But in that case we don't know anything empirically, because all statements are analytic.
Which is just intuitively wrong.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:10, archived)

Intuition doesn't always go very far.
We know it well enough to interact quite happily with the world, but I'd argue it's always subjective.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:13, archived)

Intuition is, it seems to me, massively important to philosophy.
Most of what philosophy does is to try to come up with a definition of a thing that is both logically consistent and roughly fits in with our intuition.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:16, archived)

I thought the exact opposite (my first degree was part philosophy).
I never saw any reason to assume that the logical conclusion would coincide with my intuitive beliefs.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:19, archived)

nothing is intuitively anything
again, intuition is just based on a historical pattern of previous experiences driving expectation; it's not really a hardwired genetic expectation that you're born with.
But if we're talking about abstract names of things, like bachelor and cake, then of course they can be analytic. Remember there are elements hypothesized and calculated to exist but never empirically proven to exist, but they still have names and weights and other definitions.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:14, archived)