Q&A: Intuition
Intuition
Question
Hello Rabbi, unfortunately I still haven’t read Truth and Stability and The Two Carts. In any case, without getting into the actual meaning of intuition, you write that someone who does not rely on it will be forced to be skeptical about everything. What is wrong with that? Seemingly, that is the closest thing to the truth.
2. In my humble opinion, it does not make sense to say that I should also cast doubt on the fact that I am casting doubt. Casting doubt is different from asserting something. Isn’t that so?
Answer
1. When I said that the alternative is skepticism, that was not a counterargument but a clarification. If you are a complete skeptic, then fine. There is no way to argue against skepticism. But if you are not a complete skeptic, then willy-nilly you must place trust in intuition. Now you have to decide for yourself.
2. By the way, skepticism is not close to the truth, because for the skeptic there is no such thing as truth. That also answers your point at the end. The distinction you are making is itself a product of thought, and therefore subject to doubt. By the way, I also do not think the distinction itself is correct, but as stated, that is not important.
Discussion on Answer
How would you respond to this great question?
Come on, I’ve seen greater questions than this. This is the standard skeptical question. My answer is that there is no need at all to justify trust in intuition, just as there is no need to justify trust in the senses. I simply know that it is reliable, that’s all. If you want a justification for everything that is obvious to you, you will never be able to provide such justifications. Every justification rests on basic assumptions that you cannot justify. The skeptic builds his vacuum on that. But this is very far from being a great question.
if we simply put trust in intuition due to desperation, or lack of choice, or because we have a ‘feeling’ to trust it, this doesn’t make it more logical or rational?! and so don’t it really justify its conclusions. it just states that we are bound to it. it might even be rational to act and think upon it due to its being the ‘only way’, but why is it ultimately persuasive? it’s kind like a circular justification. or in best case it’s something which we all agree to follow together (sort of social contract) why logical?