Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Rationalists from Descartes to BonJour hold that intuitio... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Intuition is not an alternative to reasoning about propositions whose truth can be established by logical reasons.

    Rationalists from Descartes to BonJour hold that intuition of self-evident truths constitutes the foundational epistemic bedrock upon which logical reasoning itself depends.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Logical reasoning requires axioms; these cannot be proven without circularity, so intuited self-evidence is the only non-circular foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We directly grasp truths like 'a thing cannot both be and not be' pre-reflectively; this immediate cognitive access constitutes genuine knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empiricism cannot explain our knowledge of necessary truths; only rationalist appeal to reason and intuition avoids reducing logic to contingent experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Intuitions vary across cultures and individuals; calling disagreements non-intuitive begs the question rather than grounding certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Neuroscience shows intuitions arise from cognitive biases and heuristics, not direct access to transcendent truths independent of our minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical systems can be bootstrapped from simpler operational rules without foundationalism; formal validity doesn't require intuited self-evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Empiricism cannot explain our knowledge of necessary truths; only rationalist ap...Intuition is not an alternative to reasoning about propositions whose truth can ...Intuitions vary across cultures and individuals; calling disagreements non-intui...Logical reasoning requires axioms; these cannot be proven without circularity, s...
    +3 moreShow less
    Logical systems can be bootstrapped from simpler operational rules without found...Neuroscience shows intuitions arise from cognitive biases and heuristics, not di...We directly grasp truths like 'a thing cannot both be and not be' pre-reflective...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit