As far as I can tell virtually all academic philosophy bottoms out at some kind of intuition jousting. In each philosophical sub-field, no matter what axioms you accept common sense is going to suffer some damage, and people differ on where they’d least mind to take the hit. And there doesn’t seem to be another means to choose among the most foundational premises on which people’s models are built.
I predict nothing will stop people from intuition jousting except a more objective, or dialectically persuasive, way to answer philosophical questions.
“It also exists amongst academic philosophers”
As far as I can tell virtually all academic philosophy bottoms out at some kind of intuition jousting. In each philosophical sub-field, no matter what axioms you accept common sense is going to suffer some damage, and people differ on where they’d least mind to take the hit. And there doesn’t seem to be another means to choose among the most foundational premises on which people’s models are built.
I predict nothing will stop people from intuition jousting except a more objective, or dialectically persuasive, way to answer philosophical questions.
See my answer to Michelle below where I try to clarify what I mean.