Yes, there is: foundational intuition. If it can be shown that there is such a thing, then all of our serious knowledge claims, while certainly not being thereby true absolutely, will be seen occurring, while still "at a distance, within the "play" of an absolute. — Astrophel
I don't really know what you are trying to say here, and I don't know what "foundational intuition" would be. I'm inclined to think that rather than having a foundational intuition, I have an evolving web of multitudinous interacting intuitions.
Or if you prefer, a poetic take. — wonderer1
Or am I wrong about this? — Astrophel
Well, you have just admitted to having intuitions. You find this kind of thing anathema among analytic philosophers, for it implies something directly apprehended, free of interpretation; and if this is what you mean by intuition, then you are making a very strong claim, the strongest, namely, that the world, through intuition, discloses its nature or essence. This stands apart from science's paradigms that are open to theoretical "progress"" one is already there, in possession of something of the same epistemological status as, say, the Ten Commandments. An absolute. — Astrophel
"If A then B; A, therefore B" is also a language construct. Are you a radical skeptic? — RogueAI
There is no wrong in speculative metaphysics; just coherence, and logical consistency to support it.
The notion of foundational intuitions initially became coherent, within its own logically consistent framework, in 1781.
Attempts to dismiss them as such, or maybe realign them as something else, began in 1818, been going on ever since. — Mww
You are correct. The epistemic and ontological distinctions are of convenience.
Sadly people like Heidegger used this problem to talk meaningless twaddle :D — I like sushi
I don't see it as absolute. As i said, "an evolving web of multitudinous interacting intuitions." Recognition of the evolving aspect seem important to me, as it allows for paradigm shifts. — wonderer1
Aren't you as certain that thinking/mind/thought exists as you are about the truths of logic? — RogueAI
I have no issue with paradigms shifts and an evolving understanding. But there is an untested assumption in all of this, in whatever scientific field you choose (even the science of getting up in the morning. The world is a science laboratory) that it is not all, in the exhaustive analysis of it, "made". There is a confidence that science is "about" something, even if that something is implicit and elusive. It is here I wish to elucidate. — Astrophel
When you visualize a sunset, how is that a "language presence of inner auditory qualities"? — RogueAI
I have a philosophy degree, but you need to dumb it down for me. I have trouble understanding that. My position is that we can know a few things about reality. Cartesian truths. Mind, thought and consciousness exist. We can't be wrong about that. — RogueAI
I claim there is an existential absolute (…). This is the bare givenness of the world. — Astrophel
There is a confidence that science is "about" something, even if that something is implicit and elusive. It is here I wish to elucidate. — Astrophel
So the main thesis does not concern foundational intuitions, but rather, an existential absolute with respect to the implicit and elusive something science is “about”?
Any idea what that would be, what form it would take? Is that the scope of your elucidation? — Mww
Well, you have just admitted to having intuitions. You find this kind of thing anathema among analytic philosophers, for it implies something directly apprehended, free of interpretation; and if this is what you mean by intuition, then you are making a very strong claim, the strongest, namely, that the world, through intuition, discloses its nature or essence. This stands apart from science's paradigms that are open to theoretical "progress"" one is already there, in possession of something of the same epistemological status as, say, the Ten Commandments. An absolute. — Astrophel
No. An existential absolute. Or, apparently, just recently, your foundation of existence. Is one the same as the other? — Mww
There are no intuitions (in the ordinary non-Kantian sense) that are not linguistically formed, or at least that can be talked about without putting them into words (and thus interpreting or distorting them). The idea that there are intuitions which directly reveal the "true essence" of reality is a discursively formed idea, which is itself not a "pure intuition". — Janus
And how are we to define a "true essence" of "pure intuition — Astrophel
Why would you want to? — wonderer1
It's not clear to me what you are arguing, or what you are arguing against. The idea of intellectual intuition is the idea that we can hsve purely rational intuitions of reality, or the nature of reality. Are you agreeing with that position or not? — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.