Merits of Intuition Over Reasoning

Merits of Intuition Over Reasoning

As a species with no decided physical advantages, the human being has nonetheless manages to remove itself from the food chain and exert dominion over natural forces. Mankind has risen to this position of supremacy not through superior size or strength, but by effectively fusing innate animal instincts with a unique faculty for intellectual reasoning and logical thinking. Philosophers from Immanuel Kant in the 18th century to modern cognitive psychologists today have long debated the merits of intuitive decision making and deductive reasoning. Proponents of following logical directives have consistently argued that expanded cranial capacity, increased brain size, and analytical abilities represent the human equivalent of wings or claws, in that they have been produced by millions of years of evolution and adaptation. Similarly, advocates of intuitive thinking postulate that phenomena like "gut instinct," premonition, and other naturally occurring feelings are derived from a uniquely human ability to translate intrinsic knowledge into instantaneous action. After reading the preceding summary of this debate, which concludes that "if we wish to achieve individuality, to express our real inner self, the part of us that is unconditioned by others, we should follow our feelings and intuitions instead of our thoughts," it becomes apparent that further study of the divide between intuition and reason is warranted if an objective determination of validity is to be made.

In one of the most renowned philosophical inquiries on the gulf between feeling and logic, Critique of Pure Reason, Kant observes that "if intuition must conform to the constitution of the objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter a priori; but if the object (as object of the senses) must conform to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility." This distinction is important to consider in the modern context, because one of the chief arguments put forth by supporters of intuition is that immediate action is often required. The recent rash of unexpected emergencies to rattle the nation, from the Boston Marathon Bombings to the Oklahoma City Tornado, has demonstrated the power of instinctive action in times of crisis, as onlookers and passersby have sprung into action at a moment's notice, caring for the wounded, administering medical assistance, and managing recovery efforts. While these widely publicized incidences of catastrophe causing the human instinct to intuitively make sound decisions are indeed convincing, it is important to remember the often overlooked role that logic and reasoning also play in such endeavors. When a person witnesses an explosion and immediately acts to tourniquet a victim's wounded limb, the action may appear to be purely instinctual, but in reality, the human brain's immense capacity for logical thought has provided the framework for these actions to be undertaken. Throughout this person's life, the fundamental knowledge of blood loss and its associated risks, impromptu tourniquet techniques, and other skills have been absorbed and retained by the brain, with seemingly instinctual actions serving simply as the manifestation of this subconscious process of applied reasoning. According to the Intuitive Compass: Why the Best Decisions Balance Reason and Instinct, a comprehensive review of the cognitive processes involved in both intuition and logic, the most effective decision making involved an intricate balance between both aspects of the human mind. Although the importance of instinct to human survival cannot be understated, the role of reasoning in actualizing these instincts has increasingly been found to be the driving engine of our species' most successfully adaptive behaviors and actions.