This one will be meta-philosophical. One view of philosophy, that of Sellars, is that it should explain how things, in the broadest sense, hang together, in the broadest sense. This seems to me to be neutral as far as the relation between science and philosophy. It also seems to me to be a conception of philosophy that is required to pay attention to intuitions of non-philosophers. For example, it should explain why, if there is no moving ‘now’, there is such a compelling feeling of one. Now, one question I have is when we are allowed to explain away pre-theoretic intuitions and when they can be dismissed. Certainly this kind of philosophy is required to explain why certain intuitions held sway. But, it seems like some intuitions should just be dismissed. Is there a clear distinction between the two sets of intuitions?

Advertisements