Intuitive Knowledge vs Knowledge Based on Reason
Intuitive knowledge is a natural human process. Intuition allows us to draw conclusions without a conscious train of thought. It's more natural for some people than others, but intuition is used by everyone. Although intuition isn't fully understood, and may just be a generalization of a collection of thought processes which elude human understanding, its main feature is drawing a conclusion based on a “hunch”.
When discussing the use of intuitive knowledge, personal experience should suffice for an answer. Intuition is often applied in situations where we don't have much information. An example of this is a social situation in which the feeling of being lied to cannot be shaken. Because one will not be told that one is being lied to, and there will often not be any evidence to prove that the person is lying, one will not be able to draw a conclusion solely through reason. Subconsciously we may notice subtleties such as abnormal eye movement, posture, or tone of voice, which may lead us to think, without consciously knowing why, that this person is lying. This shows us that intuition is often used in situations with scarce information.
Additionally, another situation where intuition takes center stage, would be in the case of a field in which one has much experience. Even in a subject governed by logical reasoning, such as mathematics, an equation giving a wrong answer will often be spotted by avid mathematics students. Looking at the equation they might quickly get a hunch and make the remark “this does not look right”. Although they do not exactly know why it does not look right, their experience instantly warns them of an error. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that intuitive knowledge is used by experts when working in their field.
Intuitive knowledge, as was previously mentioned, could be explained as unconscious thought. Considering that many human thoughts are based on logical reasoning (using induction and deduction ), intuition could just be the same process on a subconscious level. In stressful situations, where not much time is given for analysis, the subconscious may absorb subtle information which we are not consciously aware of. This string of subconscious information may then be processed, evaluated and linked subconsciously, ultimately appearing in conscious thought when completed. This is what we would call the “hunch”. Under this picture, intuitive knowledge does not contradict knowledge based on reason.
Although just an approximation of human cognitive functions, the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), based on Jungian psychology, makes the distinction between people who are “intuitive”, and people who are “sensing” oriented. The difference between the two is that “sensors” tend to trust their five senses, trusting information which is in the present and tangible. “Intuitives”, on the other hand like to roam in the abstract and theoretical, often making networks of their knowledge. As this is only one of the many takes on human cognitive functions, it gives an alternate view of Intuition. Therefore, conclusion due to “hunches”, could just be the subconscious extraction of useful information from these vast information networks.
To conclude, intuitive knowledge is used for two main purposes: drawing a conclusion with vague information, and quickly analyzing situations and objects related to something a person is very familiar with. As stated above, intuition most likely does not contradict knowledge based on reason, but it merely a quick subconscious process including both logic and experience.
But then again, that's just my intuition.
Visit my Steemit profile for more prose, philosophy essays and tutorials!
If you want to know what I'm up to, or get in contact with me, check out my portfolio.
Jung gave us racial archetyping- intuitive reasoning based on implanted memories that predate history (written history at least). Epistemology, in the attempt to discern whether knowledge exists a priori or a posteriori attempts to bundle ALL people neatly into one or the other categories. Like your article points out, it may not be that simple. Kant also broached the subject with his transcendental aesthetic (where he seems to attempt to argue both sides of the argument at the same time). Good article...certainly a different rubric from which to analyze the problem.
Oh! I wasn't aware of the applicability of Kant's transcendental aesthetic. I'll make sure to read up on that!
Thanks for leaving a comment :)
That's my take on Kant's position. He tries to resolve the issue with the "you're both right" hypothesis. Thank you...upvoted and followed
I find these kinds of posts really hard to... fathom.
Its kinda like having studied "economics" for years in school, and then finding out that it was Keynesian economics, and there are several other schools of economic theory. When you again read a post that is based on ..."expanding" (keynesian) economics you just have to shake your head.
There are entire mental practices for enhancing and strengthening intuition. Entire libraries on where and what intuition is and where it comes from. (investigate muses) There are entire catalogs of higher senses.
But, the one thing intuition can't deal with is rigorous scientific analysis. Intuition is an open/expansive/collective thing. Being forced into a closed environment where they try to break everything down is the undoing of intuition. So, while science is so focused on breaking everything down to understand it (that is actually what science means- scythe - to cut) intuition will eternally be elusive. And most scientists say that is proof that intuition isn't real.
Kinda like carrying a candle around trying to find some dark. Or keeping your eyes covered while seeking for some light.
I don't think that intuitive knowledge is incompatible with science. A lot of the time, it's the intuition that forms the hypothesis in the first place. Like with the discovery of Penecilin. The scientist didn't have to think twice about the mold, but arguably it was his intuition that made him do so.
Of course, just like you say, once you get down to the grit of science intuition gets pushed aside. And I agree that this is a good thing.
But to say that intuition and science are incompatible is going a little too far.
I, in no way believe that science is incompatible with intuition. Without intuition we wouldn't have any new discoveries.
What I was trying to say is that you cannot scientifically study intuition. The constraints that science currently works under, pushes intuition away. Its like a box, that inside the lab is empty, but in a forest it is full of wondrous stuff.
Sorry for misinterpreting your comment there. I definitely agree that science pushes intuition away. But I also think that it's possible to scientifically study intuition. That doesn't mean that it results in a successful study that boils intuition down to its physical/chemical mechanism. But it does mean that we can try to learn about it with controlled experimentation.
I agree with what I think you said.
But, I disagree with you symantically.
Science - from the same root worth as scythe. To cut apart. Or taking apart to understand. Breaking everything down.
There is also putting things together to understand them.
physics and metaphysics are not two separate fields. They are one continuous whole. And when you discard metaphysics, you end up with stupid science that can't understand consciousness or intuition.
Whatever we call the study of things happening in the future, that will be able to study intuition. And, there is already great amounts of detailed study on intuition in mystic traditions like Zen and Buddhism.