Common sense

[Mariam]

I have attended a meeting not long ago and there was this guy who had this phrase as a ready-made answer for almost any question he was asked:
"Its common sense!"

Personally i think common sense is something prevents people from searching for the truth because the have already made up their minds inro what is true and what is not, and whatever they call a common sense would have to match their own assumptions of the truth.

What the hell is common sense anyways?
According to this guy 2+2=4 is common sense.
Putting your hand in boiling water will get it burned, thats common sense.
Girls talk more then boys, is another case of his common sense.

Well in the first two statements they can be experimented, approved, and be commonly agreed on.
But what if i started teaching kids that 2+2=5 even though its impossible for a someone who is not mentally disturbed to agree on..then it would be commonly know and approved on that this statement is correct.

So is this common sense based on common knowledge, common approval, cause and effect statements, or as in the guys last statement common stereotypes?
In which stage , or how do people form this type of knowledge that would guide their behavior or they way they think in such an unreasonable fashion..probably they'd stat justifying whatever they believe in of fake ideologies in a common sense manner?

[xskater11x]

Common sense really isn't a definite thing, and as you said is based purely on common beliefs. The strict dictionary definition of common sense is something that people agree on commonly or something that they all "sense" in a common way.

So in essence you are correct when asserting that common sense is really based on popular opinion and, in most cases, cause and effect actions, though, someones idea of something that is common sense can presumably be different than another persons in terms of ideology.

[Faux Real]

Personally i think common sense is something prevents people from searching for the truth because the have already made up their minds inro what is true and what is not, and whatever they call a common sense would have to match their own assumptions of the truth.

I agree that the word common sense has been skewed into public thought that certain ideas and processes have a predestined outcome and that allows for predetermined prejudices. It lacks any critical examination of the construct a given variable is affected by. For example religious denominations believe in an afterlife because of a scripture, but they have no evidence at all, so who is to say there is no afterlife and you will end up without conscience and become in a permanent sleep state? What if we are not really alive at all?


What the hell is common sense anyways?

Common sense the "truest" definition should be irreversible and absolute scientific fact recognized by the majority of a certain population (which is very few things or none I believe).


According to this guy 2+2=4 is common sense.

Who is to say that the 2's exist at all? What if they are not real?

Putting your hand in boiling water will get it burned, thats common sense.

What if the person with their hand is asleep while their hand is in the boiling water?

Girls talk more then boys, is another case of his common sense.

Only in "free" societies it seems. Would either sex talk more than the other in a true communist society? Do women talk less in an Islamic-majority state?


So is this common sense based on common knowledge, common approval, cause and effect statements, or as in the guys last statement common stereotypes?


It would seem to me that the word is being used dismiss any argument or critical thought against a certain thing. Common knowledge can be wrong, common approval as well, cause and effect scenarios might not be not always 100%, and stereotypes are usually structurally enforced.


In which stage, or how do people form this type of knowledge that would guide their behavior or they way they think in such an unreasonable fashion..probably they'd stat justifying whatever they believe in of fake ideologies in a common sense manner?

Most people around the world today do, and this is why we live under influence of dogmas and capitalism. :(

[praxicoide]

A recent test done in US universities showed that men speak about the same as women. Apparently, men just seem to listen to less.

Common sense is something that needs to be broken through; it's often the fetishised layer of existance.

[Mariam]

So in essence you are correct when asserting that common sense is really based on popular opinion and, in most cases, cause and effect actions, though, someones idea of something that is common sense can presumably be different than another persons in terms of ideology

But what we think of as common or popularly agreed on is again subject to the non solid definitions of what is good or bad that would define what is commonly approved on.
For example:
I among a minority of -lets say- 10% of a given society see the ideal communism call far as common sense ( its only an example) while another 10% of the same society would find private ownership and would justify the exploitation of worker as common sense in order to make more profits.
Therefore what kind of unanimous approval on any given subject could be formed if each and on (fake)ideological reasons if each would come up with his\her own common sense.


Do women talk less in an Islamic-majority state?


Among other things you've posted this was the weirdest!
It has nothing to do with religion..as even studies among Buddhists showed that it's "commonly" know that women talk more than men..other studies came out in France as i recall stating this as a fact!
I don't think it has to religiously influenced in this case..



It would seem to me that the word is being used dismiss any argument or critical thought against a certain thing. Common knowledge can be wrong, common approval as well, cause and effect scenarios might not be not always 100%, and stereotypes are usually structurally enforced.

True. Just as in the case of that guy. He used the word common sense as an answer to almost any question was being discussed on the table..others when confronted with this phrase tend to accept it as what do they assume to be "common sense"..they take it as a fact while its nothing but an opinion which i believe that was not a result of any kind of critical thinking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The thing with common sense is that no one can tell you what it is; apart from that we have a pretty good handle on it. :rolleyes:

[Faux Real]

Among other things you've posted this was the weirdest!

I get a little carried away at times when philosophizing if anything is really real or I am really alive at all... <_<

It has nothing to do with religion..as even studies among Buddhists showed that it&#39;s "commonly" know that women talk more than men..other studies came out in France as i recall stating this as a fact&#33;
I don&#39;t think it has to religiously influenced in this case..

I admit that mentioning that was a mistake. I don&#39;t know how things are specifically in some countries that give women "less rights" and "freedoms" that make them politcially and socially to men, but I would imagine they don&#39;t have the freedom to openly express themselves as much. The reason I mentioned Islam-majority state was meaning it to be a politically religious law, such as states requiring women to be covered at all times such as in Afghanistan. I shouldn&#39;t have generalized only religious influence, sorry. :P

[Mariam]

No harm done buddy..i guess its one of the misconceptions about the social system of Islamic countries coz it differs a lot differences between what you get to see about Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia than what you might get in Bahrain or Egypt.

[Janus]

So is this common sense based on common knowledge, common approval, cause and effect statements, or as in the guys last statement common stereotypes?
Common sense is generally considered to be what the majority of people would agree on or what they "sense" to be true. As such, it is usually arrived through basic logic/reasoning which is what this person was pointing out here.

[Dimentio]

Common sense in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)

[Dimentio]

A more modern example of the same logics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI)

[Dimentio]

Seriously, everything from randroid objectivists ranting about A=A=Laissez Faíre capitalism to Sudanese peasants forcing another Sudanese peasant to marrying a goat are motivated as examples of "common sense".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:


Common sense is generally considered to be what the majority of people would agree on or what they "sense" to be true. As such, it is usually arrived through basic logic/reasoning which is what this person was pointing out here.

I do not know where you got this from, but I suspect you made it up.

The fact is, and you can do a survey if you like, no one knows what &#39;common sense&#39; is, so it can hardly be common.

Here is what I have written about this elsewhere:


If the word has any clear meaning, it appears to denote an inchoate (but changing) set of beliefs and opinions that most (all?) human beings are supposed possess (whether they are conscious of them or not). But, if this were so, it would imply that these beliefs must have been communicated &#39;telepathically&#39; from individual to individual, one generation and one community to the next, across the planet and down the centuries. How else are we to account for the alleged universality of &#39;commonsense&#39;? At no point in life has a single human being ever been tutored in &#39;commonsense&#39;; no one runs through the list of its canonical ideas at school, at their parents&#39; knee or even behind the bike sheds with their friends. Nobody studies &#39;commonsense&#39; at college, nor do they take tests in it or receive a diploma proving their competence.

Of course, if this is so, we should perhaps stop calling it "common".

Moreover, if &#39;commonsense&#39; is encapsulated in ordinary language, it is remarkably well hidden, for, as noted above, no one seems to be able to list its main precepts. In that case, no society in history could possibly have agreed over what should be included as part of &#39;commonsense&#39;, and what should be left out. Hence, the idea that &#39;commonsense&#39; today is the same as it was ten thousand years ago (or last week), and identical across cultures, if correct, must be one of the best kept secrets in history. If no one ever talks about it and no one knows what it includes, it is no surprise that it&#39;s a complete mystery how it is disseminated within populations, or how one generation passes &#39;commonsense&#39; on to the next.

Is it in the water? Is it genetically encoded?

But if that were the case, we would all possess the same set of &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs; but we do not, apparently. [Or, rather, no one is able to say whether we do or we do not share the same set, since no one is capable of listing the &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs held by everyone -- or indeed anyone -- else.]

Typically, the sorts of beliefs some associate with &#39;commonsense&#39; include ideological, metaphysical, religious, &#39;folk&#39;, mystical and superstitious notions, and the like. But, this list of likely candidates varies according to who is telling the tale.

In that case, one is tempted to say that the idea that there is such a thing as &#39;commonsense&#39; must be a "scientistic folk belief" itself, since it is not based on any clear evidence --, at least none that is not &#39;tainted&#39; with the sorts of ideas many would include in &#39;commonsense&#39;, too.

By that I mean that anyone attempting to show that &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs are accepted by all/most human beings would have to use evidence that was itself &#39;contaminated&#39; with these allegedly &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs: for instance, that there are medium-sized objects in the world called "human beings", that there are such things as colours (so that, for example, claims that human beings believe there are colours is not itself an empty claim), just as there are edges, corners, surfaces and holes, that the words by means of which such ideas are expressed have a meaning, and so on. In short, if this evidence is to make sense to the rest of us (and, indeed, to anyone hoping to sell us this tale), those using it will have to take for granted many &#39;commonsense&#39; ideas.

However, since nobody appears to know which beliefs are on the favoured list, the word itself is something of a misnomer. If &#39;commonsense&#39; had have lived up to its name (at least), we would all be much clearer about its content; it would after all be eminently common.

If &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs were culturally &#39;relative&#39;, each generation would possess a different, or slightly different, set of &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs -- even if there were some overlap. In that case, of course, there would be no such thing as &#39;commonsense&#39;. It would still be a mystery, however, how such beliefs could be passed on if no one knew what they were.

Even so, almost invariably the relationship between &#39;commonsense&#39; and ordinary language is assumed to be reasonably straightforward; indeed, the latter is supposed to contain or express the former. So clear is this link imagined to be, and so universally is it held, that no one (literally no one (&#33;) -- as far as I have been able to ascertain) questions it.

But, while no competent language-user is in much doubt about his or her own language, not a soul seems to be able to say what &#39;commonsense&#39; is. Even if not all of us have a mastery of speech equal to that of its most accomplished practitioners, no one (novice or adept alike) seems to know what &#39;commonsense&#39; is. This is quite remarkable if the two are as intimately connected as we are have been led to believe.

The case for identifying the two is no less questionable, too. As noted above, ordinary language is supposed to contain or to express &#39;commonsense&#39; ideas. However, when pressed to supply details those wishing to lump the two together are often reduced to making a few vague references to things like sunrise, solid objects, colour vision, the possession of two hands, an imprecise collection of psychological or &#39;mental&#39; dispositions and/or &#39;processes&#39;, an assortment of perceptual conundrums, a handful of proverbs and &#39;wise&#39; sayings, a few vague moral notions and political or ideological inanities, and the odd superstition or two.

On the other hand, had more than a moment&#39;s thought been devoted to this pseudo-identity, its absurdity would have been immediately obvious: if ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, it would be impossible to gainsay any of its alleged deliverances in the vernacular.

The plain fact is we can. And easily.

Not only are we able to deny that tables are solid, that the sky is blue, that the earth is flat, round or cucumber-shaped, that NN believes (for most p) that p, that sticks do not bend in water, that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign in Parliament, that water falls off a duck&#39;s back, that Rome was built in a day, that an apple a day will tend to deter a doctor&#39;s visits, that φ-ing is wrong (for any conventional φ), that Capitalism is fair, that human beings are &#39;naturally&#39; selfish, we can do all of these in every known language that possesses the relevant vocabulary. That, of course, is the whole point of the negative particle. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, none of this would be possible.

Admittedly, ordinary language may be used to express the most patent of falsehoods and the most regressive of doctrines, but it cannot itself be affected by "false consciousness" or "ideology" (and not the least because the notion of "false consciousness" is foreign to Marx).

Without doubt, everyday sentences can express all manner of backward, racist, sexist and ideologically-compromised ideas, but this is not the fault of the medium in which these are expressed, any more than it is the fault of, say, a computer if it used to post racist bile on a web page. Ideologically-tainted ideas expressed in ordinary language result either from its misuse or from the employment of specialised terminology borrowed from religious dogma, sexist beliefs, racist theories and superstitious ideas. This is not to suggest that ordinary humans do not, or cannot, speak in such backward ways; but these are dependent on the latter being expressed in ordinary language, but are not dependent on that language itself.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that this defence of ordinary language is not being advanced dogmatically. Every user of the vernacular knows it to be true since they know that for each and every sexist, racist and ideologically-compromised sentence expressible in ordinary language there exists its negation.

This is why socialists can say such things as: "Blacks are not inferior"; "Human beings are not selfish"; "Wages are not fair", "Women are not objects", "Belief in the after-life is baseless" -- and still be understood, even by those still in thrall to such ideas, but who might take an opposite view. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39; -- and if it were ideological (per se), in the way that some imagine -- you just could not say such things. We all know this to be true -- certainly, socialists should know this --, because in our practical discourse we manage to deny such things every day.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

[Hit The North]

Common sense is not something rigid and stationary, but is in continuous transformation, becoming enriched with scientific notions and philosophical opinions that have entered into common circulation. &#39;Common sense&#39; is the folklore of philosophy and always stands midway between folklore proper (folklore as it is normally understood) and the philosophy, science, and economics of the scientists. Common sense creates the folklore of the future, a relatively rigidified phase of popular knowledge in a given time and place.
Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from cultural writings. London (Lawrence & Wishart) 1985, 421

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z&#39;s quote:


Common sense is not something rigid and stationary, but is in continuous transformation, becoming enriched with scientific notions and philosophical opinions that have entered into common circulation. &#39;Common sense&#39; is the folklore of philosophy and always stands midway between folklore proper (folklore as it is normally understood) and the philosophy, science, and economics of the scientists. Common sense creates the folklore of the future, a relatively rigidified phase of popular knowledge in a given time and place.

Well, Gramsci forgot to unclude the data supporting these ambitious claims; no doubt had he been released before he died he have published all the evidence he culled from the extensive survey he carried out while in the slammer.

Perhaps you can fill the gap?

Off you go, make yourself useful for once.

[Hit The North]

Comrades of a more open minded disposition to Rosa, who are nevertheless interested in Gramsci&#39;s ideas on common sense should Click Here (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9189)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Comrades of a more open minded disposition to Rosa, who are nevertheless interested in Gramsci&#39;s ideas on common sense should

And comrades who like to see &#39;scientific&#39; claims backed up with evidence need to ask Z where he, or Gramsci, has put it.

And, as great a socialist as Chris Harman is (the author of the article Z linked to), he too needs to be asked where all his evidence has gone.

[Of course, as any scientist will telll Z: until it is produced, these fine words are merely baseless opinion.]

Now, Z: you are wasting time. You have nigh on 6 billion people to ask about their &#39;common sense&#39; beliefs.

So, stop pratting about here; be off with you.

You can&#39;t act like a spare part all your life...

[Hint; begin with your own.]

[Mariam]

It is impossible to define what is common sense due to the difficulty of defining both what is common and what makes sense&#33;

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 08:20 am


If the word has any clear meaning, it appears to denote an inchoate (but changing) set of beliefs and opinions that most (all?) human beings are supposed possess (whether they are conscious of them or not). But, if this were so, it would imply that these beliefs must have been communicated &#39;telepathically&#39; from individual to individual, one generation and one community to the next, across the planet and down the centuries. How else are we to account for the alleged universality of &#39;commonsense&#39;? At no point in life has a single human being ever been tutored in &#39;commonsense&#39;; no one runs through the list of its canonical ideas at school, at their parents&#39; knee or even behind the bike sheds with their friends. Nobody studies &#39;commonsense&#39; at college, nor do they take tests in it or receive a diploma proving their competence.

Precisely because it is partly an ideology, partly a person&#39;s own assumptions from their practical experience.


Moreover, if &#39;commonsense&#39; is encapsulated in ordinary language, it is remarkably well hidden, for, as noted above, no one seems to be able to list its main precepts. In that case, no society in history could possibly have agreed over what should be included as part of &#39;commonsense&#39;, and what should be left out. Hence, the idea that &#39;commonsense&#39; today is the same as it was ten thousand years ago (or last week), and identical across cultures, if correct, must be one of the best kept secrets in history. If no one ever talks about it and no one knows what it includes,

Who says common sense is equal across time and space? That would be an absurd notion, agreed.



it is no surprise that it&#39;s a complete mystery how it is disseminated within populations, or how one generation passes &#39;commonsense&#39; on to the next.

Could it be perhaps through everyday activity and socialization?


Typically, the sorts of beliefs some associate with &#39;commonsense&#39; include ideological, metaphysical, religious, &#39;folk&#39;, mystical and superstitious notions, and the like. But, this list of likely candidates varies according to who is telling the tale.

In that case, one is tempted to say that the idea that there is such a thing as &#39;commonsense&#39; must be a "scientistic folk belief" itself, since it is not based on any clear evidence --, at least none that is not &#39;tainted&#39; with the sorts of ideas many would include in &#39;commonsense&#39;, too.

I have no problem with this.


By that I mean that anyone attempting to show that &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs are accepted by all/most human beings would have to use evidence that was itself &#39;contaminated&#39; with these allegedly &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs: for instance, that there are medium-sized objects in the world called "human beings", that there are such things as colours (so that, for example, claims that human beings believe there are colours is not itself an empty claim), just as there are edges, corners, surfaces and holes, that the words by means of which such ideas are expressed have a meaning, and so on. In short, if this evidence is to make sense to the rest of us (and, indeed, to anyone hoping to sell us this tale), those using it will have to take for granted many &#39;commonsense&#39; ideas.

However, since nobody appears to know which beliefs are on the favoured list, the word itself is something of a misnomer. If &#39;commonsense&#39; had have lived up to its name (at least), we would all be much clearer about its content; it would after all be eminently common.

Like a semiotic system, which is never exhaustive.


If &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs were culturally &#39;relative&#39;, each generation would possess a different, or slightly different, set of &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs -- even if there were some overlap. In that case, of course, there would be no such thing as &#39;commonsense&#39;. It would still be a mystery, however, how such beliefs could be passed on if no one knew what they were.

Everything is relative. "common sense" does not have to mean shared by absolutely everyone in all points; this is idealist.


Even so, almost invariably the relationship between &#39;commonsense&#39; and ordinary language is assumed to be reasonably straightforward; indeed, the latter is supposed to contain or express the former. So clear is this link imagined to be, and so universally is it held, that no one (literally no one (&#33;) -- as far as I have been able to ascertain) questions it.

The key word here is assumed.


But, while no competent language-user is in much doubt about his or her own language, not a soul seems to be able to say what &#39;commonsense&#39; is. Even if not all of us have a mastery of speech equal to that of its most accomplished practitioners, no one (novice or adept alike) seems to know what &#39;commonsense&#39; is. This is quite remarkable if the two are as intimately connected as we are have been led to believe.

The case for identifying the two is no less questionable, too. As noted above, ordinary language is supposed to contain or to express &#39;commonsense&#39; ideas. However, when pressed to supply details those wishing to lump the two together are often reduced to making a few vague references to things like sunrise, solid objects, colour vision, the possession of two hands, an imprecise collection of psychological or &#39;mental&#39; dispositions and/or &#39;processes&#39;, an assortment of perceptual conundrums, a handful of proverbs and &#39;wise&#39; sayings, a few vague moral notions and political or ideological inanities, and the odd superstition or two.

Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.


On the other hand, had more than a moment&#39;s thought been devoted to this pseudo-identity, its absurdity would have been immediately obvious: if ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, it would be impossible to gainsay any of its alleged deliverances in the vernacular.

The whole point is that we identify such a thing as "common sense" means that it is not identical with language.


Not only are we able to deny that tables are solid, that the sky is blue, that the earth is flat, round or cucumber-shaped, that NN believes (for most p) that p, that sticks do not bend in water, that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign in Parliament, that water falls off a duck&#39;s back, that Rome was built in a day, that an apple a day will tend to deter a doctor&#39;s visits, that φ-ing is wrong (for any conventional φ), that Capitalism is fair, that human beings are &#39;naturally&#39; selfish, we can do all of these in every known language that possesses the relevant vocabulary. That, of course, is the whole point of the negative particle. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, none of this would be possible.

Precisely.


Admittedly, ordinary language may be used to express the most patent of falsehoods and the most regressive of doctrines, but it cannot itself be affected by "false consciousness" or "ideology" (and not the least because the notion of "false consciousness" is foreign to Marx).

Language itself is derived and created by our productive activities. It is not an empty a priori medium, to be simply used by us to send our messages "in it" like fish in water.


Without doubt, everyday sentences can express all manner of backward, racist, sexist and ideologically-compromised ideas, but this is not the fault of the medium in which these are expressed, any more than it is the fault of, say, a computer if it used to post racist bile on a web page. Ideologically-tainted ideas expressed in ordinary language result either from its misuse or from the employment of specialised terminology borrowed from religious dogma, sexist beliefs, racist theories and superstitious ideas. This is not to suggest that ordinary humans do not, or cannot, speak in such backward ways; but these are dependent on the latter being expressed in ordinary language, but are not dependent on that language itself.

Much can be discovered by studying language (and has) and words themselves. Marx himself was ahead of his time analyzing the usage of a word to its fullest implications and to create his own personal vocabulary.


I have no problems with Gramci&#39;s position.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


I have no problems with Gramci&#39;s position.

In that case, either Gramsci was a&#39;god&#39;, or you have located all his evidence.

If the latter is the case, can you post it please?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


Who says common sense is equal across time and space? That would be an absurd notion, agreed.

Well, you will note that I assert nothing of commonsense, and for the reasons I gave.

It could be the same, or different. Or, there might not be any such thing.

Either way, we&#39;d need evidence --, but no one ever never quite seems to get around to posting it.


Could it be perhaps through everyday activity and socialization?

I covered that. Perhaps you missed it.


I have no problem with this.

You need to be careful what you assent to for in the paragraph above this (about which you say you have no problem), I said this:


In that case, one is tempted to say that the idea that there is such a thing as &#39;commonsense&#39; must be a "scientistic folk belief" itself, since it is not based on any clear evidence --, at least none that is not &#39;tainted&#39; with the sorts of ideas many would include in &#39;commonsense&#39;, too.

This has you assenting therefore to the idea that all this talk about commonsense is in effect a scientistic folk belief, without a shred of evidence to support it.

Do you really want to assent to that?


Like a semiotic system, which is never exhaustive.

Once more, so you say, but where is your evidence?


Everything is relative. "common sense" does not have to mean shared by absolutely everyone in all points; this is idealist.

I did not assert this, I merely held it up as one otption that does not work.

And if everything is relative, then by what is your propostion "Everything is relative" conditioned? Or is it the only thing that is not relative?

If so, then that proposition itself is false, and we can ignore it.

If not, then it cannot be about everything, and would thus be false once more.

Either way, we can ignore it.


The key word here is assumed.

Eh? :blink:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

What is?


The whole point is that we identify such a thing as "common sense" means that it is not identical with language.

Well I have to tell you that most philosophers and theorists identify the two.

Hence I was addressing their claims, here.


Language itself is derived and created by our productive activities. It is not an empty a priori medium, to be simply used by us to send our messages "in it" like fish in water.

What makes you think I disagree with this?


Much can be discovered by studying language (and has) and words themselves. Marx himself was ahead of his time analyzing the usage of a word to its fullest implications and to create his own personal vocabulary.

I agree, but I am afraid that since then things have gone down hill rather badly (and I am speaking of all subsequent Marxists who have commented on language -- their theories of language, if we can call them that, have not advanced much beyong the ideas of of John Locke).

However, can I ask you not to intersperse your comments with mine in a huge box like this? It will confuse readers over which are my comments and which yours.

[Hit The North]

It&#39;s not the (inherently relative) content of "common sense" which is important, but its form ("a hotchpotch of differing and sometimes contradictory notions," for instance) and its relation to "good sense" which is, according to Gramsci, inherently coherent and critical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, losing even his tenuous grip on &#39;common sense&#39;:


It&#39;s not the (inherently relative) content of "common sense" which is important, but its form ("a hotchpotch of differing and sometimes contradictory notions," for instance) and its relation to "good sense" which is, according to Gramsci, inherently coherent and critical.

Why so shy?

You must have been able to survey at least three people since you last put your head recklessly over Rosa&#39;s parapet.

And our survey says....

Deafening silence.

Cue tumble weed

Cue Mexican church bell in the distance.

Cue wind whistling through Z&#39;s head...

[Hit The North]

Rosa,

I am merely presenting Gramsci&#39;s notion. I have not claimed to support it.

So cut out the snide remarks. Where I come from a curt FUCK OFF usually suffices.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 11:57 pm





Well, you will note that I assert nothing of commonsense, and for the reasons I gave.

It could be the same, or different. Or, there might not be any such thing.

Either way, we&#39;d need evidence --, but no one ever never quite seems to get around to posting it.

I&#39;m not sure I follow you. "common sense" is a social notion. Hence the point is to study this phenomena, ultimately to find out the processes hiding under this concept. We are not saying that what people think "common sense" is true (people are not what they think of themselves), we are trying to find out why common sense is such a popular concept, and what is behind it. Not saying it is false, like an empiricist, but seeing how this phenomena comes to be.


I covered that. Perhaps you missed it.

I think I did. I&#39;ll check.



You need to be careful what you assent to for in the paragraph above this (about which you say you have no problem), I said this:


In that case, one is tempted to say that the idea that there is such a thing as &#39;commonsense&#39; must be a "scientistic folk belief" itself, since it is not based on any clear evidence --, at least none that is not &#39;tainted&#39; with the sorts of ideas many would include in &#39;commonsense&#39;, too.

This has you assenting therefore to the idea that all this talk about commonsense is in effect a scientistic folk belief, without a shred of evidence to support it.

Do you really want to assent to that?

What is the problem with this? It can be said to be a social belief that passes itself off as authentic based on "self evident" truths that come from everyday practices.


Once more, so you say, but where is your evidence?

Evidence of what? Semiotic systems? These are conceptual tools.


I did not assert this, I merely held it up as one option that does not work.

And if everything is relative, then by what is your propostion "Everything is relative" conditioned? Or is it the only thing that is not relative?

If so, then that proposition itself is false, and we can ignore it.

If not, then it cannot be about everything, and would thus be false once more.

Either way, we can ignore it.

What I meant is that all phenomena are relative. The summation of all phenomena is not a phenomena, and "everything" cannot be divided into phenomena as a pie.


Eh? :blink:


Even so, almost invariably the relationship between &#39;commonsense&#39; and ordinary language is assumed to be reasonably straightforward; indeed, the latter is supposed to contain or express the former. So clear is this link imagined to be, and so universally is it held, that no one (literally no one (&#33;) -- as far as I have been able to ascertain) questions it.




What is?

What you had just said.


Well I have to tell you that most philosophers and theorists identify the two.

I think here is the key point. You are basically addressing these "philosophers and theorists" instead of dealing with the issue at hand, presenting a indefensible position and knocking it down.


What makes you think I disagree with this?


[language] cannot itself be affected by "false consciousness" or "ideology"

Language is affected by ideology from its very creation and circulation. All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.


I agree, but I am afraid that since then things have gone down hill rather badly (and I am speaking of all subsequent Marxists who have commented on language -- their theories of language, if we can call them that, have not advanced much beyong the ideas of of John Locke).

I not familiar with Marxists notions of language, I can&#39;t comment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


I&#39;m not sure I follow you. "common sense" is a social notion. Hence the point is to study this phenomena, ultimately to find out the processes hiding under this concept. We are not saying that what people think "common sense" is true (people are not what they think of themselves), we are trying to find out why common sense is such a popular concept, and what is behind it. Not saying it is false, like an empiricist, but seeing how this phenomena comes to be.

Well, as I pointed out: no one seems to know what it is.

But, everyone has an opinion about it -- based on zero evidence.

If this is a series of scientific claims, then evidence is required.

If none is produced it is just opinion.


I think I did. I&#39;ll check.

Then either you agree, or you can rebut my argjment in some way.


What is the problem with this? It can be said to be a social belief that passes itself off as authentic based on "self evident" truths that come from everyday practices.

You see nothing wrong with accepting as scientific what is in fact a scientistic folk belief?

In that case, you will have no problem accepting dousing and astrology as scientific.


Evidence of what? Semiotic systems? These are conceptual tools.

So are the &#39;concepts&#39; Christians and Capitalists use; the question is, what evidence is there to support them?

If there is none, then they are empty (or the sentences in which they occur are either false or of indeterminate nature), and the beliefs founded on them are mere opinion.


What I meant is that all phenomena are relative.

And how do you know that?


The summation of all phenomena is not a phenomena, and "everything" cannot be divided into phenomena as a pie.

I am not sure how you actually "sum" all phenomena; what do you do? Collect things in a big bag?

And what counts as one phenomenon?

You will need to know, otherwise you might miss one out.

I said this:


What is?

about this:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

And you replied:


What you had just said.

But if you check, I actually said loads of things in the passage you had originally been referring to; it was the "it" that puzzled me.

Which part of "what I had just said" did this "it" refer to?


I think here is the key point. You are basically addressing these "philosophers and theorists" instead of dealing with the issue at hand, presenting a indefensible position and knocking it down.

Well, the &#39;issue in hand&#39; was what I said it was: what these theorists had said.

And, you will, I think, find that they are not alone. Many Marxists connect this with ideology, and then claim that language is ideological.

This was aimed at killing that idea off.

You see, you do it, too:


Language is affected by ideology from its very creation and circulation. All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.

But, in language, as I showed, you can deny any and all ideological beliefs; so language cannot be affected by ideology.

Sure, the use of language can be ideological, but that is where those denials come in. [I am not sure you read my Essay carefully enough; I covered this point.]


All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.

Well I am not too clear how words can have &#39;values&#39; (a hopelessly vague term in itself).

Human beings might have &#39;values&#39;, but not words.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Common sense is a cultural construct, to some certain things might seem good and logical while to others these same things are seen as truly evil and illogical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


Common sense is a cultural construct, to some certain things might seem good and logical while to others these same things are seen as truly evil and illogical.

Well, if you had read the earlier posts, you&#39;d have seen that there is no evidence for this.

To repeat: no one seems to know what this commonly held &#39;concept&#39; actually is.

The common sense about commonsense is not too common.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 01:54 am
AV:


Common sense is a cultural construct, to some certain things might seem good and logical while to others these same things are seen as truly evil and illogical.

Well, if you had read the earlier posts, you&#39;d have seen that there is no evidence for this.

To repeat: no one seems to know what this commonly held &#39;concept&#39; actually is.

The common sense about commonsense is not too common.
There is no proof that its an absolute concept. Im just saying that I believe there is no such thing as a common sense which is universal. There is full proof of that when looking at the moralities, beliefs and motivations of various cultures and societies. However Im not in the mood of searching through thousands of ethnographies just to prove this little point on some internet debate...I might be bored and not ready to sleep...but Im not THAT bored or motivated :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


There is no proof that its an absolute concept. Im just saying that I believe there is no such thing as a common sense which is universal. There is full proof of that when looking at the moralities, beliefs and motivations of various cultures and societies. However Im not in the mood of searching through thousands of ethnographies just to prove this little point on some internet debate...I might be bored and not ready to sleep...but Im not THAT bored or motivated

Who mentioned "absolute"?

And I note than yet another comrade who believes in this baseless &#39;concept&#39; whimps out when it comes to proof.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 02:06 am
AV:


There is no proof that its an absolute concept. Im just saying that I believe there is no such thing as a common sense which is universal. There is full proof of that when looking at the moralities, beliefs and motivations of various cultures and societies. However Im not in the mood of searching through thousands of ethnographies just to prove this little point on some internet debate...I might be bored and not ready to sleep...but Im not THAT bored or motivated

Who mentioned "absolute"?

And I note than yet another comrade who believes in this baseless &#39;concept&#39; whimps out when it comes to proof.
I dont believe in this concept of "common sense" because I dont believe its that "common". Why do I have this feeling that we are talking past each other...hmm perhaps its late and Im not there mentally at the moment :blush:

[praxicoide]

I&#39;m having problems with the quote format, so I&#39;ll bold my reply.



I&#39;m not sure I follow you. "common sense" is a social notion. Hence the point is to study this phenomena, ultimately to find out the processes hiding under this concept. We are not saying that what people think "common sense" is true (people are not what they think of themselves), we are trying to find out why common sense is such a popular concept, and what is behind it. Not saying it is false, like an empiricist, but seeing how this phenomena comes to be.

Well, as I pointed out: no one seems to know what it is.

But, everyone has an opinion about it -- based on zero evidence.

If this is a series of scientific claims, then evidence is required.

If none is produced it is just opinion.

The "evidence" is that large groups of people refer to such a thing as "common sense." The point here is to discover why this is so, and what is referred to when speaking of it. I support the theory that they are referring to beliefs brought by their everyday practice, and are therefore "self evident."

As I already said, social constructs are not simply shown as false, like an empiricist. Marx did not even do this with religion. We know religions claims are false, but we study the why of religion and its claims and theories.




I think I did. I&#39;ll check.

Then either you agree, or you can rebut my argument in some way.

I&#39;ll check.



What is the problem with this? It can be said to be a social belief that passes itself off as authentic based on "self evident" truths that come from everyday practices.

You see nothing wrong with accepting as scientific what is in fact a scientistic folk belief?

In that case, you will have no problem accepting dousing and astrology as scientific.

When did I accept this as scientific. I had no problem with calling it "scientistic folk belief" because (as I already stated) it passes itself off as authentic.



Evidence of what? Semiotic systems? These are conceptual tools.

So are the &#39;concepts&#39; Christians and Capitalists use; the question is, what evidence is there to support them?

If there is none, then they are empty (or the sentences in which they occur are either false or of indeterminate nature), and the beliefs founded on them are mere opinion.


Semantics and semiotics are a whole discipline. There is plenty of evidence that supports it. This doesn&#39;t mean that Sassure or Eco are correct in their results, but that their findings and conceptual tools can be useful.




What I meant is that all phenomena are relative.

And how do you know that?

Show me an "absolute phenomenon"; there is no such thing. All phenomena are such in relation to a certain reference.




The summation of all phenomena is not a phenomena, and "everything" cannot be divided into phenomena as a pie.

I am not sure how you actually "sum" all phenomena; what do you do? Collect things in a big bag?

And what counts as one phenomenon?

You will need to know, otherwise you might miss one out.

Exactly my point. concrete reality is not the "sum" of all phenomena because this is not doable. Reality is constructed.


I said this:


What is?

about this:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

And you replied:


What you had just said.

But if you check, I actually said loads of things in the passage you had originally been referring to; it was the "it" that puzzled me.

Which part of "what I had just said" did this "it" refer to?

What are you referring to here. I would say that this "common sense"



I think here is the key point. You are basically addressing these "philosophers and theorists" instead of dealing with the issue at hand, presenting a indefensible position and knocking it down.

Well, the &#39;issue in hand&#39; was what I said it was: what these theorists had said.

And, you will, I think, find that they are not alone. Many Marxists connect this with ideology, and then claim that language is ideological.

This was aimed at killing that idea off.

Buy you would do that looking at the issue at hand, not at caricatures of what "philosophers and theorists" have said.



Language is affected by ideology from its very creation and circulation. All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.

But, in language, as I showed, you can deny any and all ideological beliefs; so language cannot be affected by ideology.

Sure, the use of language can be ideological, but that is where those denials come in. [I am not sure you read my Essay carefully enough; I covered this point.

And this is where I disagree. Language is not neutral and "then" "used" ideologically. The ideological component in language does not mean that language is reduced to ideology, however.



All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.

Well I am not too clear how words can have &#39;values&#39; (a hopelessly vague term in itself).

Human beings might have &#39;values&#39;, but not words.

words have values to the people that use them. Words divorced from usage become meaningless, so what words "have" is an abstract question.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


The "evidence" is that large groups of people refer to such a thing as "common sense." The point here is to discover why this is so, and what is referred to when speaking of it. I support the theory that they are referring to beliefs brought by their everyday practice, and are therefore "self evident."

Unfortunately, in that Essay (part of which I posted earlier) I had said that I was not questioning the use of the words "common sense" in everyday life; that use is not theoretical, and in no way coincides with the theoretical use to which it is put by philosophers etc. I try to distinguish the two by using "commonsense" to refer to the theoretical &#39;construct&#39;, and "common sense" to refer to the other.

Now, such theorists certainly assert things about the alleged beliefs of others (as you do), but when pressed they go all coy, and the list always varies from asserter to asserter (you can see that in this thread alone), and they invariably fail to give any evidence in suppport of their confused mumblings.

So, it is an opinion, not a fact.


As I already said, social constructs are not simply shown as false, like an empiricist. Marx did not even do this with religion. We know religions claims are false, but we study the why of religion and its claims and theories

No one mentioned empiricism, and I am certainly no empiricist.

But, for something the be a science, it needs evidence. You can thrash about all day for excuses as to why you have none, but all your claims will be dashed against that particular rock until you produce some.

And you are right, religious beliefs make no sense, and Marx did not try to attack it in this way.

In that case, why do you say such beliefs are false?

[Notice I did not use the word &#39;false&#39;, you did.]

What would it be for them to be true, so that we know what you are ruling out?


When did I accept this as scientific. I had no problem with calling it "scientistic folk belief" because (as I already stated) it passes itself off as authentic.

I think then perhaps you do not understand the word &#39;scientistic&#39;; it is a word we use to say that something pretends to be a science, when it isn&#39;t one.

And if you go back to the original quote, the point I was making is that because no one can say what &#39;commonsense&#39; is, and no one offers any evidence to back-up their claims, it is a folk belief among scientists and philosophers, and should be treated as such: bogus.


Semantics and semiotics are a whole discipline. There is plenty of evidence that supports it. This doesn&#39;t mean that Sassure or Eco are correct in their results, but that their findings and conceptual tools can be useful.

I think Saussure&#39;s ideas are worthless. Eco&#39;s I am not familair with, but what little I have read suggests I was right not to read any more.

But even if they weren&#39;t as I say, any claims made about &#39;commonsense&#39;, no matter how brilliant they might seem, will founder on two salient facts:

1) No one seems to know what it refers to. [Indeed, you have yet to say.]

2) No one has any evidence to back up the inconsistent claims they make about it. [We have yet to see your data.]

Even semioticists are not above those minimal scientific requirements if their work (in this area, if there is any) is to be taken as anything other than hot air.


Show me an "absolute phenomenon"; there is no such thing. All phenomena are such in relation to a certain reference

Your claim: all phenomena are relative looked pretty absolute to me.

But, as in the &#39;free will&#39; debate, I reject both terms; neither make sense, so the denial of each is equally nonsensical.


Exactly my point. concrete reality is not the "sum" of all phenomena because this is not doable. Reality is constructed

How do you know reality is "constructed"?

Wouldn&#39;t that claim be &#39;constructed&#39; and hence not real?


What are you referring to here. I would say that this "common sense"

In that case, you think commonsense is this:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

This looks to suffer from its own faults -- in which case it must be &#39;commonsense&#39; and thus not scientific.

But, even if that were not the case, how do you know that this is what &#39;commonsense&#39; is?

If it is a definition, it is not a very good one (since it ropes in many other things -- like the ramblings of drunks). And if it isn&#39;t a defintion, we are still waiting on one.

Is there a typo in here somewhere; I could not figure out what you were trying to say:


Buy you would do that looking at the issue at hand, not at caricatures of what "philosophers and theorists" have said.

However, if you think what I have said is a caricature, you are welcome to improve on it -- but we will need to see something a little more convincing than:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

But, this I could not follow:


And this is where I disagree. Language is not neutral and "then" "used" ideologically. The ideological component in language does not mean that language is reduced to ideology, however.

Well, I am sorry to say, this is as clear as mud.

If it is ideological, we can ignore it.

If it isn&#39;t then it is wrong, and we can ignore it.

Either way...

Of course, you might have meant something else, but that is the best I could make of it.


words have values to the people that use them. Words divorced from usage become meaningless, so what words "have" is an abstract question.

But if words (before they are used) are meaningless, why use them?

This is meaningless: "BuBuBu"; but would you use it to mean something?

Surely we use words the way we do because they mean something.

However, this might be to misrepresent you; after all you did say:


Words divorced from usage become meaningless

I cannot disagree with you on that.

But what worried me about this from earlier:


All words have endless connotations and have axiological values when transmitted.

is that you seem to be attributing to words human intentional states.

In that case, they become the agents, and we the passive instruments.

Or is that to misunderstand you too?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


I dont believe in this concept of "common sense" because I dont believe its that "common". Why do I have this feeling that we are talking past each other...hmm perhaps its late and Im not there mentally at the moment

May be so; get back to me when you are less tired. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Common sence is bourgeois ideology. It is bourgeois ideology&#39;s name in its own terminology.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Common sence is bourgeois ideology. It is bourgeois ideology&#39;s name in its own terminology.

So, the belief that the sun rises is bourgeois, is it?

What about the belief that objects are solid when they are in fact mostly empty space?

All part of the capitalist plot, I assume.

And the belief in colours?

An idea put about by the CIA, no doubt?

[praxicoide]

Unfortunately, in that Essay (part of which I posted earlier) I had said that I was not questioning the use of the words "common sense" in everyday life; that use is not theoretical, and in no way coincides with the theoretical use to which it is put by philosophers etc. I try to distinguish the two by using "commonsense" to refer to the theoretical &#39;construct&#39;, and "common sense" to refer to the other.

The point is not to impose a definition of common sense, but to try to ascertain what is referred to when people speak of "common sense." I think that this is a valid question.


Now, such theorists certainly assert things about the alleged beliefs of others (as you do), but when pressed they go all coy, and the list always varies from asserter to asserter (you can see that in this thread alone), and they invariably fail to give any evidence in support of their confused mumblings.

So, it is an opinion, not a fact.
What is a fact is that large number of people use this concept, so a study of why this is so is not "confused mumbling" although because we are dealing with the social, then what we do is build models that more closely explain the evidence. This is not perfect, and it is not a law or a neat definition.


No one mentioned empiricism, and I am certainly no empiricist.

I didn&#39;t say you were.


But, for something the be a science, it needs evidence. You can thrash about all day for excuses as to why you have none, but all your claims will be dashed against that particular rock until you produce some.

I am not going to write a book on "common sense" with sociological studies to back it up. This doesn&#39;t mean that there is no evidence.

We could say that statements such as "one cannot be in two places at the same time," "what goes up, must come down" or many others, like the examples you provided, are usually referred to as "common sense." I venture to say that this is because they seem to be self evident, true without any need for verification, based on their everyday practice. Often, science will find out that a commonly held notion is not true, therefore going against "common sense" (such as heavier objects falling faster).


And you are right, religious beliefs make no sense, and Marx did not try to attack it in this way.

In that case, why do you say such beliefs are false?

[Notice I did not use the word &#39;false&#39;, you did.]

What would it be for them to be true, so that we know what you are ruling out?

You are using a logical distinction to make a large group of statements "meaningless." I realize this now. I don&#39;t use it. If someone tells me "there is a god" I would say this is false. You would say it is a meaningless statement.



I think then perhaps you do not understand the word &#39;scientistic&#39;; it is a word we use to say that something pretends to be a science, when it isn&#39;t one.

And if you go back to the original quote, the point I was making is that because no one can say what &#39;commonsense&#39; is, and no one offers any evidence to back-up their claims, it is a folk belief among scientists and philosophers, and should be treated as such: bogus.

OK, now I see what you mean, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were referring to "common sense" itself, not the theories used to explain them. I already answered this, then.



any claims made about &#39;commonsense&#39;, no matter how brilliant they might seem, will founder on two salient facts:

1) No one seems to know what it refers to. [Indeed, you have yet to say.]


But I have, I am not a scientist, I don&#39;t know if I&#39;m correct, but I would venture that this is the appropriate direction to build an appropriate model.


2) No one has any evidence to back up the inconsistent claims they make about it. [We have yet to see your data.]

Are we forgetting that this is a BBS?


Even semioticists are not above those minimal scientific requirements if their work (in this area, if there is any) is to be taken as anything other than hot air.

Untrue.


Your claim: all phenomena are relative looked pretty absolute to me.

But, as in the &#39;free will&#39; debate, I reject both terms; neither make sense, so the denial of each is equally nonsensical.

It is not, for the reasons already explained.


How do you know reality is "constructed"?

Wouldn&#39;t that claim be &#39;constructed&#39; and hence not real?

If it&#39;s "constructed" then how is it not real, if reality itself is a subjective-objective construction?




And this is where I disagree. Language is not neutral and "then" "used" ideologically. The ideological component in language does not mean that language is reduced to ideology, however.

Well, I am sorry to say, this is as clear as mud.

If it is ideological, we can ignore it.

If it isn&#39;t then it is wrong, and we can ignore it.

Either way...

Ideology is not to be "ignored." Nothing further from Marx&#39;s concept of ideology than as a "veil" to be uncovered and discarded.



But if words (before they are used) are meaningless, why use them?

This is meaningless: "BuBuBu"; but would you use it to mean something?

What do you mean "before they are used"? During their stay in a Platonic world of ideas before they are remembered? If it&#39;s a word, it&#39;s because it is used.

"Bububu" is not a word until it is used, then it becomes a neologism with its newly given set of references.



is that you seem to be attributing to words human intentional states.

In that case, they become the agents, and we the passive instruments.

Or is that to misunderstand you too?

Yes, you are; I was referring to words in their use by us. When I encounter a word, I see it as carrying a meanings, references, values. Of course, this is because it is in relation to me, not because the word "in itself" has any intrinsic attributes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


The point is not to impose a definition of common sense, but to try to ascertain what is referred to when people speak of "common sense." I think that this is a valid question.

It would be if people did speak of it, but they don&#39;t.

They certainly use the words ("common" and "sense"), when they say things like: "Use your common sense", or "It&#39;s just common sense" --, but typically not "Common sense is this or is that..."

The only &#39;people&#39; who speak about &#39;commonsense&#39; in this way are philosophers and theorists (and people like Engels), who, just because they have dreamt up a word, assume that there is something answering to it -- a bit like "Phlogiston", or "Santa Claus" or "Holy Grail".

But, there is no evidence that there is anything answering to this technical term other than a belief that there is -- and those who believe there is cannot tell you what it is, nor how they know there is anything there, nor can they agree what it encompasses.

So, if anything, it is worse than belief in "Santa Claus" -- we know far more about him than about &#39;commonsense&#39;.


What is a fact is that large number of people use this concept, so a study of why this is so is not "confused mumbling" although because we are dealing with the social, then what we do is build models that more closely explain the evidence. This is not perfect, and it is not a law or a neat definition.

See the above comments.

The &#39;confused mumblings&#39; are those of theorists, who cannot tell you what this is, what it entails, or how they know.

So, on second thoughts, &#39;confused&#39; might be too weak a word&#33;

[The ordinary use of this term ("common sense") is OK.]


I am not going to write a book on "common sense" with sociological studies to back it up. This doesn&#39;t mean that there is no evidence.

Well, once more, I note the shyness effect strikes again when data is requested (of those who believe in it) about this sub-Santa Clausean concept.


We could say that statements such as "one cannot be in two places at the same time," "what goes up, must come down" or many others, like the examples you provided, are usually referred to as "common sense." I venture to say that this is because they seem to be self evident, true without any need for verification, based on their everyday practice. Often, science will find out that a commonly held notion is not true, therefore going against "common sense" (such as heavier objects falling faster).

You could be right about these being &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs, but up to now they are merely guesses.

And, as you proabably know, guesses do not constitute evidence.

[This is quite apart from the fact that many of your examples are not even true&#33; And I mean that in an everyday sense, not a technical sense.]

But, how would scientists go about finding out which of these beliefs are &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs as opposed to commonly held beliefs?

There is, I think a difference. For example, it is a commonly held belief that David Beckahm is a footballer. But is that part of &#39;commonsense&#39;?

Worse, how could you possibly tell if no one knows what &#39;commonsense&#39; is?

We know what commonly held beliefs are, but not what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.

Now, you could try to stipulate that commonsense is this or that, but then all you would be doing is introducing a new convention, and anything that resulted from that would be conventionally &#39;true&#39;, as opposed to objectively true.

That would be like defining capitalism as fair, and then bending all the data to fit.


You are using a logical distinction to make a large group of statements "meaningless." I realize this now. I don&#39;t use it. If someone tells me "there is a god" I would say this is false. You would say it is a meaningless statement.

Well, it is in fact much more complex than that; a logical distinction cannot make something meaningless (except in trivial cases). It might expose that fact, but if something is meaningless that&#39;s it.

The example you give of &#39;god&#39; is rather unique though. In the sentence you used "There is a god", the word "god" does not actually refer to anything (if it did, you would be forced to accept &#39;his&#39; existence by the mere fact that the word has to denote something for your sentence to be about god, and not about nothing or about something else).

So, your sentence cannot be false, or there would have to be an entity &#39;god&#39; about whom/which you are trying to deny something.

Hence, if it were false, it would have to be true (for then there would have to be a god for the sentence to be about &#39;him&#39;&#33;).

Now we cannot have that. Several &#39;arguments&#39; for the existence of &#39;god&#39; depend on sophisticated versions of the above.

So, since the word "god" lacks a referrent, it is better to say that the sentence can neither be true nor false.

But, in this case the situation is worse. Hence I said it was unique.

It is not possible to say what sort of entity &#39;god&#39; is. Nothing could possibly answer to that word. Or, rather, we can form no conception of what could possibly answer to it (this is indeed part of Christian belief, the human mind is too weak to form any idea of &#39;god&#39;).

In that case, not only is this sentence neither true nor false, it is incapable of being true or false.

In that case it is non-sensical (a term used to depict such deformed bits of language that are so incapable), as I indicated.


But I have, I am not a scientist, I don&#39;t know if I&#39;m correct, but I would venture that this is the appropriate direction to build an appropriate model.

Well, you made a stab at it, but like everyone else&#39;s &#39;stabs&#39;, it ended up looking like a pig&#39;s ear, I am sorry to say. :(


Are we forgetting that this is a BBS?

I might be, if I knew what a &#39;BBS&#39; was.... :blink:


Untrue.

The above was posted by you in response to this claim of mine:


Even semioticists are not above those minimal scientific requirements if their work (in this area, if there is any) is to be taken as anything other than hot air.

In that case, semioticists must be minor deities of some sort, whose word must be accepted in obeyance of any supporting evidence.

So, the next question is: have you any evidence that semioticists are deities?


It is not, for the reasons already explained.

This was in response to:


Your claim: all phenomena are relative looked pretty absolute to me.

But, as in the &#39;free will&#39; debate, I reject both terms; neither make sense, so the denial of each is equally nonsensical.

But, your &#39;explanation&#39; was wide of the mark by a couple of continents.

And, you have yet to tell us why you used an absolute to inform us of the relative nature of &#39;phenomena&#39; (a vague term in itself).


If it&#39;s "constructed" then how is it not real, if reality itself is a subjective-objective construction?

Well, the only response to that is, how do you know so much about &#39;reality&#39;?

And the next is, if it is all constructed, how do you sort error from truth?


Ideology is not to be "ignored." Nothing further from Marx&#39;s concept of ideology than as a "veil" to be uncovered and discarded.

Well, that is no help. I was having difficulties with this earlier statement of yours (which I described as &#39;clear as mud&#39;):


And this is where I disagree. Language is not neutral and "then" "used" ideologically. The ideological component in language does not mean that language is reduced to ideology, however.

So this:


Ideology is not to be "ignored." Nothing further from Marx&#39;s concept of ideology than as a "veil" to be uncovered and discarded.

is no help at all.

The second sentence does not seem to make sense. Are there some missing words?


What do you mean "before they are used"? During their stay in a Platonic world of ideas before they are remembered? If it&#39;s a word, it&#39;s because it is used.

Well, I conceded that this might be to misunderstand you.

But it is easy to make sense of what I said.

Let us assume you have never used the word &#39;Bogomil&#39; before. [It is the name of a medieval Christian sect.]

Now, that word had that meaning before you ever heard of it, and thus before you used it, or even if you never used it and had never even heard of it.

But, if you want to talk about these guys, use it you must.

And that is what I meant.


"Bububu" is not a word until it is used, then it becomes a neologism with its newly given set of references.

Well, that could be so, but you will note that this is different from the &#39;Bogomil&#39; case, where the word already had a meaning.


When I encounter a word, I see it as carrying a meanings, references, values. Of course, this is because it is in relation to me, not because the word "in itself" has any intrinsic attributes.

Your words are very clever; they seem to be able to carry things about, like luggage. :D

But most words do have such &#39;intrinsics&#39; (but I should not normally like to use that word in this context): &#39;Bogomil&#39; means what it does whether you like it or not.

And before you learnt your first words x years ago, most of the above words already meant the same as they do here, whether you like that or not, too.

Indeed, that allows us to communicate.

------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, P, I am going away for a few days, so if you respond to this, and I do not reply, you will know why.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 07:10 pm
P:



[They certainly use the words ("common" and "sense"), when they say things like: "Use your common sense", or "It&#39;s just common sense" --, but typically not "Common sense is this or is that..."

The only &#39;people&#39; who speak about &#39;commonsense&#39; in this way are philosophers and theorists (and people like Engels), who, just because they have dreamt up a word, assume that there is something answering to it -- a bit like "Phlogiston", or "Santa Claus" or "Holy Grail".

But, there is no evidence that there is anything answering to this technical term other than a belief that there is -- and those who believe there is cannot tell you what it is, nor how they know there is anything there, nor can they agree what it encompasses.

So, if anything, it is worse than belief in "Santa Claus" -- we know far more about him than about &#39;commonsense&#39;.

If a large group of people use "common sense" (such as "this is common sense", meaning "such thing is an example of &#39;common sense&#39;") then there is an agreed meaning on "common sense" (that is of course, not uniformed and can vary, like say with "essence", "place", or even "nostalgia". I have no problem with figuring out what is this phenomenon they refer as "common sense" and why they use it.

We could ponder on why children are told of this "Santa Claus" and reach into the historical, folkloric, social, psychological and economic reasons it has caught on.



Well, once more, I note the shyness effect strikes again when data is requested (of those who believe in it) about this sub-Santa Clausean concept

I think that if you are going to request research every time someone supports a position, then you will often receive this "shyness effect" not because people are incorrect, but because of more banal time and circumstance concerns.

Throwing a book on someone or asking them to write a book on an issue seems a little exaggerated.


You could be right about these being &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs, but up to now they are merely guesses.

And, as you proabably know, guesses do not constitute evidence.

So you don&#39;t think the examples provided are common sense? If we were to hold a poll, I would be surprised if the overwhelming majority did not believe them to be common sense.


[This is quite apart from the fact that many of your examples are not even true&#33; And I mean that in an everyday sense, not a technical sense.]

Which ones?


But, how would scientists go about finding out which of these beliefs are &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs as opposed to commonly held beliefs?

There is, I think a difference. For example, it is a commonly held belief that David Beckahm is a footballer. But is that part of &#39;commonsense&#39;?

A very valid question. I think that we might distinguished a "common knowledge" which is explicitly repeated in a social structure (such as beckham is a footballer). There might be overlapping, of course, but we are looking for models that best help us explain phenomena.


Worse, how could you possibly tell if no one knows what &#39;commonsense&#39; is?

We know what commonly held beliefs are, but not what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.

This is circular. You are from the start denying that anyone could build a model that could give an accurate picture of what "common sense" entails.


Now, you could try to stipulate that commonsense is this or that, but then all you would be doing is introducing a new convention, and anything that resulted from that would be conventionally &#39;true&#39;, as opposed to objectively true.

Isn&#39;t that how science works? It builds a model and labels its parts with terms that are conventionally agreed by others? Do we not follow Marx&#39;s convention on a great number of terms?

When I say "dog" I am not linking to a physical dog; I am making a reference to the concept of a dog. Even "that dog" are two concepts that together lead the listener to determine the actual dog being alluded to; or any other word.


Well, it is in fact much more complex than that; a logical distinction cannot make something meaningless (except in trivial cases). It might expose that fact, but if something is meaningless that&#39;s it.

The example you give of &#39;god&#39; is rather unique though. In the sentence you used "There is a god", the word "god" does not actually refer to anything (if it did, you would be forced to accept &#39;his&#39; existence by the mere fact that the word has to denote something for your sentence to be about god, and not about nothing or about something else).

So, your sentence cannot be false, or there would have to be an entity &#39;god&#39; about whom/which you are trying to deny something.

Hence, if it were false, it would have to be true (for then there would have to be a god for the sentence to be about &#39;him&#39;&#33;).

Now we cannot have that. Several &#39;arguments&#39; for the existence of &#39;god&#39; depend on sophisticated versions of the above.

So, since the word "god" lacks a referrent, it is better to say that the sentence can neither be true nor false.

But, in this case the situation is worse. Hence I said it was unique.

It is not possible to say what sort of entity &#39;god&#39; is. Nothing could possibly answer to that word. Or, rather, we can form no conception of what could possibly answer to it (this is indeed part of Christian belief, the human mind is too weak to form any idea of &#39;god&#39;).

In that case, not only is this sentence neither true nor false, it is incapable of being true or false.

In that case it is non-sensical (a term used to depict such deformed bits of language that are so incapable), as I indicated.


I am aware that this argument has been used several times, which is why I brought it up. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.

I still have trouble with the idea of reducing language to operational terms. In this case when stating "there is god" a person is making reference to a thing called a "god"; this conceptual thing called god does not immediately imply that there is an actual "god", it&#39;s just proven that it is a faulty concept that cannot be in any way reflected in reality. So it is false.

Say we&#39;re in a room, someone says "there is a table", you think of this table concept and check if there is any in the room to say if there is any. he can also say "there is a unicorn" and you think of this unicorn concept and check; "there is a gagaloo", you can simply say "I don&#39;t know what that is" because you don&#39;t have/know/remember that concept. I don&#39;t see any qualitative difference with "there is a god" that would make you stare at him blankly instead of saying "no, that&#39;s false, there isn&#39;t here or anywhere, because its a faulty concept."

Anyways, that&#39;s just my perspective, looking at it; I haven&#39;t really delved into it or anything.



Well, you made a stab at it, but like everyone else&#39;s &#39;stabs&#39;, it ended up looking like a pig&#39;s ear, I am sorry to say. :(

I&#39;m sorry to hear that. One could ask under what authority (evidence) you dismiss this &#39;stab&#39;, but that wouldn&#39;t lead anywhere.


I might be, if I knew what a &#39;BBS&#39; was.... :blink:

Internet forum.


In that case, semioticists must be minor deities of some sort, whose word must be accepted in obeyance of any supporting evidence.

One would not reach that conclusion, because I simply stated that it is untrue that there is no evidence supporting semiotics.


Your &#39;explanation&#39; was wide of the mark by a couple of continents.
And, you have yet to tell us why you used an absolute to inform us of the relative nature of &#39;phenomena&#39; (a vague term in itself).

Because, as I said, by definition, a "phenomenon" is simply isolated aspect or moment experienced. Within these boundaries, It can be said to be "absolute" (such the absoluteness of the now in a given moment), but outside them, it is not. Because it is in relationship to a certain reference, then no phenomena can be thought of as absolute.


Well, the only response to that is, how do you know so much about &#39;reality&#39;?

And the next is, if it is all constructed, how do you sort error from truth?

I don&#39;t, that&#39;s the point. I "know" about my direct experience, from it, I discover things always in relation to me through my practical activity. From it, I can derive that this direct experience itself is a product of said practical activity, which is social. Both the subjective and objective are constructions arrived at historically.

If "reality" were not, then you would fall into objectivism and its countless fallacies.


I was having difficulties with this earlier statement of yours (which I described as &#39;clear as mud&#39;):


And this is where I disagree. Language is not neutral and "then" "used" ideologically. The ideological component in language does not mean that language is reduced to ideology, however.

So this:


Ideology is not to be "ignored." Nothing further from Marx&#39;s concept of ideology than as a "veil" to be uncovered and discarded.

is no help at all.

well, if you check, you replied:


If it is ideological, we can ignore it.

And I said:


Ideology is not to be "ignored." Nothing further from Marx&#39;s concept of ideology than as a "veil" to be uncovered and discarded.



The second sentence does not seem to make sense. Are there some missing words?

Sorry to cause confusion (I have no idea what part you fail to grasp).

You said that language "itself" is free from ideology and it only "becomes" ideological through this use. Correct?

I disagree with this, because language is a creation, a product of our activity, and therefore is already "tainted" by our ideological conceptions, with regards to the very words that get created, versus the ones that don&#39;t; the way it reflects actions and reactions, time assumptions and development of time or spacial relations; what becomes noun, verb, the degree of development of verbs, and a long etcetera.

Comparative linguistic studies show how much or notions of reality affect language, and of course language use. It is not empty or neutral of it, and then it gets "filled" by them by our simple choice of words.

Spacial consideration and physical production are not free from ideology either, I would surmise.



What do you mean "before they are used"? During their stay in a Platonic world of ideas before they are remembered? If it&#39;s a word, it&#39;s because it is used.

Well, I conceded that this might be to misunderstand you.

But it is easy to make sense of what I said.

Let us assume you have never used the word &#39;Bogomil&#39; before. [It is the name of a medieval Christian sect.]

Now, that word had that meaning before you ever heard of it, and thus before you used it, or even if you never used it and had never even heard of it.

But, if you want to talk about these guys, use it you must.

And that is what I meant.

OK, I had never heard of the word before. But it already existed in its social usage as making reference to a medieval Christian sect. You are now presenting the word to me together with one of its appropriate references, and I adopt it. Language is social not individual.

If a language goes extinct (all oral and written records) then all those words cease to be because they are no longer being used by anyone.



"Bububu" is not a word until it is used, then it becomes a neologism with its newly given set of references.

Well, that could be so, but you will note that this is different from the &#39;Bogomil&#39; case, where the word already had a meaning.

Not so different, only in its circumstances. Now "Bububu" has a very specific reference, as "the non-existant word used as an example in this conversation." "Bogomil" already had a meaning somewhere else, and you got in contact with that someone to incorporate it here with a somewhat similar meaning.


Your words are very clever; they seem to be able to carry things about, like luggage. :D

But most words do have such &#39;intrinsics&#39; (but I should not normally like to use that word in this context): &#39;Bogomil&#39; means what it does whether you like it or not.

And before you learnt your first words x years ago, most of the above words already meant the same as they do here, whether you like that or not, too.

Indeed, that allows us to communicate.

The "luggage" is not the "words" themselves in the screen or paper or air, but it is when they appear my experience.

As I said, language is not individual, but social.

It&#39;s not a matter of "wanting it or not"; it&#39;s simply the result of this practical activity. I can have very personal references for words, and also have normal references polished and hones every time I communicate.

Suppose my group of friends just so happened to use the word "Bogomil" as a cool way of referring to a particular thing. Later, encountering this other term, I could laugh and incorporate this other meaning, without discarding my original meaning. Thus, the majority of people would give "Bogomil" a given meaning and a small group giving it an entirely different meaning. Now suppose this group of people become popular and their term spreads so much that it opaques the other.

The tautology "words mean what they do" only holds for a given period of time. Language is generative and changes through its social usage. I can&#39;t give words the meanings I wish, simply because my influence is too small, that is all.


Incidentally, P, I am going away for a few days, so if you respond to this, and I do not reply, you will know why.

No problems, have a good time.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 03:21 pm
So, the belief that the sun rises is bourgeois, is it?
It&#39;s rather feudal, methinks. But is it still part of "common sence"? I think even common sence has now to agree that the sun does not rise, and that earth rotates, instead.


What about the belief that objects are solid when they are in fact mostly empty space?

Well, yes, albeit this is certainly older than capitalism, it fits bourgeois ideology.


All part of the capitalist plot, I assume.

Ah, no. Bourgeois ideology is not a capitalist plot, by no stretch of imagination.


And the belief in colours?

This depends on what you call colours, does it not?


An idea put about by the CIA, no doubt?

While I am certain that the CIA operates within the boundaries of bourgeois ideology, I am even more certain that it does not create bourgeois ideology.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


If a large group of people use "common sense" (such as "this is common sense", meaning "such thing is an example of &#39;common sense&#39;") then there is an agreed meaning on "common sense" (that is of course, not uniformed and can vary, like say with "essence", "place", or even "nostalgia". I have no problem with figuring out what is this phenomenon they refer as "common sense" and why they use it.

As I noted earlier, you first need to show that "common sense" is the same as "commonsense" (the latter is what theorists and philosophers, and some scientists, bang on about).

Since they do not seem to know what "commonsense" is, you will no doubt have your work cut out.

And I already noted, I have no problem with the former (the everyday sense).


I think that if you are going to request research every time someone supports a position, then you will often receive this "shyness effect" not because people are incorrect, but because of more banal time and circumstance concerns.

Well, it is not just you, and not just here; no one has produced the &#39;research&#39;, anywhere, but that does not stop them from pontificating about "commonsense" -- and we have yet to be shown this &#39;phenomenon&#39; even exists.

Unless, of course, you know of the research, and where it has been published...


So you don&#39;t think the examples provided are common sense? If we were to hold a poll, I would be surprised if the overwhelming majority did not believe them to be common sense.

Social research is notoriously difficult to carry out, since the result can be affected by the questions you ask. And how would you do that in this case without affecting the outcome?

But even if this were not so, how would you tell the difference (or even be able to specify the similarities) between the theoretical construct (which does not yet exist, it is in reality a vague sort of idea (witnessed too by your stab at it -- see below), and one on which no two theorists seem to agree) and "common sense", especially if ordinary use does not coincide the meagre examples theorists have so far outlined.

And how would you tell the difference between these two and commonly held beliefs, and further, commonly applied judgements, and a host of other everyday skills/capacities we bring to bear on this?

Especially when the theorists doing the research will already have their own work &#39;infected&#39; with &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs to begin with (a list of such (my own guesses, too) was given in the original Essay I posted above).


Which ones?

The one about not being in two places at once. Want some examples (there are in fact countless)?


A very valid question. I think that we might distinguished a "common knowledge" which is explicitly repeated in a social structure (such as Beckham is a footballer). There might be overlapping, of course, but we are looking for models that best help us explain phenomena.

Well, I did not refer to common knowledge, a separate and additional complexity. But how can you tell if things overlap, or otherwise, if you have no idea what one or both of them comprise?

As yet, we have no idea what it is that theorists, philosophers and some scientists are banging on about -- and, from what they say, it is clear that neither have they.

This of yours:


This is circular. You are from the start denying that anyone could build a model that could give an accurate picture of what "common sense" entails.

was in reply to this of mine:


Worse, how could you possibly tell if no one knows what &#39;commonsense&#39; is?

We know what commonly held beliefs are, but not what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.

Well, since "common sense" is different from "commonsense" your objection is misplaced.

I noted earlier that I use "common sense" to relate to our ordinary use of this phrase, which does not entail a set of beliefs. More typically it relates to a set of actions and judgements we make unthinkingly.

It can be used ideologically, but I have not said anything about that yet. I call that use "commonsense" too, to distinguish them.

But "commonsense" is supposed to be a set of beliefs we all have (even if this set is not universally shared -- but how we could decide that is a mystery), and it is only used by theorists, philosophers and some scientists.

And that is the problem -- we still do not know what it contains, or even if it exists.

So, you are, I think, in error when you describe by objection as circular.

I raise it again, therefore:


Worse, how could you possibly tell if no one knows what &#39;commonsense&#39; is?

We know what commonly held beliefs are, but not what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.

In relation to my suggestion that you could stipulate what "commonsense" is, you say:


Isn&#39;t that how science works? It builds a model and labels its parts with terms that are conventionally agreed by others? Do we not follow Marx&#39;s convention on a great number of terms?

When I say "dog" I am not linking to a physical dog; I am making a reference to the concept of a dog. Even "that dog" are two concepts that together lead the listener to determine the actual dog being alluded to; or any other word.

Sure, but when no two theorists agree about "commonsense", one can legitimately claim they are all exuding hot air.

Your example of the &#39;dog&#39; is, however, not a happy one. By referring to "the concept" of a dog you have to use a singular referring expression (in this case a definite description), which would unfortunately imply that this &#39;concept&#39; is an object of some sort, and hence not a concept.

The next question would then be: where is this odd sort of object? In heaven with &#39;god&#39;?


I still have trouble with the idea of reducing language to operational terms. In this case when stating "there is god" a person is making reference to a thing called a "god"; this conceptual thing called god does not immediately imply that there is an actual "god", it&#39;s just proven that it is a faulty concept that cannot be in any way reflected in reality. So it is false.

So, what would that person be &#39;referring&#39; to?

If nothing at all, then the denial is empty.

If something, then &#39;god&#39; must exist to allow that denial.

Hence the problem.


Say we&#39;re in a room, someone says "there is a table", you think of this table concept and check if there is any in the room to say if there is any. he can also say "there is a unicorn" and you think of this unicorn concept and check; "there is a gagaloo", you can simply say "I don&#39;t know what that is" because you don&#39;t have/know/remember that concept. I don&#39;t see any qualitative difference with "there is a god" that would make you stare at him blankly instead of saying "no, that&#39;s false, there isn&#39;t here or anywhere, because its a faulty concept."

Well, of course, this now raises the question of the existence of fictional and non-fictional objects.

But, your example/argument (as far as I could follow it) cannot distinguish between the two. But, I may be misjudging you here, because I could not really follow your argument.

However, as far as could follow it, your example, the &#39;gagaloo&#39;, illustrates part of the problem here. You would not be able to say whether a claim that there was one of those &#39;things&#39; in the room was true or false until you knew what was being alluded to. So, you could not say "There is a gagaloo in this room" was false.

And that illustrates my point; no one knows what &#39;god&#39; is; hence, any sentence alleging things of &#39;him&#39; would be truth-valueless -- and, I would further argue, non-sensical, for the reasons I gave above, in my last post.

But, ignoring that knotty problem for the time being, you have changed the example.

For now it seems that you want to restrict such existential questions to local events, like the contents of a room.

But the existence or otherwise of &#39;god&#39; is not like that, and it is certainly not like the local existence of tables and chairs.

Finally, I am not sure what a &#39;faulty&#39; concept is.


I&#39;m sorry to hear that. One could ask under what authority (evidence) you dismiss this &#39;stab&#39;, but that wouldn&#39;t lead anywhere.

No, it would be a legitimate question for you to raise with me, given the line I have taken. But, fortunately, I have an answer already -- in fact, it appeared in an earlier post in this thread.

Here are the relevant passages.

You (about "commonsense") and your &#39;stab&#39; (I combined two such into one):


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

What are you referring to here. I would say that this "common sense"

Me:


If it is a definition, it is not a very good one (since it ropes in many other things -- like the ramblings of drunks). And if it isn&#39;t a definition, we are still waiting on one.

So, I do not need evidence, since your &#39;definition&#39; is defective, or it wasn&#39;t one to begin with.

As I have said several times, no one (not even its most fervent &#39;believers&#39;) seems to know what "commonsense" is.


One would not reach that conclusion, because I simply stated that it is untrue that there is no evidence supporting semiotics.

Well, we can start another thread on that topic, but my claim still stands: not even semioticists can help us out here, and they certainly have no evidence (or none that I have seen) to back up their claims about "commonsense", that is, if they have ever made any.

If you know differently, I&#39;d be happy to revise that allegation.


Because, as I said, by definition, a "phenomenon" is simply isolated aspect or moment experienced. Within these boundaries, It can be said to be "absolute" (such the absoluteness of the now in a given moment), but outside them, it is not. Because it is in relationship to a certain reference, then no phenomena can be thought of as absolute.

Well, once more, your definition looks pretty &#39;absolute&#39;. Now either that definition is a phenomenon or it isn&#39;t.

If it is, then there is a least one absolute phenomenon, namely this.

If it isn&#39;t, then does that mean it does not exist?

If so, we can ignore it as a hallucination (I presume it would be one such -- but I am not sure until you say).

And I for one can think of phenomena that are &#39;absolute&#39; -- so your last statement is in error.



In response to this earlier claim of yours:


If it&#39;s "constructed" then how is it not real, if reality itself is a subjective-objective construction?

I replied:


Well, the only response to that is, how do you know so much about &#39;reality&#39;?

And the next is, if it is all constructed, how do you sort error from truth?

To which you responded:


I don&#39;t, that&#39;s the point. I "know" about my direct experience, from it, I discover things always in relation to me through my practical activity. From it, I can derive that this direct experience itself is a product of said practical activity, which is social. Both the subjective and objective are constructions arrived at historically.

So, you do not in fact know that &#39;reality&#39; is constructed, only that you &#39;construct&#39; &#39;something or other&#39;, but of what you cannot say (for that too would be a construct, and of what...?).

If you then say that what you construct is reality, you infer too much; what you construct is "reality", and at best your corner of it.

And even saying that goes too far, for as yet you have no access to reality to compare the size of your construct with it, or indeed the means to do even that, that is not also a &#39;construct&#39;

And worse, your claims about your own &#39;construct&#39; is a &#39;construct&#39;, and as would be that, and that...

Down that road lies irredeemable confusion I fear.

Best to drop all this &#39;construct&#39; talk -- or leave it to builders and architects.


If "reality" were not, then you would fall into objectivism and its countless fallacies.

But, that too is a mere &#39;construct&#39;...
With regard now to ideology; I see your point, and apologise for misunderstanding you.


You said that language "itself" is free from ideology and it only "becomes" ideological through this use. Correct?

I disagree with this, because language is a creation, a product of our activity, and therefore is already "tainted" by our ideological conceptions, with regards to the very words that get created, versus the ones that don&#39;t; the way it reflects actions and reactions, time assumptions and development of time or spatial relations; what becomes noun, verb, the degree of development of verbs, and a long etcetera.

I think I said "ordinary language" is not ideological, and I gave my reasons for saying this in the Essay extract I posted earlier.

You need to address those reasons, and not just repeat old ideas that I think I refuted.


Comparative linguistic studies show how much or [b]notions of reality affect language, and of course language use. It is not empty or neutral of it, and then it gets "filled" by them by our simple choice of words.

Spatial consideration and physical production are not free from ideology either, I would surmise.

[Emphasis added.]

You see, you are confusing ordinary language with commonsense beliefs, or &#39;notions&#39;.

Everybody does this -- it is almost second nature.

[Why this is widespread/universal I have explained in longer Essays at my site.]

However, to rehearse my earlier argument: For each proposition/linguistic expression of belief "p" expressible in ordinary language there exists its negation: " not p".

So, you could say to me "Reality is three dimensional" and I could say "No it is not".

So notions about space, time, or anything else whatsoever, cannot affect ordinary language -- except to provide a wider vocabulary; and even then, the negative particle rules all.

Better still: you know this too, and for the reasons I also mentioned in the above post; here it is again:


The case for identifying the two is no less questionable, too. As noted above, ordinary language is supposed to contain or to express &#39;commonsense&#39; ideas. However, when pressed to supply details those wishing to lump the two together are often reduced to making a few vague references to things like sunrise, solid objects, colour vision, the possession of two hands, an imprecise collection of psychological or &#39;mental&#39; dispositions and/or &#39;processes&#39;, an assortment of perceptual conundrums, a handful of proverbs and &#39;wise&#39; sayings, a few vague moral notions and political or ideological inanities, and the odd superstition or two.

On the other hand, had more than a moment&#39;s thought been devoted to this pseudo-identity, its absurdity would have been immediately obvious: if ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, it would be impossible to gainsay any of its alleged deliverances in the vernacular.

The plain fact is we can. And easily.

Not only are we able to deny that tables are solid, that the sky is blue, that the earth is flat, round or cucumber-shaped, that NN believes (for most p) that p, that sticks do not bend in water, that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign in Parliament, that water falls off a duck&#39;s back, that Rome was built in a day, that an apple a day will tend to deter a doctor&#39;s visits, that φ-ing is wrong (for any conventional φ), that Capitalism is fair, that human beings are &#39;naturally&#39; selfish, we can do all of these in every known language that possesses the relevant vocabulary. That, of course, is the whole point of the negative particle. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39;, none of this would be possible.

Admittedly, ordinary language may be used to express the most patent of falsehoods and the most regressive of doctrines, but it cannot itself be affected by "false consciousness" or "ideology" (and not the least because the notion of "false consciousness" is foreign to Marx).

Without doubt, everyday sentences can express all manner of backward, racist, sexist and ideologically-compromised ideas, but this is not the fault of the medium in which these are expressed, any more than it is the fault of, say, a computer if it used to post racist bile on a web page. Ideologically-tainted ideas expressed in ordinary language result either from its misuse or from the employment of specialised terminology borrowed from religious dogma, sexist beliefs, racist theories and superstitious ideas. This is not to suggest that ordinary humans do not, or cannot, speak in such backward ways; but these are dependent on the latter being expressed in ordinary language, but are not dependent on that language itself.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that this defence of ordinary language is not being advanced dogmatically. Every user of the vernacular knows it to be true since they know that for each and every sexist, racist and ideologically-compromised sentence expressible in ordinary language there exists its negation.

This is why socialists can say such things as: "Blacks are not inferior"; "Human beings are not selfish"; "Wages are not fair", "Women are not objects", "Belief in the after-life is baseless" -- and still be understood, even by those still in thrall to such ideas, but who might take an opposite view. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39; -- and if it were ideological (per se), in the way that some imagine -- you just could not say such things. We all know this to be true -- certainly, socialists should know this --, because in our practical discourse we manage to deny such things every day.
About "Bogomil":


OK, I had never heard of the word before. But it already existed in its social usage as making reference to a medieval Christian sect. You are now presenting the word to me together with one of its appropriate references, and I adopt it. Language is social not individual.

If a language goes extinct (all oral and written records) then all those words cease to be because they are no longer being used by anyone.

And that is the point, because language is social, words have meanings before you hear of them.

And we can still translate dead languages into ours, so your point about the latter is not relevant (if, that is, I understood it aright).


Not so different, only in its circumstances. Now "Bububu" has a very specific reference, as "the non-existent word used as an example in this conversation." "Bogomil" already had a meaning somewhere else, and you got in contact with that someone to incorporate it here with a somewhat similar meaning.

Completely different; I made up "BuBuBu" and I did so because it has no meaning, but I did not make up "Bogomil" which had meaning even before I heard of it.

And "BuBuBu" cannot have a reference if it has no meaning.
I think you are beginning to confuse reference and meaning here.


It&#39;s not a matter of "wanting it or not"; it&#39;s simply the result of this practical activity. I can have very personal references for words, and also have normal references polished and hones every time I communicate.

Yes I am aware of this account of meaning doing the rounds in certain of the social sciences.

I will not say anything about it here (I will be publishing a long Essay on this next year sometime); suffice it to say, that your personal &#39;references&#39; (again, I think you are confusing reference with meaning) have nothing to do with the capacity words have to communicate, for such &#39;references&#39; are unavailable to anyone else. But we can understand one another perfectly well without them.

Language is like money, and meaning like its value (this analogy is not perfect). You may personally value a certain coin (for sentimental reasons), but that will not affect its social value, or what I will exchange for it. Same with meaning.


Suppose my group of friends just so happened to use the word "Bogomil" as a cool way of referring to a particular thing. Later, encountering this other term, I could laugh and incorporate this other meaning, without discarding my original meaning. Thus, the majority of people would give "Bogomil" a given meaning and a small group giving it an entirely different meaning. Now suppose this group of people become popular and their term spreads so much that it opaques the other

Well, I do not doubt that meaning can change, but if it does, and in this case, if "Bogomil" takes on a new social meaning, then we (or even you) will need to invent a new word to do duty where the old one used to.

This is the trivial case I referred to, for here you merely have a terminological innovation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


It&#39;s rather feudal, methinks. But is it still part of "common sence"? I think even common sence has now to agree that the sun does not rise, and that earth rotates, instead.

How do you know it is part of "commonsense"?

Where are the results of your survey?

And, as you no doubt know, Relativity &#092;theoryt has gone back to the old pre-Copernican view; or rather, any point can be regarded as the centre of motion.

[Proof at my site, Essay Three Part Two.]

To my:


What about the belief that objects are solid when they are in fact mostly empty space?

You say:


Well, yes, albeit this is certainly older than capitalism, it fits bourgeois ideology.

This idea is in fact very modern, and post-dates the origin of capitalism.

How is it &#39;bourgeois&#39;? Or, how does it fit its ideology?


Ah, no. Bourgeois ideology is not a capitalist plot, by no stretch of imagination.

I am very glad to hear you say that.


This depends on what you call colours, does it not?

The same as you, I assume. Or we cannot communicate.

And your earlier claim:


Common sence is bourgeois ideology. It is bourgeois ideology&#39;s name in its own terminology.

Still remains unsubstantiated.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 06:33 pm
And, as you no doubt know, Relativity &#092;theoryt has gone back to the old pre-Copernican view; or rather, any point can be regarded as the centre of motion.
But this, I am sure, is not part of common sence.


This idea [that objects are solid] is in fact very modern, and post-dates the origin of capitalism.

Is it? I thought that the "solidity" of objects was usually recognised from Ancient times - wasn&#39;t it?


How is it &#39;bourgeois&#39;? Or, how does it fit its ideology?

To me it seems to be particularly fitting into a vulgar materialism view, which is quite typical of the bourgeois thought.



Ah, no. Bourgeois ideology is not a capitalist plot, by no stretch of imagination.

I am very glad to hear you say that.

I wonder where you get the idea that ideology is a conscious "plot" as you put it... :unsure:



This depends on what you call colours, does it not?

The same as you, I assume. Or we cannot communicate.

Oh, certainly. But I call "colours" at least two different things. Sometimes I call "colour" a property that, commonsencically, I believe to be inherent to objects: a leave "is" green (like it has also a certain weight, lenght, etc). Other times, I call colour a subjective impression related to a certain "thing": the sky looks blue (even though I know it cannot actually be blue, since the gases that make it up are not blue at all).

So, which of those things do you refer to, when you ask me if the "belief" in colours is part of bourgeois ideology?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


But this, I am sure, is not part of common sence.

Maybe not, but it shows that if it is part of common sense that the sun rises (which I question), then it is correct, and so hardly an ideological artefact of capitalism.

Or of any other mode production.


Is it? I thought that the "solidity" of objects was usually recognised from Ancient times - wasn&#39;t it?

I am sorry, my sentence should have read:


This idea [that objects are not solid] is in fact very modern, and post-dates the origin of capitalism.

I wrote my reply to you after taking nearly 2 hours to reply to Praxicoide, so I guess I was a little tired, and did not check the wording as carefully as I should.


To me it seems to be particularly fitting into a vulgar materialism view, which is quite typical of the bourgeois thought.

Well it is a pity my original wording was incorrect, for I am sure you do not want to assert that the lack of solidity of matter is bourgeois, and yet this idea is the most modern. Nor is it part of &#39;commonsense&#39;.


I wonder where you get the idea that ideology is a conscious "plot" as you put it...

Well, there is good reason to suppose much of it is conscious (or partly so), but not a plot.

Some of it is outlined here:

http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm


Oh, certainly. But I call "colours" at least two different things. Sometimes I call "colour" a property that, commonsencically, I believe to be inherent to objects: a leave "is" green (like it has also a certain weight, lenght, etc). Other times, I call colour a subjective impression related to a certain "thing": the sky looks blue (even though I know it cannot actually be blue, since the gases that make it up are not blue at all).

So, which of those things do you refer to, when you ask me if the "belief" in colours is part of bourgeois ideology?

Well, I do not assert this; it was, if you recall, part of a question.

So, which of these do you so assert?

And, once more I ask of this:


Common sence is bourgeois ideology. It is bourgeois ideology&#39;s name in its own terminology.

how you know?

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 06:25 pm
P:




As I noted earlier, you first need to show that "common sense" is the same as "commonsense" (the latter is what theorists and philosophers, and some scientists, bang on about).

Since they do not seem to know what "commonsense" is, you will no doubt have your work cut out.

And I already noted, I have no problem with the former (the everyday sense).

You say you have no problem with "common sense". Now, again, if people use this expression, and we are using it now, and even giving examples of it (and you denying some examples the status of "common sense", even), then it follows that there is an agreed meaning on it.

Therefore, I see no objections to uncovering what is this phenomenon that people refer to as "common sense". The same way, that if a large group of people use the word "god" it means that there is an agreed meaning on it. I would have no objection to any attempt to unveil this "god" phenomenon.

Neither of these instances (or the Santa phenomenon I also gave) implies that there is a "common sense", "god" or "santa claus". We might uncover the reason why these phenomena are so widespread.

I have not written books on the subject, but I again, ventured that when people speak of "common sense" they refer to "self evident" truths, arrived from their everyday activity.


Well, it is not just you, and not just here; no one has produced the &#39;research&#39;, anywhere, but that does not stop them from pontificating about "commonsense" -- and we have yet to be shown this &#39;phenomenon&#39; even exists.

Unless, of course, you know of the research, and where it has been published...

See above. The "phenomenon" exists because large number of people speak about it. Its almost tautological, because the large number of people speaking of "common sense" is the phenomenon. The point is to find out the reasons behind it, not to prove that there is an ideal "common sense" enlightening everyone.


Social research is notoriously difficult to carry out, since the result can be affected by the questions you ask. And how would you do that in this case without affecting the outcome?

That&#39;s why there&#39;s a whole field that studies this. Nobody would expect results to be perfect, of course, but they give indications.


But even if this were not so, how would you tell the difference (or even be able to specify the similarities) between the theoretical construct (which does not yet exist, it is in reality a vague sort of idea (witnessed too by your stab at it -- see below), and one on which no two theorists seem to agree) and "common sense", especially if ordinary use does not coincide the meagre examples theorists have so far outlined.

That&#39;s the beauty of science. My "pig ear" would serve as a hypothesis, to be discarded if it does not fit the evidence. Examples are to be provided and improved by the research, too.


And how would you tell the difference between these two and commonly held beliefs, and further, commonly applied judgements, and a host of other everyday skills/capacities we bring to bear on this?

Especially when the theorists doing the research will already have their own work &#39;infected&#39; with &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs to begin with (a list of such (my own guesses, too) was given in the original Essay I posted above).

That "infection" is to be found throughout science, especially in the social sciences. This is why it has devised many ways to minimize the conscious interference and why researchers have to be very explicit as to their own assumptions and how they can affect their study.


The one about not being in two places at once. Want some examples (there are in fact countless)?

Why wouldn&#39;t it be an example of common sense? Also, if you discard it as common sense, it is because you too have some idea of what common sense is.


Well, I did not refer to common knowledge, a separate and additional complexity. But how can you tell if things overlap, or otherwise, if you have no idea what one or both of them comprise?

Because I have some idea, obviously. One always starts with a hypothesis, in order to devise the best way to test it.


This is circular. You are from the start denying that anyone could build a model that could give an accurate picture of what "common sense" entails.

was in reply to this of mine:


I noted earlier that I use "common sense" to relate to our ordinary use of this phrase, which does not entail a set of beliefs. More typically it relates to a set of actions and judgements we make unthinkingly.

It can be used ideologically, but I have not said anything about that yet. I call that use "commonsense" too, to distinguish them.

But "commonsense" is supposed to be a set of beliefs we all have (even if this set is not universally shared -- but how we could decide that is a mystery), and it is only used by theorists, philosophers and some scientists.

I think we are talking past each other. You raised this idealist strawman and then connect it to honest attempts at finding out what "common sense" means. You are here even offering a definition of "common sense" yourself.


In relation to my suggestion that you could stipulate what "commonsense" is, you say:


Sure, but when no two theorists agree about "commonsense", one can legitimately claim they are all exuding hot air.

Only that it hasn&#39;t been explained satisfactory.


Your example of the &#39;dog&#39; is, however, not a happy one. By referring to "the concept" of a dog you have to use a singular referring expression (in this case a definite description), which would unfortunately imply that this &#39;concept&#39; is an object of some sort, and hence not a concept.

The next question would then be: where is this odd sort of object? In heaven with &#39;god&#39;?

It&#39;s a concept of an object. If we did not conceptualize, the world would be simply unintelligible. The fist time I see a dog, I will create the concept of "dog" (exclusively of this animal) If I see it again, I will recall the last time I saw it. I would enrich my concept if I see more dogs, realizing they are all the same kind of animal.

Marx said: "As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone."

This is one of the consequences of because we think in terms of concepts, not physical objects. These concepts can refer to physical objects.

Repeating myself: "that brown dog" is three concepts, which help identify a physical object, but none of them are physical objects. The same with "Kaaba". There is only one Kaaba, but the name "Kaaba" is the name of "Kaaba", not the stone.

In regards to "there is god", you say:


So, what would that person be &#39;referring&#39; to?

If nothing at all, then the denial is empty.

If something, then &#39;god&#39; must exist to allow that denial.

Hence the problem.

He is referring to a concept of something that does not exist and cannot exist.



Well, of course, this now raises the question of the existence of fictional and non-fictional objects.

That is to be determined by our own practical activity. We can be pretty certain that there are no unicorns, and god is simply nonsense (which does not mean that one cannot refer to a god, because it refers to the nonsensical concept held by people).


However, as far as could follow it, your example, the &#39;gagaloo&#39;, illustrates part of the problem here. You would not be able to say whether a claim that there was one of those &#39;things&#39; in the room was true or false until you knew what was being alluded to. So, you could not say "There is a gagaloo in this room" was false.

Yes, that&#39;s why you ask him what that is, or simply say "I don&#39;t know".


And that illustrates my point; no one knows what &#39;god&#39; is; hence, any sentence alleging things of &#39;him&#39; would be truth-valueless -- and, I would further argue, non-sensical, for the reasons I gave above, in my last post.

Do we really "know" what electrons are? no, we know stuff about electrons, its properties, make up, etc. As we discover more stuff about electrons, we get closer to knowing what it is. Knowledge is infinite, because it is in constant creation.

In terms of "god", we hear the arguments in favor of god and discard them because of their weaknesses.


For now it seems that you want to restrict such existential questions to local events, like the contents of a room.

But the existence or otherwise of &#39;god&#39; is not like that, and it is certainly not like the local existence of tables and chairs.

No, sorry for that. I wasn&#39;t restricting the question, I just accommodated the example to better suit asking for the existence of a table without leading to confusion. As I my hypothetical person responded "there isn&#39;t one here or anywhere"; his argument did not derive from being located in that room.


You (about "commonsense") and your &#39;stab&#39; (I combined two such into one):


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

What are you referring to here. I would say that this "common sense"

Me:


If it is a definition, it is not a very good one (since it ropes in many other things -- like the ramblings of drunks). And if it isn&#39;t a definition, we are still waiting on one.

So, I do not need evidence, since your &#39;definition&#39; is defective, or it wasn&#39;t one to begin with.

Well, If we were to at least agree that some suitable definition is possible, or acceptable, then we could perhaps work on it. Giving it a moment&#39;s thought and typing it in a computer while at work is not going to result in a groundbreaking theory, that&#39;s for sure.

So if it is a sorry excuse for a definition, that&#39;s because of I don&#39;t have the time/am not knowledgeable/smart enough, not because it is not possible to arrive at a good model.


Well, we can start another thread on that topic, but my claim still stands: not even semioticists can help us out here, and they certainly have no evidence (or none that I have seen) to back up their claims about "commonsense", that is, if they have ever made any.

If you know differently, I&#39;d be happy to revise that allegation.

I don&#39;t even know what "they" would have to say on common sense. I mean evidence in general.


Well, once more, your definition looks pretty &#39;absolute&#39;. Now either that definition is a phenomenon or it isn&#39;t.

If it is, then there is a least one absolute phenomenon, namely this.

If it isn&#39;t, then does that mean it does not exist?

If so, we can ignore it as a hallucination (I presume it would be one such -- but I am not sure until you say).

And I for one can think of phenomena that are &#39;absolute&#39; -- so your last statement is in error.



Exactly. That wasn&#39;t a phenomenon (unless you count the phenomenon of me writing it and you reading it, or the phenomena that made me write that, arrive to that conclusion).

Das Kapital is a phenomenon, as a historical book and its effects are phenomena, but the ideas themselves, once internalized by other actual people are not phenomena.


In response to this earlier claim of yours:


[b]If it&#39;s "constructed" then how is it not real, if reality itself is a subjective-objective construction?

I replied:


Well, the only response to that is, how do you know so much about &#39;reality&#39;?

And the next is, if it is all constructed, how do you sort error from truth?

To which you responded:


I don&#39;t, that&#39;s the point. I "know" about my direct experience, from it, I discover things always in relation to me through my practical activity. From it, I can derive that this direct experience itself is a product of said practical activity, which is social. Both the subjective and objective are constructions arrived at historically.

So, you do not in fact know that &#39;reality&#39; is constructed, only that you &#39;construct&#39; &#39;something or other&#39;, but of what you cannot say (for that too would be a construct, and of what...?).

If you then say that what you construct is reality, you infer too much; what you construct is "reality", and at best your corner of it.

Now you are advocating for a "REALITY" built on the backs of people. That&#39;s not sustainable. It&#39;s not reality. I know the material world precedes us, but that abstract material world is not simply "reflected" by us, and therefore is not reality.

But this might be just semantics, here.


And even saying that goes too far, for as yet you have no access to reality to compare the size of your construct with it, or indeed the means to do even that, that is not also a &#39;construct&#39;

And worse, your claims about your own &#39;construct&#39; is a &#39;construct&#39;, and as would be that, and that...

Down that road lies irredeemable confusion I fear.

I know all human beings construct their reality, I know that our reality is historically arrived at (even our senses are historical, said Marx).

We are not dropping inside any rabbit hole, because my statement about a construct is not the construct itself, of course.


Best to drop all this &#39;construct&#39; talk -- or leave it to builders and architects.

OK.


With regard now to ideology; I see your point, and apologise for misunderstanding you.


You said that language "itself" is free from ideology and it only "becomes" ideological through this use. Correct?

I disagree with this, because language is a creation, a product of our activity, and therefore is already "tainted" by our ideological conceptions, with regards to the very words that get created, versus the ones that don&#39;t; the way it reflects actions and reactions, time assumptions and development of time or spatial relations; what becomes noun, verb, the degree of development of verbs, and a long etcetera.

I think I said "ordinary language" is not ideological, and I gave my reasons for saying this in the Essay extract I posted earlier.

You need to address those reasons, and not just repeat old ideas that I think I refuted.

if language is loaded with ideology from its very creation, how is its ordinary usage "not ideological"? The examples and explanation you provided simply show that language and ideology do not coincide, not that one is free from the other.

For you, ideology means "speaking in a backwards way" and that is simply not so.


You see, you are confusing ordinary language with commonsense beliefs, or &#39;notions&#39;.

Everybody does this -- it is almost second nature.

[Why this is widespread/universal I have explained in longer Essays at my site.]

However, to rehearse my earlier argument: For each proposition/linguistic expression of belief "p" expressible in ordinary language there exists its negation: " not p".

So, you could say to me "Reality is three dimensional" and I could say "No it is not".

I was speaking of ideology.



So notions about space, time, or anything else whatsoever, cannot affect ordinary language -- except to provide a wider vocabulary; and even then, the negative particle rules all.

hm... didn&#39;t I just say the opposite? It does not simply offer a "wider vocabulary" but it provides the stratus on which language itself is built.


About "Bogomil":


And that is the point, because language is social, words have meanings before you hear of them.

So we are in agreement. Words become such through their social usage.


And we can still translate dead languages into ours, so your point about the latter is not relevant (if, that is, I understood it aright).

I said all oral and written records, so no.


Completely different; I made up "BuBuBu" and I did so because it has no meaning, but I did not make up "Bogomil" which had meaning even before I heard of it.

But someone did at some point, so not so different.


And "BuBuBu" cannot have a reference if it has no meaning.
I think you are beginning to confuse reference and meaning here.

It has a very precise meaning now, as I said in my last post.
I think you are beginning to divorce reference and meaning here.



Yes I am aware of this account of meaning doing the rounds in certain of the social sciences.

I will not say anything about it here (I will be publishing a long Essay on this next year sometime); suffice it to say, that your personal &#39;references&#39; (again, I think you are confusing reference with meaning) have nothing to do with the capacity words have to communicate, for such &#39;references&#39; are unavailable to anyone else. But we can understand one another perfectly well without them.

Words are not simply what they mean in the dictionary. That&#39;s reductively rational. all associations found in words are relevant.

Axiological values on words can have crucial importance, for instance. Much more can be communicated than what each word nominally means. These are not "unavailable to anyone else".


Language is like money, and meaning like its value (this analogy is not perfect). You may personally value a certain coin (for sentimental reasons), but that will not affect its social value, or what I will exchange for it. Same with meaning.

Suppose I am not plain old me, but Lenin, and I value that coin irrationally and go everywhere with it. Do you suppose that upon death the value of the coin is exactly its denomination? or do you think that it might be in a museum somewhere?

It&#39;s a matter of influence. We as individuals influence the evolution of a word very little, and therefore wrongly believe that it has a definite "meaning" instead of being in constant change as it is produced and reproduced by people in society.

We could distinguish a "meaning" (what is understood at any moment by the consensus, a creation of course), but this is simply a tool (dictionaries are tools, they are not essential for understanding).

If you are speaking of very technical things, then tools become more and more important, of course.


Well, I do not doubt that meaning can change, but if it does, and in this case, if "Bogomil" takes on a new social meaning, then we (or even you) will need to invent a new word to do duty where the old one used to.

This is the trivial case I referred to, for here you merely have a terminological innovation.

This is not trivial, this is an fast forward example of how words naturally change, because they have no fixed meanings, but references.

A child understands what a dog is, although he might not know the meaning of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


You say you have no problem with "common sense". Now, again, if people use this expression, and we are using it now, and even giving examples of it (and you denying some examples the status of "common sense", even), then it follows that there is an agreed meaning on it.

Therefore, I see no objections to uncovering what is this phenomenon that people refer to as "common sense". The same way, that if a large group of people use the word "god" it means that there is an agreed meaning on it. I would have no objection to any attempt to unveil this "god" phenomenon.

Neither of these instances (or the Santa phenomenon I also gave) implies that there is a "common sense", "god" or "Santa Claus". We might uncover the reason why these phenomena are so widespread.

Well, it would help if you read what I said more carefully.

Originally, I raised questions about the theoretical use of "commonsense", and not about "common sense".

Now, you either accept or reject that distinction.

If you reject it, I need to hear your reasons.

If you accept it, the above comment of yours is, I am sorry to say, irrelevant.

Now this latest &#39;stab&#39; of yours, which is not the same as your earlier attempt, is as follows:


I have not written books on the subject, but I again, ventured that when people speak of "common sense" they refer to "self evident" truths, arrived from their everyday activity.

"Self-evident truths", as the words suggest, mean truths that require no evidence, other than themselves

I very much doubt if people in general bother with these, for we are talking about banalities like "A vixen is a female fox", and "A Regicide is a king-killer", and the like.

These need no evidential support.

I suspect you have confused these with patent truths no one would think to deny, such as we all have parents, and our shadows are roughly our own projected shapes.

But, once more, have you ever heard anyone, let alone everyone, you have ever met utter any of these?

As I noted earlier, in common parlance, when people use the phrase "common sense" they say things like "Use your common sense".

It is not shorthand for a set of beliefs.

Sure, theorists, philosophers, some scientist and politicians might refer to a set of beliefs, and call these &#39;commonsense&#39;, but you have yet to show these two uses are at all the same.

Until you do, all you have written so far, and will write, will be irrelevant.

Even failing that, I bet now that you will be hard pressed to list the things you allege people hold as their &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs, beyond a handful, or perhaps a couple of dozen.

And then, like most of the people I have read who venture into this area, your list will vary with that of others.

So, this allegedly common set is not so common at all, even if we knew what believers were referring to, which we still do not, and even if they knew.

Even you are struggling: after all, both of your attempted &#39;definitions&#39; have failed.

And then, you would have to show that these were held by people at large, and I&#39;d like to see you, or anyone else for that matter, try.

[For the reasons I have given, you/they would not be able to mount such an investigation that was free of the very beliefs you/they were allegedly investigating, nullifying the results.]


See above. The "phenomenon" exists because large number of people speak about it. Its almost tautological, because the large number of people speaking of "common sense" is the phenomenon. The point is to find out the reasons behind it, not to prove that there is an ideal "common sense" enlightening everyone.

Once more, not relevant until you solve the problems I listed above.


That&#39;s why there&#39;s a whole field that studies this. Nobody would expect results to be perfect, of course, but they give indications

Perhaps you could give us the references, and we will see how good the methodology was/is, and thus how relevant the results were/are.


My "pig ear" would serve as a hypothesis, to be discarded if it does not fit the evidence. Examples are to be provided and improved by the research, too.

Which &#39;pig&#39;s ear&#39; are we talking about? You have already offered two flawed examples.

The first roped in many other things you would want to distinguish from &#39;commonsense&#39;, like the ramblings of drunks --, and I might now add: the musings of lunatics, the babble of children, the ideas of drug addicts, the ill-informed ideas of amateurs, the naive beliefs of novices, the angry outbursts of combatants (to list a few more).

Here is &#39;Definition&#39; One:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

This ropes in the above and much more.

Here is &#39;Definition&#39; Two (which is inconsistent with One):


but I again, ventured that when people speak of "common sense" they refer to "self evident" truths, arrived from their everyday activity.

This has as part of common sense the uninspiring notion that all bachelors are married, which while uninteresting is hardly an "inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions."

In fact, the more I am getting you to think about this, the more your own ideas are approaching an "inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions".

Hardly an &#39;hypothesis&#39; then; more a confused set of ideas worthy of nothing else but the very title you earlier wanted to give to &#39;commonsense&#39;.

I re-iterate: no one, not even you, seems to have a clue what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.


That "infection" is to be found throughout science, especially in the social sciences. This is why it has devised many ways to minimize the conscious interference and why researchers have to be very explicit as to their own assumptions and how they can affect their study.

Well, that infection will bias the results, for it needs to feature in any interpretation of them, let alone in the framing of the methodology.

In which case, the results will not be &#39;scientific&#39;, but &#39;commonsensical&#39; (whatever that is).


Why wouldn&#39;t it be an example of common sense? Also, if you discard it as common sense, it is because you too have some idea of what common sense is.

Well, if it is 100% wrong, it cannot be.

And I haven&#39;t given you an example yet.


One always starts with a hypothesis, in order to devise the best way to test it.

Well, as we have seen, your &#39;hypothesis&#39; split into two inconsistent ones, which were both born with terminal defects.

You might as well call the ramblings of George W &#39;hypotheses&#39; in that case.


You raised this idealist Strawman and then connect it to honest attempts at finding out what "common sense" means. You are here even offering a definition of "common sense" yourself.

In fact I noted the chaos in the attempts made so far to tell us what theorists say about &#39;commonsense&#39;, which by no stretch of the imagination is how you were taught to use the phrase "common sense".

I have not defined anything; ordinary terms do not need definitions for them to be used. I gave a standard use of that term. You need to show where it falls short.

And then you need to show that this ordinary term implies a set of beliefs about which you yourself cannot settle upon a settled notion.


Only that it hasn&#39;t been explained satisfactory.

This was a complaint in relation to this comment of mine:


Sure, but when no two theorists agree about "commonsense", one can legitimately claim they are all exuding hot air.

Since then, we have seen you disagree with yourself.

So, no explanation needed; you are my best witness for the prosecution; you cannot agree with yourself.

The fact that experts cannot do so either is just an extension of your own confusion. They too struggle with this notion. And that is no surprise. This is an invented &#39;concept&#39; and bears no relation to anything in reality.

So, until you, or they, come up with something better, and with evidence to support it, I re-iterate:


Sure, but when no two theorists agree about "commonsense", one can legitimately claim they are all exuding hot air.

It would be very easy to prove me wrong: decide on a settled notion yourself, and delineate its boundaries for us precisely, so that we know what is and what is not a &#39;commonsense&#39; belief.

Or quote those who have already done this.

Until then, I can only lump you in with the hot air merchants.


It&#39;s a concept of an object. If we did not conceptualize, the world would be simply unintelligible. The fist time I see a dog, I will create the concept of "dog" (exclusively of this animal) If I see it again, I will recall the last time I saw it. I would enrich my concept if I see more dogs, realizing they are all the same kind of animal.

You did not create the concept of a dog; what happened was that you were taught to use certain words when presented with a certain animal.

As I noted earlier, and this is not to pick on you: Marxists, when they venture into this area, without fail, lapse into a Lockean world, where solitary minds make their atomised decisions about meaning.

But, language and meaning are social factors (as you elsewhere concede).

As Philosopher Meredith Williams noted of Vygotsky&#39;s &#39;theory&#39;:


"Vygotsky attempts to combine a social theory of cognition development with an individualistic account of word-meaning.... the social theory of development can only succeed if it is combined with a social theory of meaning." [Williams (1999b), p.275.]

References at my site, Essay Twelve Part One.

Now every single Marxist, here and elsewhere (that I have ever encountered, except for one) who writes/posts/says anything about language does so from this schizoid starting point: they say they accept a social view of language, but in effect adopt a Lockean, bourgeois view of atomised meaning/learning. [More details at my site in Essay Three Part Two.]

This then motivates you into confusing public meaning with private reference, as we have seen you do already.

To repeat: you know about dogs because you were socialised to speak of them.


Marx said: "As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone."

Well, I am afraid Marx was wrong here; this is a Lockean view of language/thought.

But, even he failed to apply this idea in Capital. [Not because he was incompetent, far from it, or because Capital is flawed, far from that too, but because abstractionism is an incoherent, and thus inapplicable, &#39;skill&#39;).

Now this is a very ancient mistake; Greek theorists began this talk 2500 years ago. It ended up with them making the same sort of errors you do:


[b]This is one of the consequences of because we think in terms of concepts, not physical objects. These concepts can refer to physical objects.

Concepts cannot refer to objects, since if they did they would be names.


Repeating myself: "that brown dog" is three concepts, which help identify a physical object, but none of them are physical objects. The same with "Kaaba". There is only one Kaaba, but the name "Kaaba" is the name of "Kaaba", not the stone.

Well it is three words, not three concepts. I doubt you have a concept of "that".


He is referring to a concept of something that does not exist and cannot exist.

But &#39;God&#39; is not a concept, whatever else &#39;he&#39; is. To think so is to misidentify &#39;him&#39;, which would mean that atheists would be denying the existence of a [i]mental entity, not a &#39;transcendent being&#39;.

Is that what you are denying when you deny God exists, a mere idea?

Now it is this sort of puzzle that helped motivate the birth of analytic philosophy, and it is not to be solved by a retreat into the contents of the mind.

We need to look at the language we use, and see where talk of &#39;God&#39; has gone wrong, and why. And you will not be able to do that with the impoverished conceptual, bourgeois logical resources you have borrowed from Locke and later Super-Lockeans like Saussure.


Do we really "know" what electrons are? no, we know stuff about electrons, its properties, make up, etc. As we discover more stuff about electrons, we get closer to knowing what it is. Knowledge is infinite, because it is in constant creation.

Well, according to you, it seems that all we do is get closer to our mental &#39;constructions&#39; of electrons.


Well, If we were to at least agree that some suitable definition is possible, or acceptable, then we could perhaps work on it. Giving it a moment&#39;s thought and typing it in a computer while at work is not going to result in a groundbreaking theory, that&#39;s for sure.

I cannot disagree with that, but we now find your inconsistent musings on this mirror those who have thought about it for years, and we seem to be no clearer about this notion, with no evidence (other that their say so) that it even exists.


Exactly. That wasn&#39;t a phenomenon (unless you count the phenomenon of me writing it and you reading it, or the phenomena that made me write that, arrive to that conclusion).

Das Kapital is a phenomenon, as a historical book and its effects are phenomena, but the ideas themselves, once internalized by other actual people are not phenomena.

Well, I think you are confusing &#39;phenomena&#39; (about which we are still unclear) with objects and events in the world.


Now you are advocating for a "REALITY" built on the backs of people. That&#39;s not sustainable. It&#39;s not reality. I know the material world precedes us, but that abstract material world is not simply "reflected" by us, and therefore is not reality.

Well, I wasn&#39;t advocating anything, and certainly not what you allege. I cannot see how you could possibly conclude the above from anything I have said.

I was in fact criticising what I took your view to be; that everything is &#39;constructed&#39;.

We construct sentences, buildings and bridges, but not our thoughts. We certainly do not &#39;construct&#39; reality for it was there before it even heard about us, or us it.

Worse, any attempt to argue that we do will self-destruct pretty quickly.


I know all human beings construct their reality, I know that our reality is historically arrived at (even our senses are historical, said Marx).

The very best you could say is that you have constructed this view of others; you cannot argue from your own limited case that the rest of us do likewise.

Now you can see where the Lockean view of language gets you: atomised &#39;realities&#39; in individual heads.

Marx certainly would have rejected that. And rightly so.


if language is loaded with ideology from its very creation, how is its ordinary usage "not ideological"? The examples and explanation you provided simply show that language and ideology do not coincide, not that one is free from the other.

Well, you need to respond to my argument, not keep repeating old formulations.

Mine is a very modern argument, almost unique to me.

If it is in error, you need to say where it is so.

If you cannot, then the above is irrelevant once more.

To repeat: language cannot be ideological, if it were you could not say things like: "Capitalism is not fair", along with the other examples I gave.

But, you assert that language is ideologically "loaded".

How do you know this? Are you using "loaded" language to tell us?


For you, ideology means "speaking in a backwards way" and that is simply not so.

Again, where did you get that odd idea from?

It cannot have been from anything I said.


I was speaking of ideology.

So was I, here:


This is why socialists can say such things as: "Blacks are not inferior"; "Human beings are not selfish"; "Wages are not fair", "Women are not objects", "Belief in the after-life is baseless" -- and still be understood, even by those still in thrall to such ideas, but who might take an opposite view. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39; -- and if it were ideological (per se), in the way that some imagine -- you just could not say such things. We all know this to be true -- certainly, socialists should know this --, because in our practical discourse we manage to deny such things every day.
Now to &#39;BuBuBu&#39;:


It has a very precise meaning now, as I said in my last post.

Bold emphasis added.

This was in relation to "BuBuBu". I asserted that you were confusing meaning with reference, and so it seems you do, for you earlier alleged:


Not so different, only in its circumstances. Now "Bububu" has a very specific reference, as "the non-existent word used as an example in this conversation."

Bold emphasis added.

Here you say it has a specific reference, and above you say it has a specific meaning.

I rest my case.

[Meaning an reference cannot be the same: "Karl Marx" refers to Karl Marx; but it cannot mean Karl Marx, for when he died we do not say the meaning of that word died.]


I think you are beginning to divorce reference and meaning here.

And rightly so.

&#39;Meaning&#39; is a complex word; in fact it has many senses. Here are few:

(1) Significance or importance: as in “His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.”

(2) Evaluative import: as in “May Day means different things to different classes.”

(3) Point or purpose: as in “Life has no meaning.”

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in “‘Vixen’ means female fox.”

(5) Aim or intention: as in “They mean to win this strike.”

(6) Implication: as in “Winning that strike means the boss won’t try another wage cut again in a hurry.”

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in “Those clouds mean rain.”

(8) Artistic theme: as in “The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.”

(9) Conversational focus: as in “I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?”

(10) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in “I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration&#33;”

(11) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in “It means that the strike starts on Monday”, or “It means you have to queue here.”

(12) Interpretation: as in “You will need to read the author’s novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play.”

(13) The import of a work of art: as in “Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.”

Some of the above overlap.

The widespread confusions we see in the social and interpretive sciences (criticism, film studies, etc.) arise from running together one or more of the above, or even ignoring several.

I think you do the same.

Now, if a word has no meaning (like "BuBuBu") it can have no reference, unless you want it to serve as a proper name of something.

Fine, I san live with that; but once more, this new denotation was given if by fiat, and by social interaction, but it did not possess this before I used it.

That is not the case with &#39;Bogomil&#39; which had a meaning and reference long before you or I were born.


Words are not simply what they mean in the dictionary. That&#39;s reductively rational. all associations found in words are relevant.

Since I did not mention dictionaries, I wonder why you made this point. What I did say (to which the above was your response) was this:


I will not say anything about it here (I will be publishing a long Essay on this next year sometime); suffice it to say, that your personal &#39;references&#39; (again, I think you are confusing reference with meaning) have nothing to do with the capacity words have to communicate, for such &#39;references&#39; are unavailable to anyone else. But we can understand one another perfectly well without them.

See, no dictionaries anywhere in sight.

But, you have yet to respond in a relevant way to what I asserted.


Axiological values on words can have crucial importance, for instance. Much more can be communicated than what each word nominally means. These are not "unavailable to anyone else".

Bold emphasis added.

How on earth can they be communicated then?

Your Lockean view of language traps you in a semi-solipsistic world, where nothing could be communicated.

That is why I claimed that Marx adopted a social view of language.


Do you suppose that upon death the value of the coin is exactly its denomination? or do you think that it might be in a museum somewhere?

I am not sure what you are driving at here. How can coins &#39;die&#39;?

My analogy with money was aimed at showing that just as value is set socially, so is meaning.

Your question seems to me to be irrelevant to that concern.


It&#39;s a matter of influence. We as individuals influence the evolution of a word very little, and therefore wrongly believe that it has a definite "meaning" instead of being in constant change as it is produced and reproduced by people in society.

Well, what precisely are we influencing, in a large or a small way, if the meanings of words is not definite?

Words can change over time, but that does not imply that at any moment in time they do not have a definite meaning.

The value of money alters all the time; but even in supermarkets, prices stay stable for most of the day.


This is not trivial, this is an fast forward example of how words naturally change, because they have no fixed meanings, but references.
So, you want now to divorce meaning and reference??

I did not mean &#39;trivial&#39; in the sense of it not being important, but in philosophy we speak of such things being trivial if they are merely terminologically variant.

If you call an alleyway an &#39;alleyway&#39;, and later it is called a &#39;snicket&#39; (as they do in parts of the UK), that is a terminological and thus trivial change, even if it is not trivial (in the other sense) to those who make the change.

They are both talking about the same thing; and they both mean the same thing.

And I made that point to show you that if you decide to use &#39;Bogomil&#39; in your own way, then if you want to refer to the Bogomils, you will either have to invent your own word to serve where the old one used to, or end up confusing yourself and others. And if you do so invent, that will be the trivial case.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 06:14 am
P:




Well, it would help if you read what I said more carefully.

Originally, I raised questions about the theoretical use of "commonsense", and not about "common sense".

Now, you either accept or reject that distinction.

If you reject it, I need to hear your reasons.

If you accept it, the above comment of yours is, I am sorry to say, irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant, because they are in the topic at hand. When you brought up the distiction, I said that making up ideological constructs to tear them down was not important, what is important is to look at the issue being brought fourth (common sense).

Notice that in no instance have I used your "commonsense" expression, because I see it as irrelevant. I simply addressed the objections raised to it a possible understanding of this "common sense" phenomenon.


"Self-evident truths", as the words suggest, mean truths that require no evidence, other than themselves

I very much doubt if people in general bother with these, for we are talking about banalities like "A vixen is a female fox", and "A Regicide is a king-killer", and the like.

I placed "self-evident" truths in quote marks because I did not mean it literaly, only as understood in common usage. As I said, upon analysis many of these "truths" turn out to be not so.


I suspect you have confused these with patent truths no one would think to deny, such as we all have parents, and our shadows are roughly our own projected shapes.

But, once more, have you ever heard anyone, let alone everyone, you have ever met utter any of these?

Sure I have, and many other of the kind. What is your evidence that says this is not so?


As I noted earlier, in common parlance, when people use the phrase "common sense" they say things like "Use your common sense".

It is not shorthand for a set of beliefs.

Sure, theorists, philosophers, some scientist and politicians might refer to a set of beliefs, and call these &#39;commonsense&#39;, but you have yet to show these two uses are at all the same.

Um, that could be, but this is because they are trying to tie whatever is being advocated, to "common sense" such as the examples given above.


Even failing that, I bet now that you will be hard pressed to list the things you allege people hold as their &#39;commonsense&#39; beliefs, beyond a handful, or perhaps a couple of dozen.

And then, like most of the people I have read who venture into this area, your list will vary with that of others.

Because we are talking of examples, right? because there is an agreed meaning for common sense, which can be applied to a large number of examples, and which will also vary?


So, this allegedly common set is not so common at all, even if we knew what believers were referring to, which we still do not, and even if they knew.

Even you are struggling: after all, both of your attempted &#39;definitions&#39; have failed.

I have only given one.


And then, you would have to show that these were held by people at large, and I&#39;d like to see you, or anyone else for that matter, try.

Not at all, any careful study could bring sufficient resutls.


[For the reasons I have given, you/they would not be able to mount such an investigation that was free of the very beliefs you/they were allegedly investigating, nullifying the results.]

This is why there is a method for this.




Here is &#39;Definition&#39; One:


Precisely, it&#39;s a inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions.

This ropes in the above and much more.

That was never a definiton. You just assumed it so. I was merely stating that common sense notions are inconsistent (not thoroughly reflected) by people.


Here is &#39;Definition&#39; Two (which is inconsistent with One):


but I again, ventured that when people speak of "common sense" they refer to "self evident" truths, arrived from their everyday activity.

This has as part of common sense the uninspiring notion that all bachelors are married, which while uninteresting is hardly an "inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions."

In fact, the more I am getting you to think about this, the more your own ideas are approaching an "inconsistent level of thought; with juxtaposed, not connected, fleshed out notions".

Hardly an &#39;hypothesis&#39; then; more a confused set of ideas worthy of nothing else but the very title you earlier wanted to give to &#39;commonsense&#39;.

I re-iterate: no one, not even you, seems to have a clue what &#39;commonsense&#39; is.

I already answered this. I explained this before in a previous post as well.


Well, that infection will bias the results, for it needs to feature in any interpretation of them, let alone in the framing of the methodology.

In which case, the results will not be &#39;scientific&#39;, but &#39;commonsensical&#39; (whatever that is).

I guess then that there is no such thing as a social science, then.


Well, if it is 100% wrong, it cannot be.

And I haven&#39;t given you an example yet.


So, the belief that the sun rises is bourgeois, is it?

What about the belief that objects are solid when they are in fact mostly empty space?


Well, as we have seen, your &#39;hypothesis&#39; split into two inconsistent ones, which were both born with terminal defects.

You might as well call the ramblings of George W &#39;hypotheses&#39; in that case.

No need for the edgyness. It was actually one, and I already explained it.


In fact I noted the chaos in the attempts made so far to tell us what theorists say about &#39;commonsense&#39;, which by no stretch of the imagination is how you were taught to use the phrase "common sense".

I have not defined anything; ordinary terms do not need definitions for them to be used. I gave a standard use of that term. You need to show where it falls short.

Well, you attributed me with a definition. The "standard use" of that term can be ventured as a hypothesis to investigate "common sence" and see if it fits, can it not?


Only that it hasn&#39;t been explained satisfactory.

This was a complaint in relation to this comment of mine:


Since then, we have seen you disagree with yourself.

So, no explanation needed; you are my best witness for the prosecution; you cannot agree with yourself.

The fact that experts cannot do so either is just an extension of your own confusion. They too struggle with this notion. And that is no surprise. This is an invented &#39;concept&#39; and bears no relation to anything in reality.

You in confusion assigned me a definition when there was not.

So, until you, or they, come up with something better, and with evidence to support it, I re-iterate:


You did not create the concept of a dog; what happened was that you were taught to use certain words when presented with a certain animal.

As I noted earlier, and this is not to pick on you: Marxists, when they venture into this area, without fail, lapse into a Lockean world, where solitary minds make their atomised decisions about meaning.

But, language and meaning are social factors (as you elsewhere concede).


I not only "concede" but I vigorously stressed it, stress it now. I was told to use a certain word (perro in my case) with an animal, but for me to identiify the animal being presented, I had a concept of it from my own practical interaction (Being told the name of the animal is part of it, BTW, I always visualise people in their social medium).

When explaining the adquistion of language, I said that I learned words, I never said that everyone creates every words (because then everyone would speak their own tongue). Only that they adopt it and make it coincide with their concept of whatever the word refers to, with all its other references, associations.

As I said, before, without concepts the world would be unitellibible. My recongition of objects and processes comes from my absorption and conceptualization of them.


As Philosopher Meredith Williams noted of Vygotsky&#39;s &#39;theory&#39;:


"Vygotsky attempts to combine a social theory of cognition development with an individualistic account of word-meaning.... the social theory of development can only succeed if it is combined with a social theory of meaning." [Williams (1999b), p.275.]

References at my site, Essay Twelve Part One.

I don&#39;t have time right now, but I&#39;ll try to look into it tomorrow. I can say that it is incorporated into a social theory of meaning.


This then motivates you into confusing public meaning with private reference, as we have seen you do already.

No, I just don&#39;t post as carefully as I should, basing myself mostly on context. As I explained in my previous post, a "meaning" is arrived at. What a word has are references or associations.


To repeat: you know about dogs because you were socialised to speak of them.

Yes, and we are able to distinguish and speak of them because we conceptualize them.



Marx said: "As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone."

Well, I am afraid Marx was wrong here; this is a Lockean view of language/thought.

But, even he failed to apply this idea in Capital. [Not because he was incompetent, far from it, or because Capital is flawed, far from that too, but because abstractionism is an incoherent, and thus inapplicable, &#39;skill&#39;).

That&#39;s from Grundisse, which is a draft of Capital.

It is not wrong. It helps explain a great deal. He uses it to explain the absract use of "labor"; the same can be said of "religion" (the Japanese were not aware of religion until encountering other cultures. "sintoism" is a name that developed much after the fact). We are talking once again socially, here.


Concepts cannot refer to objects, since if they did they would be names.

Names are words that reffer to concepts which in turn refer to objects. Concepts are exactly that, concepts. These can refer to objects.

I don&#39;t know what is so difficult to admit here. Whey I say "dog" am I referring to any dog in particular? Perhaps to the summation of all dogs that I have ever seen? How believable is that? I am referring to whatever concept I have of a dog, which I identify it to a particular dog or dogs, or dogs in general.


Well it is three words, not three concepts. I doubt you have a concept of "that".

Perhaps "that" is not a concept. The premise however, is that "dog" and "red" make reference to concepts (dog-concept and red-concept) that point to the object.


But &#39;God&#39; is not a concept, whatever else &#39;he&#39; is. To think so is to misidentify &#39;him&#39;, which would mean that atheists would be denying the existence of a [i]mental entity, not a &#39;transcendent being&#39;.

Is that what you are denying when you deny God exists, a mere idea?

You are confusing things here. "god" is a concept, but it refers to something. This something does not, and cannot exist, that is what is being refuted, not the concept.


Now it is this sort of puzzle that helped motivate the birth of analytic philosophy, and it is not to be solved by a retreat into the contents of the mind.

I care not for analytical philosophy. Whatever deviations it might include does bear any relevance here.


We need to look at the language we use, and see where talk of &#39;God&#39; has gone wrong, and why. And you will not be able to do that with the impoverished conceptual, bourgeois logical resources you have borrowed from Locke and later Super-Lockeans like Saussure.

Nice, so we will simply dish out normative contents on language use, forgetting that it is a social creation.


Well, according to you, it seems that all we do is get closer to our mental &#39;constructions&#39; of electrons.

No, that is not the point. We build scientific models that beter adjust to our practical results.


I cannot disagree with that, but we now find your inconsistent musings on this mirror those who have thought about it for years, and we seem to be no clearer about this notion, with no evidence (other that their say so) that it even exists.

Again, I do not care about these idealist straw men. Once again, you are using them to discredit any honest attempt by association.


Well, I think you are confusing &#39;phenomena&#39; (about which we are still unclear) with objects and events in the world.

The objects and events in the world manifest as phenomena.


Well, I wasn&#39;t advocating anything, and certainly not what you allege. I cannot see how you could possibly conclude the above from anything I have said.

I was in fact criticising what I took your view to be; that everything is &#39;constructed&#39;.

We construct sentences, buildings and bridges, but not our thoughts. We certainly do not &#39;construct&#39; reality for it was there before it even heard about us, or us it.

Worse, any attempt to argue that we do will self-destruct pretty quickly.


I already answered this. The substrate that is before us is not reality. If reality is not made behind our backs (and you said that you do not advocate for this), then this substrate that precedes humans is not reality.


The very best you could say is that you have constructed this view of others; you cannot argue from your own limited case that the rest of us do likewise.

Now you can see where the Lockean view of language gets you: atomised &#39;realities&#39; in individual heads.

Marx certainly would have rejected that. And rightly so.

So Marx would have advocated for a panoptic reality, God&#39;s reality? He always spoke of it as a social creation, and this is what I&#39;m talking of here.


Well, you need to respond to my argument, not keep repeating old formulations.

Mine is a very modern argument, almost unique to me.

If it is in error, you need to say where it is so.

I just did.


To repeat: language cannot be ideological, if it were you could not say things like: "Capitalism is not fair", along with the other examples I gave.

But, you assert that language is ideologically "loaded".

How do you know this? Are you using "loaded" language to tell us?

Obviously yes. Language is not reduced to or identified with any one ideology.


Again, where did you get that odd idea from?

It cannot have been from anything I said.

The examples (blacks are inferiors, capitalism is fair, etc.) would suggest this.


I was speaking of ideology.

So was I, here:


This is why socialists can say such things as: "Blacks are not inferior"; "Human beings are not selfish"; "Wages are not fair", "Women are not objects", "Belief in the after-life is baseless" -- and still be understood, even by those still in thrall to such ideas, but who might take an opposite view. If ordinary language were identical with &#39;commonsense&#39; -- and if it were ideological (per se), in the way that some imagine -- you just could not say such things. We all know this to be true -- certainly, socialists should know this --, because in our practical discourse we manage to deny such things every day.

Because none of these is ideological, right? Are you sure? Because they are correct?


Now to BuBuBu:

It has a very precise [b]meaning now, as I said in my last post.

Bold emphasis added.

This was in relation to "BuBuBu". I asserted that you were confusing meaning with reference, and so it seems you do, for you earlier alleged:


Not so different, only in its circumstances. Now "Bububu" has a very specific reference, as "the non-existent word used as an example in this conversation."

Bold emphasis added.

Here you say it has a specific reference, and above you say it has a specific meaning.

I rest my case.

As I said, references or associations is how words work, while meaning is something arrived at. There&#39;s only a change in degree or distiction.


[Meaning an reference cannot be the same: "Karl Marx" refers to Karl Marx; but it cannot mean Karl Marx, for when he died we do not say the meaning of that word died.]

The dog example would apply here again. Words do not refer to objects, only to concepts of objects.


"Meaning&#39; is a complex word; in fact it has many senses. Here are few:

(1) Significance or importance: as in �His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.�

(2) Evaluative import: as in �May Day means different things to different classes.�

(3) Point or purpose: as in �Life has no meaning.�

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in ��Vixen� means female fox.�

(5) Aim or intention: as in �They mean to win this strike.�

(6) Implication: as in �Winning that strike means the boss won�t try another wage cut again in a hurry.�

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in �Those clouds mean rain.�

(8) Artistic theme: as in �The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.�

(9) Conversational focus: as in �I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?�

(10) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in �I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration&#33;�

(11) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in �It means that the strike starts on Monday�, or �It means you have to queue here.�

(12) Interpretation: as in �You will need to read the author�s novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play.�

(13) The import of a work of art: as in �Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.�

Some of the above overlap.

Of coures they would, because these are distictions drawn by us for clarity, convenience. There is only one mechanism at work, in this case.


Now, if a word has no meaning (like "BuBuBu") it can have no reference, unless you want it to serve as a proper name of something.

I think you are ignoring the practical evidence that shows that it has adquired a meaning in this conversation.


Fine, I can live with that; but once more, this new denotation was given if by fiat, and by social interaction, but it did not possess this before I used it.

Precisely what I was saying. If we had influence and could affect society then we give it meaning. My entire point here is that this is dynamic, for we are part of society.


That is not the case with &#39;Bogomil&#39; which had a meaning and reference long before you or I were born.

But it had its origin, didn&#39;t I say this? And this "meaning" is simply the use being given (stored in books or used by historians). The stability of certain institutions is giving you the false idea of a fixed meaning, when this is a relative affair (some words more than others).


Since I did not mention dictionaries, I wonder why you made this point. What I did say (to which the above was your response) was this:

See, no dictionaries anywhere in sight.

OK, sorry for bringing them up, I was using them as a posit for "meaning" as historically arrived at and frozen by social institutions. Words don&#39;t act in accordance to these "meanings" (although these are factors, and depending on the degree of complexity of a word these factors weigh more or less).


Bold emphasis added.

How on earth can they be communicated then?

By what is infered by context, for instance (the circumstance, social grops, age group, etc, etc). All these goes to show that these references, or associations are indeed social.


I am not sure what you are driving at here. How can coins &#39;die&#39;?

Well, because they cannot "die", could you deduce that I was referring to Lenin dying?


My analogy with money was aimed at showing that just as value is set socially, so is meaning.

Your question seems to me to be irrelevant to that concern.

That was an example of value being set socially, agaisnt your statement of it being stable. Let&#39;s not forget, again, that society is made up of individuals, and as I said some two or three posts back, it&#39;s only a matter of influence, nothing more.


Well, what precisely are we influencing, in a large or a small way, if the meanings of words is not definite?

Words can change over time, but that does not imply that at any moment in time they do not have a definite meaning.

The value of money alters all the time; but even in supermarkets, prices stay stable for most of the day.

You are repeating what I am saying. The references or associations behind words are not changing rapidly out of their own volition, obviously. There is a relatively stability (precisely why you can arrive at meanings), so the individual is affecting this relative stability.


So, you want now to divorce meaning and reference??

Distinction =/= divorce. It would be a divorce if I were referring to two different processes taking place (such as having private references, irrelevant to the "true meaning" of the word).


I did not mean &#39;trivial&#39; in the sense of it not being important, but in philosophy we speak of such things being trivial if they are merely terminologically variant.

If you call an alleyway an &#39;alleyway&#39;, and later it is called a &#39;snicket&#39; (as they do in parts of the UK), that is a terminological and thus trivial change, even if it is not trivial (in the other sense) to those who make the change.

They are both talking about the same thing; and they both mean the same thing.

OK, thanks.


And I made that point to show you that if you decide to use &#39;Bogomil&#39; in your own way, then if you want to refer to the Bogomils, you will either have to invent your own word to serve where the old one used to, or end up confusing yourself and others. And if you do so invent, that will be the trivial case.

What does this have to do with what I said? Thank you for putting it in technical terms, but this is just a repeat of what I said. And the point was not that it becomes "my own way" but socially acceptable.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 01:02 am
Maybe not, but it shows that if it is part of common sense that the sun rises (which I question), then it is correct, and so hardly an ideological artefact of capitalism.
Well, I don&#39;t think "the sun rises" is part of modern common sence. Also, I don&#39;t think that the notion that the sun rises, as it was once understood by the vast majority of mankind, is in any meaningful sence "correct". To say that modern einstenian relativism has ressurrected ptolomaic astronomy is a forced interpretation, as pre-copernican astronomy was firmly tied to the notion of an absolute centre of the universe. And, finally, I am far from sure that if something "is correct", then it must not be part of bourgeois ideology.


I am sorry, my sentence should have read:


This idea [that objects are not solid] is in fact very modern, and post-dates the origin of capitalism.

I wrote my reply to you after taking nearly 2 hours to reply to Praxicoide, so I guess I was a little tired, and did not check the wording as carefully as I should.

Oh... I should have guessed.


Well it is a pity my original wording was incorrect, for I am sure you do not want to assert that the lack of solidity of matter is bourgeois, and yet this idea is the most modern. Nor is it part of &#39;commonsense&#39;.

Indeed, the common sence is still that objects are solid - an idea that until recently even scientists spoused (and, curiously, projected it even into their notion of subatomic particles as little "snooker balls" - in flagrant contradiction with the very definition of "solid" they also maintained...)


Well, there is good reason to suppose much of it is conscious (or partly so), but not a plot.

Well, it is conscious in the sence that you cannot really believe that wages are the full payment of labour except in a conscious way - but not in the sence that capitalists in fact know that they exploit labour, and consciously decide to lie about it.



So, which of those things do you refer to, when you ask me if the "belief" in colours is part of bourgeois ideology?

Well, I do not assert this; it was, if you recall, part of a question.

So, which of these do you so assert?

Well, you asked me if the "belief in colours" is part of bourgeois ideology. But to cut down to the fundamental, the "belief" that colours are an intrinsic property of objects, like mass or lenght, is ideological; the idea that colours are an impression caused by objects into our minds (depending on which wavelenght they reflect more intensely) seems to be not.


And, once more I ask of this:


Common sence is bourgeois ideology. It is bourgeois ideology&#39;s name in its own terminology.

how you know?

The dominant ideas within a society are the ideas of its dominant class - so it seems to be logical to suppose that ideas that are so dominant that they become known as common sence must be ideas of its dominant class.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L&P, I&#39;ll respond to you both later.

Busy watching Galloway defend himself on the UK Parliament channel.

So, you two come second...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 02:07 pm
L&P, I&#39;ll respond to you both later.

Busy watching Galloway defend himself on the UK Parliament channel.

So, you two come second...
I&#39;m jealous, but I must agree that George takes precedence...

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies for the delay you two, but I have been putting the finishing touches to an Essay I have been promising one or two comrades here now for several months.

About this time last year I published a Basic Introduction to Anti-Dialectics, aimed at those who found my longer Essays either too difficult or too long.

However, it soon became apparent that several comrades found that Essay itself too difficult.

Hence, today I aim to put that right, for I am publishing an "Anti-Dialectics For Dummies" Essay.

This is no put-down, but is, like other "XYZ For Dummies" books, geared toward those who find such rarefied topics none-too-easy.

It is less than 5000 words long, and is confined to very basic, down-to-earth ideas.

You can read it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D...ummies%2001.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm)

LH, so you come third behing G and the above essay.

Hope that does not p*ss you off too much&#33;

I have a go at responding to you in the next 24 hours or so.

[praxicoide]

I&#39;m reading your essay right now. Interesting.

You might want to put it on a different thread, for people to comment (if you haven&#39;t already).

BTW, I&#39;m playing host to some visiting relatives, so I don&#39;t know if I will be able to respond with the time you desire.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I faced a similar problem&#33;

I will return to this debate when I have taken care of more pressing matters here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Well, I don&#39;t think "the sun rises" is part of modern common sence. Also, I don&#39;t think that the notion that the sun rises, as it was once understood by the vast majority of mankind, is in any meaningful sence "correct". To say that modern einstenian relativism has ressurrected ptolomaic astronomy is a forced interpretation, as pre-copernican astronomy was firmly tied to the notion of an absolute centre of the universe. And, finally, I am far from sure that if something "is correct", then it must not be part of bourgeois ideology.

I agree. But what relativity has in fact confirmed is that science cannot be used to criticise &#39;commonsense&#39; -- even if we knew what it was.

And I did not understand your last sentence.


Indeed, the common sence is still that objects are solid - an idea that until recently even scientists spoused (and, curiously, projected it even into their notion of subatomic particles as little "snooker balls" - in flagrant contradiction with the very definition of "solid" they also maintained...)

Well, I do not know how you can possibly know that this belief is part of &#39;commonsesne&#39;. We have not yet established there is such a thing --, or even if there is, what its set of &#39;beliefs&#39; are, and how we could tell.


Well, you asked me if the "belief in colours" is part of bourgeois ideology. But to cut down to the fundamental, the "belief" that colours are an intrinsic property of objects, like mass or lenght, is ideological; the idea that colours are an impression caused by objects into our minds (depending on which wavelenght they reflect more intensely) seems to be not.

Leave aside the fact that I do not think this is what colours are (we can start a thread in Philosophy on this, if you want), but once again, I do not know how you know that such beliefs are &#39;ideological&#39;.

