Common Sense Voices

[coberst]

Common Sense Voices

I claim that one cannot enter, for the first time, into the territory of some domains of knowledge while listening to common sense voices. Our common sense will immediately reject some facts because those facts are contrary to common sense.

You must still these instinctive reactions because common sense knows nothing about many things. The physicist must still her common sense reaction at the results of some experiments regarding the inner working of the atom.

The inner working of human nature can be as mysterious to common sense as is the inner reality of the atom.

We can see only what we are prepared to see. Common sense does not prepare us to see many things. We have to creep up on certain matters and withhold judgment until we are intellectually sophisticated enough to judge their reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The problem with this is that 1) No one seems to know what 'common sense' is, and that 2) whatever it is, if physicists ignored it, then their theories would both be uninterpretable and untestable.

[Dystisis]

I agree in some part with both of you people. Our language and "understanding" determines in many ways how we see things, how we are able to define things. Yes, phycisists needs to determine and interpret, and "conceptualize" etc. in order to publish their recordings in any form at all. In this process, something is lost. This is largely the basis for esoteric theory.

In general, though, I agree that we need to try and hold off cultural preconceptions in our reflections... It is not possible to a total degree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dystisis, we -- i.e., us human beings -- determine things. Language cannot do that since it is not a human being.

Same goes for "understanding", whatever that is.

[Dystisis]

Dystisis, we -- i.e., us human beings -- determine things. Language cannot do that since it is not a human being.

Same goes for "understanding", whatever that is.
Yes, we determine things with language as a tool/method.

[coberst]

The problem with this is that 1) No one seems to know what 'common sense' is, and that 2) whatever it is, if physicists ignored it, then their theories would both be uninterpretable and untestable.

Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Coberst:


Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people

That's no use at all -- what does this include?

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

Dystisis:


Yes, we determine things with language as a tool/method.

So, if someone says: "I am determined to get to the top of that mountain" they are going to use language, are they?

[Rascolnikova]

You must still these instinctive reactions because common sense knows nothing about many things. The physicist must still her common sense reaction at the results of some experiments regarding the inner working of the atom.

The inner working of human nature can be as mysterious to common sense as is the inner reality of the atom.


And a hell of a lot less trackable.


Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
Common sense--empiricism in the everyday.

[ZeroNowhere]

Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
'Ordinary people'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rascolnikova:


Common sense--empiricism in the everyday.

Once more, what does this include?

[Rascolnikova]

Rascolnikova:
Once more, what does this include?

I'm not sure I know what you're asking. Empiricism is the practice of basing one's suppositions about the world on a certain kind of structured observations; common sense, to me, is a willingness to base one's actions on a qualitatively similar foundation--consistent, concrete observation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I know what empiricism is, I just doubt the usual claims made about 'common sense'. Indeed, I have yet to meet two people who agree on what 'common sense' includes. But, if it were all that 'common', we'd all know, and would all agree.

[Rascolnikova]

I know what empiricism is, I just doubt the usual claims made about 'common sense'. Indeed, I have yet to meet two people who agree on what 'common sense' includes. But, if it were all that 'common', we'd all know, and would all agree.

Well.. . I mean, that is one of the classic things about it--that it isn't actually common.

[SEKT]

I know what empiricism is, I just doubt the usual claims made about 'common sense'. Indeed, I have yet to meet two people who agree on what 'common sense' includes. But, if it were all that 'common', we'd all know, and would all agree.
Common doesnot mean to all known but what is done by everyone, remember the practical character of human being (knowledge by itself implies the practical notion of thinking).

Common sense can be defined as a knowledge orientated only for immediate purposes, as to use a phone and that is determined historically by the ideology (in our case) of the bourgeoisie and that does not implies reflection.

