It is often supposed that linguistic, conceptual and, perhaps, other kinds of intuitions are one of the most important tools used to test theories in analytical philosophy. On this view, intuitions thought to be rich enough to be applicable to all the data the philosopher has used in formulating and testing her theory; but specific enough to enable one to choose between competing theories; and transparent enough to be clearly relevant for the theory. In the light of certain examples from epistemology and philosophy of language, it is claimed here that these requirements are not met. Consequently, evaluation of philosophical theories on the basis of intuitions leads to unreliable and problematic results., Marián Zouhar., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Marián Zouhar in his article “Evidencia v analytickej filozofii” (“Self-Evidence in Analytical Philosophy”), published in the pages of this journal (Filosofický časopis, 62, 2014, No. 3, p. 323-375), points to reasons why we might call into doubt the self-evident status of intuitions in (analytical) philosophy. In this contribution I distinguish between diff erent theses that are the subject of M. Zouhar’s arguments. Since there are mutually non-equivalent claims at stake, it is only natural that arguments concerning them require the application of non-identical assumptions (premises). I attempt to show that (whether explicitly or implicitly) the assumptions of several arguments which M. Zouhar draws upon, are themselves problematic, or in certain cases require more clarification. Finally I point to the fact that the criteria of adequate richness, precision and transparency, which M. Zouhar applies to intuitions, are clearly not met by other kinds of givens which are standardly considered self-evident in philosophy and the methodology of science.