Topics Knowledge

Question I have a question about philosophy itself that I hope is not too general, for you (as I feel it's important). I have my B.A. from an accredited University and am still trying to figure out how a philosopher explains the processes of intuition. I consider myself to be a philosopher in my heart---a manner with which I analyze and view the world from all different angles (surely, a logical process). I also have a side of me that is intuitive (or, that sometimes goes completely against logic, yet ends up being extremely accurate). It would seem that intuition itself sometimes (or usually) expresses a certain accurate knowledge of the universe in a different manner than logic; yet can (for some more than others, depending on giftedness in this vein) be depended on for things that logic alone cannot provide. What is the purpose and reliability of intuition, from a professional philosopher's vantage point? Do you feel this concept is tied into religion and God, or strictly to the former life experiences and personality of the individual from whom the intuition comes? (i.e.: I am an "INFP" on the Meyers-Briggs personality inventory. Yet, I am highly "thinking" oriented and analyze everything to a maddening pulp, within my own lens of reality). Your perspective would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Accepted:
September 21, 2006

Comments

If we take 'intuition' to mean something like what just seems right or wrong, then philosophy often seems to rely on intuition. One kind of case is when we are trying to analyse a concept. Take the concept of knowledge. We convince ourselves that knowledge is not quite the same as justified true belief, since if you believe that it's 10:45 because your normally reliable watch says so, you don't know it's 10:45 if in fact your watch stopped exactly twelve hours ago, even though your belief is true and justified. But notice that here the argument relies on our intuition that in this case you don't know the time. That seems the right answer, and philosophers lean on that feeling. Another kind of example is a situation in ethics where you decide what is right by playing your intuitions off against each other. It seems right that one shouldn't cause unnecessary suffering, and yet it also seems OK to eat meat. Then you come to believe that eating meat causes unecessary suffering. So for the sake of coherence you have to give up one of your intuitions. In fact a lot of philosophy of like that: we sniff out incoherences in our intuitions and then think about the best way to make things coherent. That process may involve giving up some of our initial intiutions, but our intuitions are also carrying a lot of weight.

I suspect part of what you may be getting at is a contrast between explicit or articulated argument or deduction on the one hand (which you call 'logic') and a kind of 'seeing' on the other (which you call intuition). Either seem to be a respectable way of arriving at the truth (and, of course, either can go wrong). And either can be rational. Take first a case in which you're wondering about whether to donate to Oxfam or to a charity that involves sponsoring a child in the developing world. Both look worth while to you, but you then (perhaps by intuition!) decide that what really matters is preventing as much suffering as possible. You find out that Oxfam is significantly more effective than the sponsorship charity, so you conclude that you'll send a cheque to them. Sometimes, though, rational argument seems unnecessary. You're on the way to meet a friend at the cinema, when someone crashes their bicycle on the other side of the street. There's no one else around. Sure, rational argument might be possible. You might try to weigh the various consequences of assisting the other person against those of continuing on your way, and draw a few conclusions while the cyclist groans softly in the background. Much more likely, however, is that you'll just see the need to help and do what you can. As Bernard Williams once put it, 'The significance of the immediate should not be underestimated'. Which is the wiser strategy -- to follow what you call logic, or what you call intuition? Surely a mixed one, with what is appropriate in each case depending on the situation you're in and your own capacities.