A solution to metaphilosophy doesn’t have to lead to a solution to philosophy. Your list of possible characterizations of metaphilosophy isn’t exhaustive. These facts are related: philosophy can also be characterised as “where reduction and empiricism stop working”.
It’s not that philosophers weirdly and unreasonably prefer intuition to empirical facts and mathematical/logical reasoning, it is that those things either don’t go far enough, or are themselves based on intuition.
“Just use empircism” doesn’t work, because philosophy is about interpreting empirical data.
“Just use maths/logic” doesn’t work , because those things are based on axioms justified by intuitive appeal.
“Just use reductionism” doesn’t work , because its not clear what lies at the bottom of the stack, or if anything does. Logic, epistemology and ontology have all been held to be First Philosophy at different times. Logic, epistemology and ontology also seen to interact. Correct ontology depends on direct epistemology..but what minds are capable of knowing depends on ontology. Logic possibly depends on ontology too, since quantum.mechanics arguable challenges traditional bivalent logic.
Philosopher don’t embrace intuitions because they think they are particularly reliable, they have reasoned that they can’t do without them. That is the essence of the Inconvenient Ineradicability of Intuition. An unfounded foundation is what philosophers mean by “intuition
A solution to metaphilosophy doesn’t have to lead to a solution to philosophy. Your list of possible characterizations of metaphilosophy isn’t exhaustive. These facts are related: philosophy can also be characterised as “where reduction and empiricism stop working”.
It’s not that philosophers weirdly and unreasonably prefer intuition to empirical facts and mathematical/logical reasoning, it is that those things either don’t go far enough, or are themselves based on intuition.
“Just use empircism” doesn’t work, because philosophy is about interpreting empirical data.
“Just use maths/logic” doesn’t work , because those things are based on axioms justified by intuitive appeal.
“Just use reductionism” doesn’t work , because its not clear what lies at the bottom of the stack, or if anything does. Logic, epistemology and ontology have all been held to be First Philosophy at different times. Logic, epistemology and ontology also seen to interact. Correct ontology depends on direct epistemology..but what minds are capable of knowing depends on ontology. Logic possibly depends on ontology too, since quantum.mechanics arguable challenges traditional bivalent logic.
Philosopher don’t embrace intuitions because they think they are particularly reliable, they have reasoned that they can’t do without them. That is the essence of the Inconvenient Ineradicability of Intuition. An unfounded foundation is what philosophers mean by “intuition