually prove anything true, for the reasons you state, but you can prove things false. That's what logic does to intuition. If you can't prove your intuition false, that's generally when you feel like you "know" a thing, or have "proven" a thing to be true.

gimboarretino t1_ixgq1yj wrote on November 23, 2022 at 8:51 AM

>That's what logic does to intuition. If you can't prove your intuition false, that's generally when you feel like you "know" a thing, or have "proven" a thing to be true.

yes and no.

the very concept of "proving something false" implies a number of assumptions.
the existence of a subject, a critical thought, an external reality that follows decipherable rules and patterns, a language bearing meaning, the existence of the very intuition I am about to disprove.
I would say that these 'core intuitions' cannot be refuted by any rational proof, since rational proof itself presupposes them.