Selina

AB Philosophy (Pre-Law) 1

On Insight, a study of human understanding

Abstract:

Insight is the known in the happening and the happening when we are ‘knowing’. Insight is both
an activity and knowledge in which it has three levels: experience (presentation), understanding
(intelligence), and judgment (reflection, rationality). In this paper, I shall argue that insight is a
fundamental structure of inquiry that is present in all thinking people in all forms of endeavor,
which is supported by the arguments: insight as conscious and exhibiting intentionality, insight
encompassing three levels of process, and insight as not a type of intuition. By acknowledging
this innate capability, one will be able to nurture the self, embark on a self-journey towards
progress, and become more rational. Through this, one will have an understanding of what it
means to understand and utilize it well. This will also serve as a guide for self-reflection and the
formulation of judgments in order to avoid oversights (bad insights that deviate one from
progress).
Thesis:
What is happening when we are 'knowing', and what is known when that is happening? Lonergan
posits that insight is the process of knowing and becoming aware of what is happening. I shall
now argue that insight is a fundamental structure of inquiry in all thinking people, encompassing
all endeavors in support of Lonergan’s philosophy of insight, a study of human understanding.
Lonergan’s insight is best supported by the following statements; Insight involves three levels:
experience, understanding, and judgment. It is only in the second and third level that insight
emerges. By understanding this innate ability, one can embark on a journey of intellectual
progress and avoid false ideas that may lead to intellectual decline.

Supporting point 1:
Insight is both an activity and knowledge and is constitutive of the process of learning, which
essentially has two features: consciousness and intentionality. When we are in the process of
knowing, we are in a conscious state, and, under such circumstances, we exhibit intentionality
(Picard, 2003). Insight as an activity is "the act of understanding operating on experience; it is
the act of organizing and constructive intelligence" (Walczak, 2016). As an act, it exists in all
forms of human activity, mentally and physically. As mental activity, it fills the role of a
constitutive factor in the structure of the process of learning, and as physical activity, it occurs
within various patterns of related events. Insight as knowledge is concerned with the argument
that humans are both material and spiritual: “material intelligibility that is understood and the
spiritual intelligibility that is understanding,", which means we are capable of discovering the
truth and making correct judgments, which, according to Lonergan, is "the absence of all
distinctions between the knowing and the known being."

Supporting point 2:
In INSIGHT, Lonergan explains that cognition is not the same as intuition, as it consists of three
interrelated sets of operations: experience (presentations), understanding (intelligence), and
judgment (reflection, rationality). Experience provides the information needed to ask questions,
but it is not a neutral stream. Different patterns of experience lead to different questions and
insights. Understanding is the second stage of human cognition, where insight is more than just
understanding data (Picard, 2003). It involves grasping the immanent intelligibility (self-
correcting, assumes the possibility of correcting mistaken insights and getting correct insights)
integral in data, leading to the formulation of a hypothesis (Walczak, 2016). However, our
theories may be off, and judgment is necessary. Reflective questions, which begin with "Is it
so?", receive a "yes" or "no" response. To answer reflective questions, we look for the virtually
unconditioned (correctness of insight), which is necessary and devoid of conditions. This
condition may not be present at all times but has been met. Understanding the conditions of
something and realizing they are met allows us to respond "yes" to our reflective questions.

Supporting point 3:
Lonergan argued that insight and intuition are distinct concepts, although their definitions are
similar in English. In his view, insight is not a direct experience, but rather a form of
understanding and reflection. It manipulates data intercepted from reality, ordering it
quantitatively and establishing connections, unlike intuition, which is based on experience.
According to Franklin (1983), “not all ability to cope with data is understanding; people may
have swift and sure mental reactions to situations which they at least do not consciously

2
understand." It is based on a person's mental understanding of the general; it includes concepts
like comprehensibility, identity, difference, frequency, regularities, etc. Since insight is not a type
of statement or judgment—i.e., an intuitive, directly justified, self-evident, fundamental
statement or judgment—Lonergan does not consider it to be a type of propositional knowledge.
The most important component of the level, judgment, only appears as the final stage of the final
(third) level of the knowing process. While insights appear earlier in the second and third levels
of knowing (i.e., the levels of intelligence and reflection), judging is the final step in the entire
knowing process. That is why insight resides at the second and third levels. Understanding a
subject requires experiencing and grasping it, not just experiencing. However, without
experience, intellectual operations are impossible.

Objection to point 1:
Intuition can be identified as both an activity and knowledge, as it exhibits consciousness and
intentionality. The source of intuition can be conscious experiences, conscious reasoning, or a
combination of the two. It is possible that intuitions resulting from conscious reasoning can be
reliable guides to truth (Koksvik, 2013). While some intuitions are the result of conscious
thought, others are not. The act of intuition could be related to inference or “inductive leap” from
specific data to generalizations, a process that can be done quickly without paying attention to
every piece of information being analyzed (and is therefore sometimes thought to be
unconscious), but that does allow for conscious investigation (Conners, 1990). In other words,
intuition develops into a mental activity that grasps concepts and interprets them. Old intuitions
may vanish from a man's mind, and new ones may appear; these changes are likely the result of
philosophical reflection and getting to know the opinions of other thinkers. (Shearman, 1906).
Therefore, intuition is also a form of knowledge.

Objection to point 2:
Although intuition does not undergo a process like insight, it is a source for creative inspiration
and an explanation for how the creator obtains a solution to a problem, which operates in two
categories. According to Conners (1990), intuition can be categorized into two main types:
intuition as inference and classical intuition. Intuition as inference involves an inductive leap
(using specific observations as a basis for a general conclusion) from specific data to
generalizations, often unconscious but requiring conscious investigation. Classical intuition, on
the other hand, arises without prior knowledge or reasoning and focuses on mystical knowledge
of God or essences. Intuition is considered a superior means to truth and reason and the only path
to absolute truth (Conners, 1990). Classical intuition arises as a form of immediate knowledge
that, although not understandable rationally, is still superior to rationality because rationality is
directed toward the known, while intuition is directed toward the unknown (Conners, 1990).

Objection to point 3:
Finally, intuition is also based on understanding and not just experiencing; it is the development
of a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is essentially the awareness that two or more concepts
that are already present in the mind are related in some way. It is an unexpected relational vision.
"Sudden" because this quality is always connected to the perception of a relationship
(experience). After a brief moment of reflection, the relationship appears without any
introductions or justifications, and we feel that this curious suddenness is somehow to blame for
our inability to articulate the arguments supporting the relationship's truth (Anderson, 1926).

3
However, the reach of intuition is not limited by our capacity to visualize the subject matter but
by our capacity to understand or intellectualize (Chudnoff, 2014).
Answer to Objection 1:
Insight is conscious and exhibits intentionality, while the consciousness present in intuition is
unsure, meaning that not every intuition can be reliable in terms of problem solving; it is only a
ground of knowledge if it is reliable (Chudnoff, 2014). The infallibility (self-evident and certain)
and suddenness of intuition make it questionable. Insight does not come out of the blue; it
follows a question as the answer to a question, and it brings together and integrates elements in
the data of experience (Picard, 2003). Insight does not use specific observations to create a
general conclusion, unlike intuition, with its inductive leap characteristic. Insight is fallible in
nature, which means that it is a continuous consultation of the self in order to attain the truth and
not just use limited observations to imply what the truth is. Another thing is that insight is not
quick and gives thorough reflection and judgment over the presentation (experience), and so its
certainty and suitability to the problem are more accurate than that of intuition (Walczak, 2016).
Through further questions, insight becomes invulnerable (certain); the invulnerability of insight
is only present when there are no further questions that need to be proved. Through this process,
insight does not disappear from one’s mind (unlike intuition, which may vanish from one’s mind
after new ones appear); rather, the initial insights are modified, leading to further insights that are
certain; in short, it is a constant buildup of knowledge (Walczak, 2016).

Answer to Objection 2:
The 2 categories of intuition (Inference and Classical) contradict the statement “…it is a source
for creative inspiration and an explanation for how the creator obtains a solution to a problem
(Conners, 1990)” through the following points:

1. Intuition as an inference is not reliable in terms of creating solutions to problems,

2. Classical intuition places less emphasis on immediate reasoning and more emphasis
on mystical knowledge. On the other hand, insight is mediated (process of discovery
and learning) and indirect. Since direct insight on its own does not yet constitute
knowledge, its indirect and mediate nature does not ensure that one will have direct
contact with reality, as represented by intuitive knowledge. Through subsequent
cognitive processes and, ultimately, reflective insight and judgment, it transforms into
knowledge at the level of reflection and judgment (Walczak, 2016). In this way, the
knowledge is more certain because it goes through an extensive process of question
after question (more structured), revealing the unknown and enhancing the known.

Answer to Objection 3:
Intuition is an ambiguous notion, some of it may relate to insight and some of it do not, and in
Lonergan’s notion of insight, intuition is different from insight, with respect to its content.
Intuition being present at the level of experience, insight only emerges at the level of
understanding and judgment (Walczak, 2016). The suddenness of intuition does not guarantee a
correct understanding or judgment upon the presentation, Franklin (1983) states that, “not all

4
ability to cope with data is understanding; people may have swift and sure mental reactions to
situations which they at least do not consciously understand." Thus, intuition is not reliable all
the time.

Insight 1:
The call to pay attention to our acts of insight lies at the heart of Lonergan's philosophy. The best
way to sum up insight is that it "transforms you quite suddenly from being stupid to being
brilliant" (Picard, 2003). In finding a solution to a problem, there are certain factors that we must
consider: our consciousness, our intention, our understanding, and our judgment. Without these
factors, one can gain bad insights or oversights. Oversights are insights that are the product of
faulty judgments and a half-baked understanding of the presentation (experience). Oversights are
sometimes a product of our intentions if we intend something else that corrupts our nature.
Lonergan warns of the possibility of oversights, considering our nature as human beings. When
one indulges in oversights, there is a great possibility of flight from progress, which is not the
goal of insight. As much as possible, we should take advantage of the fallibility of insight (bound
to revision). Like a mathematical equation, insight is a process we can always go back to if ever
we commit a mistake until we get the right answer or the truth (Walczak, 2016).

