A hierarchy of intuitions
What is the necessary first step in defining a philosophical paradigm? It would seem to me to be to identify the central questions with which philosophy is concerned--no problem! One thing about which philosophers seem very clear is their objects of study: problems to which there seems no (straightforward) solution, especially when they are characterised by very interesting dilemmas. They attempt to solve these problems through the use of reason and argument.
Dilemmas are formed by when our intuitions pull us in two different directions. In a typical dilemma, we are presented with two different intuitions, both of which seem equally precious but mutually incompatible. Such dilemmas might involve choosing between claims that our actions are caused and free, or that ethics is subjective and objective.
Common sense dictates under these circumstances that in order to resolve the dilemmas, we will have to give up at least some of our intuitions. There seems no reason a priori why we couldn't do this, because it is all part of our human tendency to learn. Nevertheless, without a clear set of intuitions that take priority over other intuitions in the vast majority of people, this kind of project will fail to achieve level 2. People will always be finding that they resolve their intuitions in different ways from each other.
We are now in a position to elaborate on the possible reason that logic and natural science have achieved level 2: With regard to these areas, we have a clear hierarchy among our competing intuitions. The Laws of Thought in logic have such intuitive compellingness that they tend to pull other intuitions into line, and so far in the history of science, we have always had clear winners in the battle for intuitive compellingness. For philosophy, the question therefore becomes, how do we achieve a consensual hierarchy of intuitions?
Dilemmas are formed by when our intuitions pull us in two different directions. In a typical dilemma, we are presented with two different intuitions, both of which seem equally precious but mutually incompatible. Such dilemmas might involve choosing between claims that our actions are caused and free, or that ethics is subjective and objective.
Common sense dictates under these circumstances that in order to resolve the dilemmas, we will have to give up at least some of our intuitions. There seems no reason a priori why we couldn't do this, because it is all part of our human tendency to learn. Nevertheless, without a clear set of intuitions that take priority over other intuitions in the vast majority of people, this kind of project will fail to achieve level 2. People will always be finding that they resolve their intuitions in different ways from each other.
We are now in a position to elaborate on the possible reason that logic and natural science have achieved level 2: With regard to these areas, we have a clear hierarchy among our competing intuitions. The Laws of Thought in logic have such intuitive compellingness that they tend to pull other intuitions into line, and so far in the history of science, we have always had clear winners in the battle for intuitive compellingness. For philosophy, the question therefore becomes, how do we achieve a consensual hierarchy of intuitions?
Comments