conceptual

What happened in the debate over the intuitive nature of, for example, fifth postulate? They did not think they were providing reasons for its acceptance as an axiom, they were not trying to argue that the axiom was intuitive – that would be viciously self-defeating (if it needs to be argued for, then it is not intuitive). But if not that, what was the debate about? As far as I understand Michael Gilbert, according to him, it was primarily about whether to accept the axiom, and not about whether it was intuitive or not; just as everyday logical arguments are primarily about whether to accept a conclusion and not whether it is true or not. Thus, just as a good (valid?) logical argument is one where the (truth of) the conclusion is properly backed on (the truth of) the premises, in a good (valid?) so-called kisceral argument the intuitive nature of the conclusion is properly backed on the premises, if we want to talk like that. Yet, the rules of logical argumentation be different from th...