In fact, the other theory, the one you suggest at he end, implies that we all make up our own minds individually about colour, which is an eminently bourgeois idea (based on bourgeois individualism -- no coincidence then that it was invented by Galileo, and dominates modern thought).

It is not a scientific idea; it is a philosophical notion imposed on the facts that science reveals.


The dominant ideas within a society are the ideas of its dominant class - so it seems to be logical to suppose that ideas that are so dominant that they become known as common sence must be ideas of its dominant class

I agree, and the idea that there is such a thing called &#39;commonsense&#39;, which we have yet to have clarified, is equally dominant.

So, by your own lights, the belief in &#39;commonsense&#39; must be ideological, and thus bourgeois.

It is no wonder, either, that you and others are finding it difficult to define/clarify this notion, or show that it even relates to anything in the real world.

[Praxicode -- I will respond to you later.]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:18 am
I agree, and the idea that there is such a thing called &#39;commonsense&#39;, which we have yet to have clarified, is equally dominant.

So, by your own lights, the belief in &#39;commonsense&#39; must be ideological, and thus bourgeois.
Oh, but that&#39;s the point - "common sence" is the name bourgeois ideology gives itself...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:18 am
In fact, the other theory, the one you suggest at he end, implies that we all make up our own minds individually about colour, which is an eminently bourgeois idea (based on bourgeois individualism -- no coincidence then that it was invented by Galileo, and dominates modern thought).
Hm, no - the impressions we call "colours" are determined by the wavelenght of light, not by individual whims.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


"common sence" is the name bourgeois ideology gives itself...

You will, I take it, be able to quote where the bourgeoisie collectively decided to do that...


Hm, no - the impressions we call "colours" are determined by the wavelenght of light, not by individual whims.

My point was about why we call these things the colours we do -- on this theory we all do this individualistically, as social atoms.

If anything is a part of bourgeois ideology, that is.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 04:50 am
You will, I take it, be able to quote where the bourgeoisie collectively decided to do that...
"Vote for the Democrats, that&#39;s common sence"

"If you work harder, you will have a better wage, that&#39;s common sence"

"If you don&#39;t want a child, don&#39;t have sex first place, that&#39;s common sence"

"Since you are an engineer, and your wife hasn&#39;t completed High School, you should have a job, and your wife should cook for you, that&#39;s common sence"

"If you go on strike, you might lose your job, so you better not; it&#39;s just common sence"

"Go to college so that you can have a better job and get rich, that&#39;s common sence"

"Chicanos/Pakis are taking our jobs, everyone can see it, it&#39;s common sence"

"Communism is impossible, just look at Russia; it&#39;s common sence"

"If you knew more than your teacher, you would be teacher, not him; so shut up and study harder, it&#39;s common sence"



Hm, no - the impressions we call "colours" are determined by the wavelenght of light, not by individual whims.

My point was about why we call these things the colours we do -- on this theory we all do this individualistically, as social atoms.

If anything is a part of bourgeois ideology, that is.

Sorry, the meaning of this was not clear to me.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes thanks for those examples.

I now await the minutes of the meeting where the bourgoisie voted on each of these, and more.


Sorry, the meaning of this was not clear to me.

Looks fine to me -- but as I said, if you want to debate this, start a thread in Philosophy.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 03:28 pm
Yes thanks for those examples.

I now await the minutes of the meeting where the bourgoisie voted on each of these, and more.
I don&#39;t think they have ever done so.

But whenever someone says "it&#39;s common sence", odds are that what is being called "common sence" is a nice piece of bourgeois ideology.

And you know, that&#39;s how words work. No assembly or conspiracy has decided that "banana" is how the fruit of Musa mirabilis should be called. But I doubt that anyone, bar perhaps the solipsists, would deny that that is the meaning of the word...

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


But whenever someone says "it&#39;s common sence", odds are that what is being called "common sence" is a nice piece of bourgeois ideology.

That is exactly what I am questioning.

How you can possibly know this beats me.

In some of these uses I have to agree with you.

But not in all.

For example, it is common sense to look before you cross the road, just as it is common sense to avoid large angry dogs, or to dress up warm in winter...

Are all of these bourgeois? Or even ruling class?

Did people walk about the place not looking where they were going 1000 years ago?

Did the Vikings put on skimpy summer wear in the depths of our northern winters?

Did the people of ancient Rome pick fights with huge angry dogs?

In primitive communist societies, did people feed raw meat to new born babies?


And you know, that&#39;s how words work. No assembly or conspiracy has decided that "banana" is how the fruit of Musa mirabilis should be called. But I doubt that anyone, bar perhaps the solipsists, would deny that that is the meaning of the word...

I agree that words gain currency by use, not prescription, but this is not so with many beliefs.

That is why the ruling class try to monoplolise education and the media.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 09:24 pm
For example, it is common sense to look before you cross the road, just as it is common sense to avoid large angry dogs, or to dress up warm in winter...

Are all of these bourgeois? Or even ruling class?

Did people walk about the place not looking where they were going 1000 years ago?

Did the Vikings put on skimpy summer wear in the depths of our northern winters?

Did the people of ancient Rome pick fights with huge angry dogs?

In primitive communist societies, did people feed raw meat to new born babies?
I wouldn&#39;t call those "common sence", but "good sence", which is a different thing - or at least it is in Portuguese; perhaps in English the two concepts get fused under only one word?


I agree that words gain currency by use, not prescription, but this is not so with many beliefs.

That is why the ruling class try to monoplolise education and the media.

Oh, yes, there is social struggle over the meaning of words - but this struggle usually takes the form of using words to a different meaning, or different words to the same meaning. And evidently "use" is in some instance prescribed, such as scientific terminology, but it seems to me to be the exception. And an exception that does not apply to the phrase "common sence", as far as I can see.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I wouldn&#39;t call those "common sence", but "good sence", which is a different thing - or at least it is in Portuguese; perhaps in English the two concepts get fused under only one word?

We call it both; but it seems to me that your only way of defending your ideas here is to rule out things that do not fit.

This just makes them correct by default. Your loose &#39;definition&#39; is then used to reject things that fail to match your a priori idea of what bourgeois &#39;commonsense&#39; is (something we have yet to have proved even exists).


Oh, yes, there is social struggle over the meaning of words - but this struggle usually takes the form of using words to a different meaning, or different words to the same meaning. And evidently "use" is in some instance prescribed, such as scientific terminology, but it seems to me to be the exception. And an exception that does not apply to the phrase "common sence", as far as I can see.

That I do not doubt, but I was refering to beliefs; you miss the point therefore.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 09:24 pm

I agree that words gain currency by use, not prescription, but this is not so with many beliefs.

That is why the ruling class try to monopolise education and the media.

When did the bourgeoisie collectively decide to do this, one might wonder? Can you point to the international bourgeois congress when this was voted on?

So, apparently, beliefs are imposed top-down through conscious decisions from the ruling elites?


Also, ruling out things that do not fit, wouldn&#39;t show that it is not a a priori idea, but one built from experience?

And again you seem to talk of this "commonsense" that nobody else is referring to (an ahistorical property)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry Praxicode, I have been neglecting you; but I promise will respond to your long reply to me, a few pages back.

This first:


When did the bourgeoisie collectively decide to do this, one might wonder? Can you point to the international bourgeois congress when this was voted on?

Well, of course, I do not believe they need to do this, but it seemed to me from what LH said that he thought they did, and I was addressing that.

Your other comments, therefore, should be addressed to him.

Except perhaps this:


And again you seem to talk of this "commonsense" that nobody else is referring to (an ahistorical property)

I explained why I did this (in order to draw a distinction between the use to which this term is put by theorists who bang on about something they have not shown to exist, which you also seem to believe in -- and about which no two believers seem to be able to agree over what it means, which also includes you), and the ordinary use of this phrase.

Now, it is no use you alleging that I appear to think this is &#39;ahistorical&#39;, for I am addressing the use of a word that seems to me to be nearly as bogus as that of the word &#39;god&#39; -- which similary has not yet been shown to refer to anything in existence, and about which no two believers seem to be able to agree over what it means

I am at the moment writing a long and detailed Essay to post at my site, so I cannot devote the necessary time to your earlier post, as yet. I should be able to do so, though, by the middle of the week.

[Hit The North]

Common sense should be considered to be an accumulated stock of practical, social knowledge, held in common by particular communities and derived from their common social and historical experience.

Quite often, the content of these common sense ideas are localised to the structural location of particular communities. So we might expect that the common sense ideas held by people in a poor, sink estate, will differ from those of a relatively prosperous middle class community. For instance, common sense ideas about the value or usefulness of educational achievement will differ between the two communities - more or less accurately reflecting their different positions in society.

In this way, we can rid ourselves of a mechanical association with bourgeois ideology, but recognise that because most peoples social experience is shaped and defined by capitalist relations, there is an inevitable overlap with the naturalistic assumptions of hierarchy and individual inequality which are central to the reproduction of capitalist relations.

I think this is what Gramsci means when he uses the concept. He also makes the differentiation between &#39;common&#39; and &#39;good&#39; sense in that common sense includes reactionary ideas (such as an assumption regarding the natural superiority of the bosses over the workers), but also contains a kernel of &#39;good sense&#39; which better reflect the interests of the class (solidarity is crucial in maintaining strong unions, for example).

Common sense views of the world are not &#39;false&#39; but they are limited.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Common sense should be considered to be an accumulated stock of practical, social knowledge, held in common by particular communities and derived from their common social and historical experience.

Maybe so, but the &#39;should&#39; here suggests a re-definition, one that divorces this phrase from the way we ordinarily use it.

In that case, this re-definition makes it more akin to the theoretical form of this &#39;concept, and thus amounts to yet another attempt to define it.

Nothing wrong with that per se, except, its true import emerges later:


I think this is what Gramsci means when he uses the concept. He also makes the differentiation between &#39;common&#39; and &#39;good&#39; sense in that common sense includes reactionary ideas (such as an assumption regarding the natural superiority of the bosses over the workers), but also contains a kernel of &#39;good sense&#39; which better reflect the interests of the class (solidarity is crucial in maintaining strong unions, for example).

Naturally, this applies to the re-defined notion, something we have yet to have anyone prove exists.

[And perhaps Gramsci was able to do a survey from jail? Or was he making stuff up as he went along -- as all dialecticians do?]

Nice try -- only it wasn&#39;t.

[hajduk]

there is more levels for common sense
what is for someone coommon for the others it is not
so...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry Hajduk, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 01:22 pm
I am sorry Hajduk, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
for imperialists is common sense to kill over 5 000 000 people for making a god busines
for us is not...

[Hit The North]

R:


Naturally, this applies to the re-defined notion, something we have yet to have anyone prove exists.

[And perhaps Gramsci was able to do a survey from jail? Or was he making stuff up as he went along -- as all dialecticians do?]


And what would be the point of a survey?

Are you suggesting that our thinking is just one undifferentiated mass and that we&#39;re unable to judge the veracity of different knowledge claims?

You don&#39;t need to hold a survey in order to understand that people make knowledge claims or hold beliefs which are derived from different social practices and make an appeal to different kinds of evidence (tradition, experience, self-interest, rationality, scientific testing, etc.).

That&#39;s how we distinguish scientific knowledge from &#39;folk&#39; knowledge, for instance.

&#39;Common sense&#39; (in Gramsci) is an attempt to bracket off particular modes of consciousness - of knowing and doing - which tend to contribute to the reproduction of existing relations; as opposed to &#39;good sense&#39; which is the movement towards class consciousness.

He&#39;s picking up on Marx&#39;s approach to ideology as a form of mystification which arises out of the relations of production, limiting the view of both proletarians and capitalists, alike. It&#39;s actually an extension of Marx&#39;s view of religion: the inevitable link between inverted forms of consciousness and the material relations in which men and women exist.

Don&#39;t you find this preferable to the "conspiracy of ideology" by bourgeois committee which you criticise in other posters to this debate?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And what would be the point of a survey?

It might help prevent us from thinking you were trying to impose yet more a priori superscience on reality.


Are you suggesting that our thinking is just one undifferentiated mass and that we&#39;re unable to judge the veracity of different knowledge claims?

Not a bit of it. Indeed, my comments were aimed at reminding comrades here that your own thinking in most areas of philosophy is as good an example as any we could wish to find of just such an "undifferentiated mass" of unsupported musings of dubious provenance.


You don&#39;t need to hold a survey in order to understand that people make knowledge claims or hold beliefs which are derived from different social practices and make an appeal to different kinds of evidence (tradition, experience, self-interest, rationality, scientific testing, etc.).

I absolutely agree, but the question I have raised is whether there is anything at all here to support your over-bold claims, and those others make in this area.


That&#39;s how we distinguish scientific knowledge from &#39;folk&#39; knowledge, for instance.

If anything is &#39;folk knowledge&#39; it is the unscientific claims made by theorists about what they term &#39;folk knowledge&#39;, a bogus category dreamt up 20 or so years ago by a handful of armchair cognitive psychology philosophers, plainly with nothing better to do with their time


&#39;Common sense&#39; (in Gramsci) is an attempt to bracket off particular modes of consciousness - of knowing and doing - which tend to contribute to the reproduction of existing relations; as opposed to &#39;good sense&#39; which is the movement towards class consciousness.

Yes I know what he intended to do, but, alas, it was no more scientific that if he had tried to categorise in absentia his beer mat collection (while in prison) -- even though that would probably have been of more use to us in the class war than the things he finally did pontificate about.


Don&#39;t you find this preferable to the "conspiracy of ideology" by bourgeois committee which you criticise in other posters to this debate?

I condemn both houses, in fact.

[Hit The North]

R:

I condemn both houses, in fact.

So your view of ideology is what?

[hajduk]

Rosa ..Citizen....when someone whant to make progress in society by the "common sense" that always finished with "justification"...
everybody knows the meaning of common sense but also everybody play naive about the meaning of this word becouse most of them have interest in "social phenomen" called capitalism...
scientists also whant the piece of a cake in "reforming of hyman common sense"
You follow me?
Philosophy also got the piece of cake in styding of commom sense like you two does and you know why?Becouse everybody whant to put common sense in relativity of social dialectic like example for what people doing in socitey and is not "common sense"
so Rosa there is lot of levels for common sense and it is realy very hard to make any god results and in publicistic books i read lot of shit about theory of common sense
but emotional inteligence maybe give us some answers what is common sense for those hymans who doesnt know what is the meaning of common sense

for me common sense is

LIVE AND LET LIVE

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry Hajduk, I find it almost impossible to follow what you are saying.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 06:23 pm
I am sorry Hajduk, I find it almost impossible to follow what you are saying.
that is what i speaking that is the "common sense" ...when you try to pretend that you dont understand what is oblivious ....you see?
you playing naive girl when you disagree with something and that idea for you is "common sense"
but this is just one of the levels

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk, there is no need to get cross -- I genuinely cannot grasp what you are trying to say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Praxicode:


Why wouldn&#39;t you state it?

1) Wrong thread.

2) I gave up being nice to Z last year when he demonstrated time and again what a dissembler and fabricator he is. Despite several olive branches held by yours truly, he showed he had no intention of debating with me with any fairness.

So, since then, I have been unremittingly horrible to him.

And bless his cotton brain, he regularly comes back for more grief from Rosa.

There are places in London (so I am told) that charge big bucks for the pain I inflict on him for free.

And that is why.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by praxicoide+August 21, 2007 03:05 am--> (praxicoide &#064; August 21, 2007 03:05 am)
Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 04:49 pm
Z:


So your view of ideology is what?

And what makes you think I am going to tell you?

Why wouldn&#39;t you state it?[/b]
Because she hasn&#39;t a clue.

Whenever Rosa is challenged to state a positive position in her Marxist theory (as opposed to her opinion on bourgeois philosophy) she ducks the question and employs her anti-dialectics randomizer: "the ordinary language of the working class"; "And Hegel was a coal miner, I suppose"; "He merely coquetted..."; etcetera.

Praxicode, you&#39;ll soon discover that debating with Rosa is a fools errand and this is why hardly anyone bothers. She&#39;s too busy slandering fellow Marxists as &#39;mystics&#39; to really engage and you&#39;ll find that for someone who can&#39;t resist ridiculing others, she&#39;s incredibly &#39;thin skinned&#39;.

.................................................. .

R:

I gave up being nice to Z last year when he demonstrated time and again what a dissembler and fabricator he is.

Is seeing a glimmer of something in others but ignoring what is the same glaring fault in oneself the basis of comedy or tragedy?

[hajduk]

you are not a priest Rosa but you also not competent to speak about Marx,Lenin and specialy about this topic becouse when you feal that you pushed in the corner you dont wanna to listen what Citizen and i told you or pretending that you dont understand so...

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 02:09 pm
Hajduk:


you are not a priest Rosa but you also not competent to speak about Marx,Lenin and specialy about this topic becouse when you feal that you pushed in the corner you dont wanna to listen what Citizen and i told you or pretending that you dont understand so...

I am sorry, I did not realise you were both prophets, sent to reveal to us benighted human beings a set of eternal truths.

You should give us a clue next time so we may prepare ourselves for your august presence, and don sackcloth and ashes; may I suggest you descend on a cloud before you deliver your next sermon? Just to help us out, if that is not too much to ask? :rolleyes:

However, back in reality: your words are unintelligible, and Z&#39;s are confused. :blink:

I blame dialectics.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW :blink:
that is biggest ego trip i ever saw :blink:
you blame dialectics becouse you dont know there is positive diaelictcs and negative dialectics so....

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:53 pm
My God this thread is childish.
sorry but with some people is just waisting a time to argue about "common sense :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk:


sorry but with some people is just waisting a time to argue about "common sense

This sort of honesty is quite rare here; even so, I would not be so hard on yourself.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 06:20 pm
Hajduk:


well i am honest, are you?

Depends what you mean by &#39;honest&#39;.

It looks like this thread is running out of steam.

Unless someone has something worthwhile to add, I will close it.

Praxicoide, I will post my response to you in a new thread in the Philosophy section tomorrow.
no Rosa you running from the facts becouse you think that others are not worth to speak with you and that experiance i have with you when we are speak about Chomsky and his opinion about what happened in Bosnia
i am sociologyst graduate in 2003 on bosnian coledge and i know wery well what do you speak yes my english is not so god but my points are god and you know that very well so am i worth now to argue with you?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Grandma [email protected] 21, 2007 03:10 pm
Negative dialectics? You mean like, there&#39;s a name for your bad grammar?
Nope. The "name" of his "bad grammar" is "English as a second (or third) language".

I bet your Serbo-Croatian is quite worse than his English&#33;

Luís Henrique

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 09:21 pm
Looks like Hajduk has turned this into a &#39;bait Rosa&#39; thread, dredging up other irrelevant issues now.

As I said, unless someone has something useful to say, I will close it.
PHILOSOPHY cant change the facts
PHILOSOPHY is just intelectual wheapon for analyse of something which is already god for human society
becouse of PHILOSOPHY Socrates must commit suicide and he doesnt prove nothing except that sofist like you Rosa can kill god idea
is this relevant?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


PHILOSOPHY cant change the facts
PHILOSOPHY is just intelectual wheapon for analyse of something which is already god for human society
becouse of PHILOSOPHY Socrates must commit suicide and he doesnt prove nothing except that sofist like you Rosa can kill god idea
is this relevant?

This is in the wrong section H; there is a thread already in the Philosophy section on the usefullness, or otherwise, of Philosophy.

This thread in now closed.

If comrades want to debate this further, I will be opening a &#39;Commonsense&#39; thread in the Philosophy section later today.

Of course, anyone else can do so right away.