AspiringWorldbuilder t1_jc4xhph wrote
Reply to comment by internetzdude in Validating philosophical beliefs using intuitions is not a simple task, but this doesn’t mean intuitions should be dismissed as unreliable. Experiment and a priori reasoning can sort good intuitions from bad. by IAI_Admin
Out of curiosity, how would Hintikka (or you if you share their views) justify axioms if not through intuitions? I am asking with the assumption that all knowledge is built upon axioms (which I can provide an argument for if necessary). It seems to me that intuitions are the only possible source of axioms and thus we must assume some connection between them and truth if we are to avoid scepticism, though I am still struggling with the nature of that connection... any insights would be appreciated.
internetzdude t1_jc7tp97 wrote
I don't know what Hintikka said about this. However, note that Hintikka argues against intuitions as an alleged source of evidence, which is their primary use in contemporary philosophy. As far as I can see, axioms aren't considered evidence. They are postulated. I think physicists are more careful in this regard because they explicitly speak about postulates, not axioms.
My take is that most texts in which intuitions are applied as a source of evidence (as opposed to an indicator for further inquiry) can safely remove any talk about intuitions and nothing of value and philosophical insight is lost.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments