Pinataen

Det indlysende er altid forkert. Vi behøver ikke at tænke eller se efter.

Hvis nogen alligevel gør det, bliver vi bange, og hvis han insisterer, vrede. Det kan ikke passe.

Hvordan kan nogen få sig selv til at sige sådan noget? Det kan man da ikke.

For de kristne var det indlysende, at Gud var til. At denne ”gud” var et sammenrend af indbyrdes modstridende ideer og så langt som noget fra et universelt princip, betød ingenting.

For Descartes var det indlysende, at han selv var til. For Locke var det indlysende, at al erkendelse kom gennem sanserne.

Det gav Hume problemer. Især, når det gjaldt den mest fundamentale erkendelse af alle.

It is certain that the most ignorant and stupid peasants – nay infants, nay even brute beasts – improve by experience, and learn the qualities of natural objects, by observing the effects which result from them. When a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle, but will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar in its sensible qualities and appearance.

If you assert, therefore, that the understanding of the child is led into this conclusion by any process of argument or ratiocination, I may justly require you to produce that argument, nor have you any pretence to refuse so equitable a demand. You cannot say that the argument is abstruse, and may possibly escape your enquiry; since you confess that it is obvious to the capacity of a mere infant.

If you hesitate, therefore, a moment, or if, after reflection, you produce any intricate or profound argument, you, in a manner, give up the question, and confess that it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. This is the proposition which I intended to enforce in the present section.

If I be right, I pretend not to have made any mighty discovery. And if I be wrong, I must acknowledge myself to be indeed a very backward scholar, since I cannot now discover an argument which, it seems, was perfectly familiar to me long before I was out of my cradle.

Kant mente at løse problemet ved at forudsætte sådanne sandheder som syntetiske a priori – indlysende. At den ufravigelige kausalitet på ingen måde havde været a priori for vore forfædre, gik han let hen over.

De var jo overtroiske! Alle sandheder er intuitive inden for den individuelle konsensus.

Vi ved alle sammen, hvad der er rigtigt og forkert, men om det er forkert i epistemologisk eller etisk henseende, går vi let hen over. Er homoseksualitet normalt?

Javist, hvis vi er fordomsfrie mennesker. Og er vi endnu mere fordomsfrie, kan homoseksuelle mænd føde børn.

Den ægyptiske religion var intuitiv for ægypterne, og den klassiske fysik for den klassiske fysiker. Bevæger vi os uden for den aktuelle konsensus, får vi noget kontraintuitivt, eller med et andet ord: absurd.

For folkeskolelæreren og folkekirkepræsten er verden intuitiv. For en Neutzsky-Wulff er den en pinata.