In fact, as suggested above, the Prolegomena to Ethics is in many respects essentially intuitional in spirit, though its intuitionism is of a modern discreetly attenuated sort.
In other words, the indispensable precondition of dialectical defense of intuitionism is an intellectualism of the “vicious” type.
I am recording a protest against false reification of what is abstract, the very fault which intuitionism is insistent to lay to the charge of intellectualism.
If intuitionism were to conceptualize intuition and intellect, instead of reifying them, it could not appropriate validity to either mode of consciousness and deny it to another.
That the real has the aspects eulogistically favored by intuitionism is beyond question.
By the same right, the intellectualist may denounce intuitionism as equally “vicious.
In this, as in all its argument, intuitionismarguing is inevitably intuitionism contradicting itself.
For my part, I find, more or less developed, the seeds of intuitionism in most of the great philosophic doctrines, although the philosophers have always tried to convert their intuition into dialectic.
The names voluntarism, intuitionism and rationalism have been applied to philosophies whose method is one or other of the three outlined above.
Intuitionism has no way of guaranteeing its beliefs.
Dewey's criticism of intuitionism scarcely does justice to that method, whatever may be its inherent weakness.
The three phases of Intuitionism just described may be treated as three stages in the formal development of Intuitive Morality: we may term them respectively Perceptional, Dogmatic, and Philosophical.
Nevertheless, it seems to me undeniable that the practical affinity between Utilitarianism and Intuitionism is really much greater than that between the two forms of Hedonism.
We find him quoted with approval by Clarke, who is commonly taken to represent Intuitionism in an extreme form.
And even when further defined Egoistic Hedonism, it is still imperfectly distinguishable from Intuitionism if quality of pleasures is admitted as a consideration distinct from and overruling quantity.
We find it expressly admitted by leading representatives both of Intuitionism and of that Universalistic Hedonism to which I propose to restrict the name of Utilitarianism.
The theory of evolution transforms intuitionism by the way in which it connects the individual with the race.
It attempts thus to supplant both egoism and intuitionism by the same doctrine of the organic union between individuals.
Thus, Perceptional Intuitionism gives place to what has been called Dogmatic Intuitionism--to the doctrine that certain general moral rules can be immediately perceived to be valid.
If intuitionism in all its forms is to be rejected, it seems as though it must be done upon some other ground than an appeal to evolution.
We have seen above, that perceptional intuitionism tends to pass over into dogmatic intuitionism of some sort, even in the case of minds little developed.
Nor does he ever seem inclined to break with intuitionism completely.
It may be pointed out that such considerations as the above constitute an argument to prove the value of moral intuitions, and not one to prove the value of intuitionism as an ethical theory.
Perceptional Intuitionism falls back upon the analogy of perception in general.
That moral intuitions are indispensable may be freely admitted even by one who demurs to the doctrine that intuitionism in some one of its forms may be accepted as a satisfactory theory of morals.
As a form ofintuitionism the doctrine of following.
Perceptional Intuitionism ignores the fact that consciences may sometimes disagree, and that there may be a choice in consciences.
Nor does he leave all difficulties behind him, who abandons Dogmatic Intuitionismand takes refuge in Philosophical.
Forms of intuitionism have been conveniently classified as Perceptional, Dogmatic and Philosophical.
