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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Rationalists from Descartes to BonJour hold that intuition of self-evident truths constitutes the foundational epistemic bedrock upon which logical reasoning itself depends.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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