Q1. Is intuition to philosophy as observation is to science?
Author’s Note: Given the word limit, I have focused on natural sciences, thereby excluding social sciences, in my discussion of science. Thus, the term science is used only as a reference to natural science as the study of the natural world through a set of scientific processes.
1. Introduction (1.5 - 2)
- What kind of examples can introduce the key ideas of the topic at first glance?
- Establishing the necessity of observation in science at first (anecdote/example)
Before diving into my arguments, I would like to define each of the following terms: observation, science, intuition, and philosophy. Observation, according to Oxford dictionary, is “a statement based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed” (that is, any experiences that can be gained through five senses).
Science is the study of the natural world as it is. Thus, the ultimate goal of science is to develop a perfect explanation of a natural phenomenon. For instance, Newtonian physics was readily replaced by special relativity theory as the former could not give a complete explanation of gravity when it came to understanding Mercury’s orbit around the sun. It is only through our observation that Mercury orbits around the sun in a certain way that we begin our scientific process of discovering a scientific theory. Neither the complexity nor the value of a scientific theory is taken into the consideration; whether it can sufficiently explain the natural phenomenon is of our only concern. As such, science, being solely descriptive, is limited to the externalworld; the externalsource is the start of the knowledge as well as the end point of the knowledge in science.
Intuition, according to Merriam Webster dictionary, is “the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.” It is important to note that in our definition of intuition, it lacks the appraisal of reason. When one gains an intuitive knowledge, he does not have a logical explanation as to why he has reached such a conclusion.
Unlike science that is limited to the external reality, philosophy deals with abstract subjects. Not only does philosophy examine what is, it discusses what ought. For instance, even if there has not been a single perfectly just society, philosophers for centuries have discussed what ought and how to achieve that ideal notion of what ought to be. Not only is philosophy descriptive, it is also prescriptive.
As we have established, in science, observation functions as the source of knowledge and the origin of the scientific process. Observation is thus indispensable in science; without it, no further developments and/or discoveries can be made. In order to answer the question, we must then assess whether in philosophy, intuition can substitute the role observation plays in science. In the coming sections, I will discuss three branches of philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics, to argue that intuition cannot serve as the source of knowledge in the same way that observation does in science.
Asking these questions to test if intuition plays an important enough of a role in each of these philosophical disciplines as observation is to science.
What can intuition tell us about philosophical knowledge/ethical decisions/nature of human existence.
2. What is knowledge?
In discussing whether institution has a role in philosophy as observation is to science, I start by asking one of the fundamental questions of philosophy: what is knowledge?
- Put it into a historical context
In order to answer this question, Descartes brings up rational doubt about his existence and senses. Could existence be a dream? He has been in quite lucid, vivid dreams where everything seemed real. What if he does not exist, and senses he feel as if he exists is only a deception played by a cunning being? After a series of doubts, he reaches to a conclusion that he is “[nothing] more than a thing which thinks.” Notice here that Descartes reached to a conclusion that strictly limits knowledge to what is gained within a rational thought process. To Descartes, his intuitive feeling that he felt as if he was alive was not sufficient source of philosophical knowledge as it could easily be doubted.
Here, some might ask, isn’t intuition as the flash of genius a source of knowledge? In Descartes’ case, isn’t the very fact that he starts questioning his existence rather intuitive? Isn’t his realization that he might not exist some form of philosophical epiphany? These sparks of philosophical epiphany, however, cannot translate into a fundamental source of knowledge. We obtain knowledge through a rational process of abstraction, where individual, highly specific thoughts (in Descartes case, for example, dreaming a vivid dream) are generalized. Generalization requires a rational process of analyzing and connecting specific instances into a single preposition. For instance, Descartes, before starting to doubt his existence and senses, mused about his past experiences with dreams, whether the existence of God could provide a rationale for his existence, and so on. Thus, information obtained by a mere intuition cannot be considered as a fundamental source of knowledge since it does not go through such a strenuous process.
- Why philosophy needs abstraction.
3. Ethics
Let us now consider Ethics in relation to the approach taken by Kant. Kant theorizes that Ethics is in the realm of synthetic a priori, which requires the use of pure practical reason to determine one’s course of action. In order to derive the supreme principle of morality, or categorical imperative as Kant puts it, we must assess whether a moral conduct in questionconforms to certainconditions, namely three formulations of the Categorical Imperatives. Here, I list the first two:
formulation: “act accordingto that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Second formulation: “act in such a way that you treat humanity [...] never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
Intuition, by no means, can guide us in our appraisal of actions according to these formulations. No one, in their intuitive response to whether burglary is good or bad, sets up a maxim “burglary has a moral value and thus must be practiced” and follows the steps Kant has laid out. It is only when reason, a critical element that intuition lacks, comes to play that we begin to assess whether burglary should become a universally acceptable act, or whether we, by performing burglary, treat our neighbors merely as a means to obtain their possession or as an end. After following this line of reasoning laid out by Kant, we arrive at the conclusion that our presupposed maxim must have been wrong.
Such a conclusion might not be drastically different from our initial immediate response to whether burglary is good or bad. Doesn’t one almost intuitively know that it is wrong to murder but is right to help a poor neighbor? Yet, instances where moral decisions can be made intuitively are quite limited. Most of the time, we are faced with moral dilemmas: should we tell our parents bluntly that their food tastes horrible, or should we tell a white-lie, if such a thing can even exist? Should we let the teacher know that your friend has cheated on the test, or should we remain loyal to our friend and keep his secret? When a Jevoha’s Witness patient insists that he will not get transfusion, should we give him the treatment if transfusion is the only way to save his life, or should we not? Answers to these questions cannot be obtained through intuition but through a systematic line of reasoning. Even if we assume intuition is sufficient in answering these dilemmas, because intuition implies one’s inability to give a rational explanation, it is hard to justify instinctive moral behaviors in ways in which Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, attempts to do. Thus, while intuition can serve as a motive for individual action, such intuitive responses cannot serve as a source of prescriptive moral ideas.
Kant highlights the importance of the role reason plays in Ethics: “Rational beings alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, that is according to principles, i.e., have a will. Since the deduction of actions from principles requires reason, the will is nothing but practical reason.”1 Morality is obtained solely by the rational process of assessing an action to moral formulations, and this shared ability to reason and settle upon a single rational duty is what becomes the basis of morality.
Writer : Jess,Choe
Governor’s Academy
Stanford University
Awards : John Locke Essay Law,Philosophy Commeded
Комментарии