Insight 2:
In insight, there are certain things we must practice;

1. Avoid using specific observations to produce a general conclusion (inductive leap).

It is important that we do not rush our quest for knowledge and gain an in-depth understanding
on what it is to understand. Understanding arises when the "state of wonder" Aristotle stated
"leads to the formation of images that simplify the sensitive data, that throw it into schematic
constellations digestible for limited human understanding" through insights. Without experience,
there can be no operations on the intellectual level, because there would be nothing to operate on.
However, experience plus our attempts to grasp it may constitute thinking, but "thinking isn't the
same as knowing" (Nordquest, 1994).

Insight 3:
Experience should not be the only thing that we must rely on when we are learning. Learning
takes quite a lot of time and process, and insight offers us a structured process that is reliable and
present in all thinking individuals encompassing all endeavors. Understanding the relationship
between the ruling and the supporting evidence is insight. It enables one to determine whether
the proof is adequate to support the judgment (or statement). However, insight by itself cannot
provide that proof (Walczak, 2016). By formulating our experience into a higher level, we gain
better understanding of it in different angles and conclude better judgments that are beneficial for
us in the right possible manner. Since coping with the data alone is not considered an
understanding, it can just be our swift mental reaction to the experience without having
consciousness of it (Franklin, 1983), we must put it in our system that consciousness is a

5
requirement in order to develop that experience into a higher level of process, thus, attaining
knowledge and gaining new understanding.

6
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Insight helps one to develop the self and become more aware of what is happening
when one is knowing and what is the known in the happening. We get many half-baked ideas,
our insights are "a dime a dozen," we create many wrong theories. As Lonergan reasons, "to omit
judgment is quite literally silly: it is only by judgment that there emerges a distinction between
fact and fiction, logic and sophistry, philosophy and myth, history and legend, astronomy and
astrology, chemistry” (Nordquest, 1994). To fully understand understanding is to know how it
functions, and insight provides us a more digestible way into the process of learning,
encompassing three levels; experience, understanding, judgment in which one can always go
back into the process to attain the correct answer. The fallibility of Insight allows one to grow
and be involved in a critical journey of question upon question, modifying previous insights and
gaining new thoughts.

Personal Application 1:
In making decisions, I will further evaluate my intention in taking such action because there are
certain judgments that lead me astray from self-development. Our intention matters in our every
decision because it will either contribute to nurturing our soul or corrupt it. In this notion of
Lonergan’s philosophy, avoiding oversights and cultivating more insights in order to
develop a deeper understanding of what it really means to understand. Insight, as a constant
consultation of the self, provides more room for improvement as a means of developing.

Personal Application 2:
Providing general conclusions from a specific observation will not help us in formulating our
decisions because there are specific observations that can be identified as an isolated case and
cannot be a representative of the whole. In this sense, we must resort to a more structured
process of attaining answers to our problems. In this way, we can assure that the way we
formulate our answers undergoes a thorough investigation in order to avoid miscalculations.
Although it has been stated over and over again that we should not rely solely on experience,
without experience or the data presented, there wouldn’t be anything we could operate on, and
so, in order to make use of these data’s, one must analyze thoroughly. Through this structured
understanding, we will be able to formulate judgments that answer our question.

Personal Application 3: Learning takes time, something that could not spur out of suddenness.
Although human as I am, the urge to learn everything all in a single blow is what I’ve always
wanted, however, that will deprive me of the process of discovery and learning that is constituted
in insight, everything has its own time especially when it comes to our own reflections and
reasoning about our environment and the decisions we’ve made. We need to immerse ourself
with our experience and understand it in different angles to provide a correct judgment.

7
References:
Anderson, F. (1926). Intuition. The Journal of Philosophy Inc., 23(14), 365–367. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2013962
Chudnoff. (2014). Is Intuition Based On Understanding? International Phenomenological
Society-Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1), 42–67. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24672979
Conners, P. (1990). The history of intuition and its role in the composing process. Rhetoric
Society Quarterly, 20(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949009390871
Franklin, R. L. (1983). On Understanding. International Phenomenological Society, 43(3), 307–
328. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2107340
Koksvik, O. (2013). INTUITION AND CONSCIOUS REASONING. The Philosophical
Quarterly, 63(253), 709–715. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/24672573
Lonergan, B. (1970b). Insight: a study of Human understanding. Retrieved from
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA17187599
Nordquest, D. A. (1994). Lonergan’s Cognitional Theory: Toward A Critical Human Science.
Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame Du Lac on Behalf of
Review of Politics, 56(1), 71–99. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407568
Picard, C. (2003). Learning about learning: The value of ?insight? Conflict Resolution Quarterly,
20(4), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.41
Schwandt, T. A. (2002). On Understanding Understanding. Peter Lang AG, 211, 77–91.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42978003
Shearman, A. T. (1907). Intuition. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 7, 158–197. Retrieved
from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4543749
Walczak, M. (2016). Intuition and insight. The analysis of their selected features with reference
to Bernard Lonergan position. Analiza I Egzystencja, 34, 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2016.34-02