intuition
Is intuition really a combination of cognition and thinking?
Doesn’t it include thinking, only partly conscious and partly unconscious? When I deduce an a priori synthetic law, isn’t it thinking that actually includes both a conscious and an unconscious process together, both the very generalization in an analogical way and the reliance on my subjective and scandalous experience?
I don’t understand the question. Did you read my arguments about intuition? Does it come from some background? I explained in several places why I think it is a combination. If it were just a mental faculty, of any kind (conscious, unconscious, or anything else), there would be no reason to assume that it yields reliable results about the world. This is Kant’s synthetic-a priori problem. Therefore, you can distrust your intuitions, or trust them. You can think that it is thinking or that it is a combination. But there is a connection between the questions: if you think it is reliable (to some extent. Not a shot in the dark), then you must assume that there is a cognitive dimension to it.
I argue that it is possible to say that the ”mystical” source of intuition comes from the subconscious. For example, the example with solving the math exercise, we can say that the source of that student's ability is mystical and we can say that it is the subconscious (which is influenced by social experience and brain structure) and with the help of the conscious together.
And the generalization of natural laws that stems from intuition really comes from the subconscious where experience tells us that it is true and the attack of the day is still valid.
Therefore, synthetic a priori laws are not really valid anymore.
Still don't understand. Are you claiming that it's still possible to be skeptical? Sure. Who said otherwise? I offered an option for how not to be skeptical, not an argument that forces skeptics to admit.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
