Intuition isn’t inherently or necessarily anymore irrational than logic. I define intuition as quick, wholistic reasoning. Perhaps it’s workings are less articulable and demonstrable than strict logic. Perhaps by definition, intuition is having an answer to a question without being able to explain to others or even yourself how you got there. It’s a distinct ability in it’s own right, separate from logic. For example, I think the ancient Greeks at least, intuitively grasped the fundamental difference between man and beast. Instead of logically demonstrating how they knew this, they utilized analogy and metaphor in the story of Epimetheus and Prometheus. Analogies and metaphors are often employed in matters too difficult to explain utilizing strict logic.
A question I’ve been struggling with as of late is-- does intuition have a place in thought general and philosophy specific? The answer, I think yes, infact, I think intuition is an essential component of philosophy and of day to day living. For instance, we don’t always have the time nor energy to carefully and methodically weigh the pros and cons, the reasons for and against something (whether it be a matter of truth or value). On these occasions, we employ intuition or quick, inexplicable logic. Also, on issues that’re too complex with too many variables and intricacies, we often employ intuition, on matters of the heart as well. Social and psychological issues are often far more complicated than physical ones.
Since philosophy almost exclusively deals with these (example-- psychology, ethics, politics, metaphysics (the whole) as opposed to physics (the parts), we shouldn’t expect, demand or require philosophers to be able to explain every detail, for and against, of their findings, their results, nor should we expect the philosophical community to ever come to a consensus the way the scientific community does. Science (with the exception of the social sciences (a recent development) deals almost exclusively with parts, it tries to break wholes down, which is part of the reason why scientific answers are more explicable.
Just as observation and experimentation are important aspects of the scientific method (in addition to reason), so too is intuition an important part of the philosophic method. Often, I will quickly arrive at an answer concerning one of the various issues discussed on this forum, first, then having to backtrack in order to explain, how I got there, both to others and myself. On particularly complex issues, we can and should never expect to be able to do this fully.
As philosophers, should we only believe in things we can explain to ourselves and others? My answer is no. We should explain them as best we can, but we shouldn’t demand this of ourselves and others, and I think this is one of the primarly obstacles for why modern philosophers have been hitherto unable to arrive at any conclusions about human nature and the world.
I’m calling for a de-emphasis on logic and a re-emphasis on intuition. We will never be able to give a full account for all the various ins and outs of our conclusions, it’s enough that we try to give some, to ourselves and others. Ultimately, if someone’s intuition is strongly opposed to your own, there’s probably little use in arguing with them, as philosophical issues are so complex and so profound, it would take next to a lifetime to explore them thoroughly.
I think this age of intuition, that I’m calling for, will entail a golden age of philosophy, of imagination, creativity, builders of grand narritives, men and women of answers. We’re never going to solve anything to everyone’s satisfaction, so this endless bickering is pointless, but we may be able to convince people of our assentions on the margins, the sidelines, those who sit on the fence or a little closer to our side. In summary-- quotes for a dawn of a new day–
Those who spend all their time arguing seldom have beliefs worth arguing for.
I’d rather see a plurality of partial-dogmatists than a monality of skeptics.
Better 10 schools with answers than 1 school with no answers-- at least 1 of the 10 may be right.
