Originally posted by Atlantis001
Knowledge is a perception, familiarity, or understanding of an idea, intuition is also a perception, it gives you an understanding too. Thats just a matter of viewing the definition of intuition.
Except in order to understand an idea, you have to provide the logic behind it. You cannot have "A is A" and understand it outside of logic. And since that IS an axiom, I fail to see how you think we can intuitively come to that. It's the concept of identity. To recognize A as A, you must adhere to logic. You cannot intuit A is A, you have to rationalize it. You have to contrast A from everything else. And you cannot do that just by pure intuition, since the concept of identity is the very first thing a newborn human must realize in order to know. Now, is the idea of realizing identity somehow just this magical version of intuition/common sense as you claim?
Babies whinning are more an instinct not an intellectual process like reason, instinct is pre intelectual. Of course they can still make logic associations, but that is instinctive behavior. There would be no problems saying that babies use intuition too.
I think you missed the point- if intuition precedes logic, babies would use intuition to arrive at reasonable assumptions. But you are saying that's instinct (Which, do human beings have instinct beyond suck and grasp at that age?). So it would seem that a baby could make logical associations, but the idea of intuition doesn't come into play. Also, how can you define intuition as being the precursor to reason? Where does it come into play specifically? Can you define intuition so that it has a real meaning? From what I've seen, intuition comes from already possessing rational tools, such as the concept of identity and existance, along with having previous emotions (And reason to sort those emotions), and previous rational thoughts. Therefore, it is nothing more than subconscious rational disposition acting subtlely on one's thoughts to come up with an answer that is apparently "without using reason". The idea of arriving at knowledge without reason is like arriving at the dock in London without a boat.
About your question : how can one know a rational concept, without having first used it? Could I know the history of Babylon without having researched it? Could I know the Latin word for "pig" without having heard it?No, that like asking can I know physics without knowing science? Of course not, but science principles comes from intuition. You can´t know a rational concept by using it, you don´t gain knowlede by applying concepts, you gain knowledge by understanding concept, by perceiving them.
But how can you examine logic and reason to give it merit without thinking it in the first place? The moment it pops into your brain, you are using reason. There is no moment of "spark" and suddenly the human being uses intuition to arrive at an answer of knowledge. Knowledge begs for reason and understanding. Intuition requires previous knowledge, emotions, and experience. Therefore, you cannot use intuition to find or perceive knowledge OF reason.
Logic cannot prove their own concepts, so how do you say they are know to you ? If it is possible in someway to know them, you need intuition.
Correction: it is impossible to examine and find or perceive knowledge of reason without using reason. So the idea of this step of intuition is moot. By definition, intuition requires a foundation of previous experiences, that must be sorted out. How? By reason.
Gödel demonstrated that. You have two choices :1- Say that intuition brings you the knowledge of logic.
2- Say that logic is not justified. It proves itself to be inconsistent, and self contradictory or it is imcomplete, in the sense it does not give all solutions. By this interpretation you are saying that there is things that logic does not answer. You are implying the existence of a reality that is beyond logic, and therefore you are agreeing with some spiritualistic perspectives.
Gödel fails to realize something: even when he tries to discredit reason, he is using reason. How can he invalidate the very concept of learning and knowledge by using it? He is in contradiction himself. Reason IS how we perceive knowledge. It is. It is irreducible. You cannot stuff a term in before reason and claim it to be fact, like you are trying to do. You cannot argue semantics with the definitions that benefit your stance. If you say "A is A", you have embraced logic. And only the completely irrational cannot grasp the concept of A is A. Therefore, logic DOES exist, and intuitionism is bullshit.