The Lesser of Three Evils - Intuition, Induction, and Transcendental Idealism

[MindForgedManacle]

---

Intuition is the “mental states or events in which a proposition seems true in the manner of these propositions” (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Steven Hales writes, “Our intuition is rational, not empirical; it is the pure light of reason that shines upon necessary propositions.” This intuition does not include knowledge based on memories nor does it include predictions of future events based upon knowledge from similar past experiences. Here is an example of intuition: Sally believes that there is a God - an all powerful being unable to known by our senses, because when she considers this notion, it intellectual seems the her that it is necessary for God to exist (NOI).

---

I'm not so sure about that take on intuition. Intuition has a shoddy record in terms of apprehending metaphysical truths. And i think it'd absurd to say that intuition does not take notes from one's knowledge and induction. That is in fact at least part of the reason Sally thinks there must be a God. She has inductively experienced that things that exist tend to have an explanation or account for their existence. Extrapolating from that, she concludes that there must have been some ultimate, first cause that is itself uncaused, lest there be an infinite regress.

That there is both intuitive and inductive, not simply one or the other.

Intuition is the root of the majority of philosophy though it may not be recognized due to “a fairly vigorous institution of professional repression” (POI 135). Intuition is typically a starting point of strong rationalists - those who do not derive their basis of knowledge experience from our five senses but instead from pure internal thought. Gottfied Leibniz believed that the mind inherently held but could not attain all the knowledge of the universe. Leibniz would view the type of knowledge derived from complete intuition, as necessary truth because it cannot be contradicted (TPB 137).

See, one's epistemic definition has to be stated or talking of "knowledge derived from intuition" is too hazy. If you go with Plato's definition of knowledge as a "justified true belief", then whatever is apprehended by the mind via intuition isn't knowledge, as no justification has been established, much less if the intuition reflects something true about reality.

Many of the great philosophers throughout history have used intuition to make ambitious strides for the advancement of philosophy (POI 137). Some intuitions have even been supported many years later by physics. Parmenides, for example believed through intellectual reasoning alone that “everything that is real must be eternal and unchanging.” Twenty-five hundred years later, this intuition was supported by quantum physics (41 TPB).

Here's where I think a problem lies. Parmenides didn't argue what quantum mechanics tells us, Parmenides (and his student Zeno of Elea) argued that the entirety of reality must be some continuous, unified, undivided whole. What quantum mechanics tells us (and I am a complete layman, I should note) is that there are fundamental particles, whose interactions and motions cause the changes we see. That is in line with the philosophical speculations of Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus who first postulated the existence of "atomos", or the indivisibles.

I'll respond to the rest later.