Description
Book SynopsisThe claim that contemporary analytic philosophers rely extensively on intuitions as evidence is almost universally accepted in current meta-philosophical debates and it figures prominently in our self-understanding as analytic philosophers. No matter what area you happen to work in and what views you happen to hold in those areas, you are likely to think that philosophizing requires constructing cases and making intuitive judgments about those cases. This assumption also underlines the entire experimental philosophy movement: only if philosophers rely on intuitions as evidence are data about non-philosophers'' intuitions of any interest to us. Our alleged reliance on the intuitive makes many philosophers who don''t work on meta-philosophy concerned about their own discipline: they are unsure what intuitions are and whether they can carry the evidential weight we allegedly assign to them. The goal of this book is to argue that this concern is unwarranted since the claim is false: it is
Trade Reviewa wonderfully clear, largely well-argued case against a central assumption of many contemporary metaphilosophers ... I highly recommend it. * Daniel Cohnitz, Disputatio *
engaging and exciting ... Philosophy Without Intutions represents a clear jolt to contemporary metaphilosophical orthodoxy. It is a vivid and powerful call for philosophers to examine their assumptions about philosophy. Anyone interested in the role of intuitions in philosophy or the proper description of contemporary philosophical practice will benefit from studying it. * Jonathan Ichikawa, International Journal for Philosophical Studies *
an excellent contribution to the ongoing debate * Stephen Ingram, Metaphilosophy *
Table of ContentsPART I: THE ARGUMENT FROM 'INTUITION'-TALK; PART II: THE ARGUMENT FROM PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE
