Logic And Intuition

Whether the intuition is about morality, the external world, other minds, God's nature, or any other issue, intuition is only what appears to be true within a being's subjective perception.  To have intuition, the conscious self has to exist, and this is a logical fact.  It is also a logical fact that intuition proves nothing more than that one is immediately experiencing an intuition.  Having a strong, spontaneous impression that theft (or anything else) is evil, that God exists, or that another person is feeling a given emotion is nothing more than having a perception.  The existence of the perception itself within one's mind is utterly verifiable thanks to reason and introspection, but logic dictates truth, possibility, and knowledge rather than perception.

Many people, though the issue might vary, do profess to believe things on intuition instead of due to logical necessity.  Even if they do not verbally recognize it as such, this is all that beliefs rooted in conscience, mysticism, and so on amount to.  They are assumptions.  Some people I have spoken with alternatively promoted an even greater error: they said they thought logic itself only "seems" to be true to individual people or to human minds as a whole.  This would if correct mean logic is just a mental construct or a subjective intuition.  According to this self-contradictory philosophy, which can only be false because it contradicts reason and reason cannot be false, there is no necessity in anything.

This would entail that it is true that there is no truth, which cannot be the case because then truth is still in existence as abstract logical necessity.  People who believe otherwise would dismiss that some things follow by necessity from others, which means that, if true, it would follow necessarily from the nature of reality that logical necessity is false!  Logical axioms like these are true in themselves.  Only reason alone is and can be true independent of all else.  The only way to believe anything without first recognizing the inherent truth and thus absolute certainty of logical axioms is to assume, and all non-rationalists can only believe anything at all either because they start with intuition of one kind or another or an idea assumed even without intuition "pointing" to it, a more asinine type of assumption.

Whereas one person's meaningless, subjective intuition might make it seem as if killing a person is always immoral, another person's intuition might make it seem as if killing other humans is morally good, mandatory even.  Whether the latter's moral intuition (conscience) yields the perception that all or just some other people should be killed is another layer of arbitrary subjectivity.  However, in any of these or other cases, and irrespective of unity or divergence of intuition across multiple people, it is logically true that feeling or otherwise perceiving things alone proves nothing except that the experience mentally exists.  With the morality examples, nothing about correspondence to objective morality is required by someone having "moral experience".  Objective morality is possible because it has nothing to do with subjective perceptions one way or another, but conscience absolutely cannot prove or even provide evidence for morality since it is just a kind of emotion or intuition!

It is true that each person has immediate access to their own intuition or lack of it through introspection, and everyone can grasp the necessary truths of reason that dictate what must and must not be the case regarding any matter, at least regarding the likes of logical possibility and what does not follow if a given thing is true.  No one has to make assumptions or, if they have done so, remain enslaved to them.  No one needs external prompting from other people to discover, understand, or recall how logical axioms are intrinsically true and how nothing can be known from assumptions.  Intuition, which is internal to a being's consciousness, is also not necessary to prompt someone to begin recognizing the necessary truths of reason.

The irony is that many people believe in what is ultimately some aspect of reason on the basis of assumptions, perhaps rooted in mere intuition.  For instance, someone might think contradictions between two things mean one of them cannot be true, but if they never specifically discovered the self-necessity and resulting epistemological self-evidence of logical axioms without making assumptions, they are just slaves to intuition or preference.  They could not possibly be rational for this even though contradiction does mean something cannot be true.  Contradictory things cannot be true at once, because then non-contradiction would still be true: contradictions being part of reality would by necessity exclude the inherent falsity of contradictions since the two ideas are conceptually incompatible by logical necessity.  Someone who is not a rationalist and simply is struck by a perception in the moment that something genuinely contradictory is false is still just assuming, though logic is not false and can be known apart from assumptions.

Logic is not intuition, which only exists within minds; it is necessary truth that cannot be false no matter what.  Intuition proves only that intuition exists, and even then, no one can know this unless they look to pure reason without making any assumption about the matter.