In my example by using a phone you don't have to know who Graham Bell was but you use it for a immediate purpose - to make a call. SUMMARIZING it is a knowledge of the preformed things which are presented as the absolute but that by analyzing and making a detour of the thing one can know its real essence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SEKT:


Common doesnot mean to all known but what is done by everyone, remember the practical character of human being (knowledge by itself implies the practical notion of thinking).

Well, the term 'common sense' originated in Aristotle who used it to refer to knowledge of the world derived from several senses, which was deemed by him to be more reliable if those senses delivered a common 'message' (I paraphrase).

These days the 'common' in 'common sesne' has no set definition, and no established usage.

But you offer this defitiniton:


Common sense can be defined as a knowledge orientated only for immediate purposes, as to use a phone and that is determined historically by the ideology (in our case) of the bourgeoisie and that does not implies reflection.

Now, of course, you are at liberty to re-define this phrase as you see fit, but then that would be to change its unclear meaning for one that you might prefer (this is called a 'persuasive definition'). Now, unless you can produce a convincing argument that supports this re-definition, there is no reson for anyone to accept it. And, even if we were to do so here, at RevLeft, there is no way that your re-definitioin will become the accepted definiton across the planet.

In fact, despite what we say here, this incohate notion will remain such for the foreseeable future.


In my example by using a phone you don't have to know who Graham Bell was but you use it for a immediate purpose - to make a call. SUMMARIZING it is a knowledge of the preformed things which are presented as the absolute but that by analyzing and making a detour of the thing one can know its real essence.

Sorry, but I did not understand this paragraph.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


Well.. . I mean, that is one of the classic things about it--that it isn't actually common.

Even worse, no one seems to know what it is (that is why everyone has a go at 're-defining' it!).

[coberst]

Rascolnikova:



Once more, what does this include?

Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people

This is the definition from my Webster's and this is what I meant in the OP by the phrase "common sense". Like most words one can find many different definitions apparently.

Many people think that common sense is not common; they must be thinking about the definition "Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment". I am inclined to agree.

[SEKT]

Well, the term 'common sense' originated in Aristotle who used it to refer to knowledge of the world derived from several senses, which was deemed by him to be more reliable if those senses delivered a common 'message' (I paraphrase).

These days the 'common' in 'common sesne' has no set definition, and no established usage.
Because words are a part of language and part of human praxis they are historical (the meaning one can understand in a determined period of time), so in that sense Aristotle's definition needs to be taken in a historical sense (according to our epoch).

Now refering to the "set definition" a word cannot have a single definition but as language it depends in use of the word then with its use the meaning would be determined.


Now, of course, you are at liberty to re-define this phrase as you see fit, but then that would be to change its unclear meaning for one that you might prefer (this is called a 'persuasive definition'). Now, unless you can produce a convincing argument that supports this re-definition, there is no reson for anyone to accept it. And, even if we were to do so here, at RevLeft, there is no way that your re-definitioin will become the accepted definiton across the planet.

In fact, despite what we say here, this incohate notion will remain such for the foreseeable future.I want to stress i don't want to give a "persuasive definition" but a real definition, I really don't care if you (only Rosa because you speak of "we here" and only you are arguing about my definition not anyone esle) like "persuasive" definitions.
I´m going lo enlarge the definition:
When i´m talking about common sense as a knowledge it means that it is a thing that can be understand by the mind but that it is in a practical way, it means that in order to know you have to be in contact with the object, in that sense the second phrase for " immediate purposes" means that it is a knowledge applied to the current life or as it can be also understand the daily life. Now a human by trying to know has to form a concept (notion or idea wich are characteristics of the object) of the object, the problem with the "common sense" is that those concepts (because common sense is a set of concepts) are determined outside of the mind, they are transmitted trhough ideological channels of communication (such mass media, family, school) in wich the bourgeoisie definitions of things are taken by people as "natural" (it means given to them outside without a critique of the concepts). The fact that reflection is not needen for "common sense" implies that it is idelogical (false) because it only sees the object in its immediate determinations but does not generate a complete concept of the thing.


Quote:
In my example by using a phone you don't have to know who Graham Bell was but you use it for a immediate purpose - to make a call. SUMMARIZING it is a knowledge of the preformed things which are presented as the absolute but that by analyzing and making a detour of the thing one can know its real essence.
Sorry, but I did not understand this paragraph.I also feel sorry because you are all the time arguing and a simple example like this should be easy for you.

What i want to mean and connected with what I said is that the object (the phone) is a preformed object that exist outside of the mind and that is also created not by the direct user (in this case the person who wants to use it). Commom sense in this case (or the bourgeoisie definition) would stand that the phone is useful for calls. The equation object=function doesnot provides the full concept of a phone. If we want to go beyond common sense in this case we can reflex about the phone as a historical product of a determined stage of the production forces that is useful for calls but that has to be developed historically by man. Also that is a tool of comunication that in our time is also used to spy people, in my country for example phone is used to communicate kidnappers each other, drug trafficants (here I´m explaining the social use of phone). So if you can see what going beyond means is not taking the immediate notion of a thing but to know what the thing is itself, that is the meaning of
"analyzing and making a detour of the thing one can know its real essence."I hope you can give me a less "inchoate" definition.

[Apeiron]

I agree with Gramsci on this point: common sense - that is, our 'common' pre-reflective intuitions, prejudices, opinions, and practices - is merely the most insidious form of ideology. It's an obstacle to any revolutionary political struggle, no doubt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Coberst:


Common sense—the unreflective opinions of ordinary people

This is the definition from my Webster's and this is what I meant in the OP by the phrase "common sense". Like most words one can find many different definitions apparently.

Many people think that common sense is not common; they must be thinking about the definition "Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment". I am inclined to agree.

This 'definition' is no use at all, since it does not tell us what these 'opinions' are.

Indeed, this 'definition' would incorporate 'opinions' that few would count as part of 'common sense'.

For example, ordinary individual #1 might express the opinion that Mahler was a greater composer than Brahms.

#2 might be of the opinion that plain chocolate is better than milk chocolate.

#3 might opine that BB King is the best Blues guitarist alive today.

#4 might say that in her opinion holidays abroad are better than those 'at home'.

And so on.

Are any of these part of 'common sense'?

If not, then that 'definition' is no use at all.

On the other hand, if they are, then that definition is no good anyway, for it includes 'opinions' that are not the least bit 'common'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SEKT:


Now refering to the "set definition" a word cannot have a single definition but as language it depends in use of the word then with its use the meaning would be determined.

I agree, but that is where the many attempts to say what this phrase means in this thread are wide of the mark, for when we use 'common sense', we say such things as: "Come On! Use your common sense", by which we mean "Stop being a numpty!"

In which case, when we employ this phrase, we are not referring to a set of beliefs or 'opinions', we use it as a way of criticising stupid or ignorant behaviour.

Sure, politicians talk about 'common sense', but then they would be just as hard-pressed as others are here to say what this includes.


When i´m talking about common sense as a knowledge it means that it is a thing that can be understand by the mind but that it is in a practical way, it means that in order to know you have to be in contact with the object, in that sense the second phrase for " immediate purposes" means that it is a knowledge applied to the current life or as it can be also understand the daily life. Now a human by trying to know has to form a concept (notion or idea wich are characteristics of the object) of the object, the problem with the "common sense" is that those concepts (because common sense is a set of concepts) are determined outside of the mind, they are transmitted trhough ideological channels of communication (such mass media, family, school) in wich the bourgeoisie definitions of things are taken by people as "natural" (it means given to them outside without a critique of the concepts). The fact that reflection is not needen for "common sense" implies that it is idelogical (false) because it only sees the object in its immediate determinations but does not generate a complete concept of the thing.

However, as I noted earlier in relation to your earlier attempt to 're-define' this phrase:


Now, of course, you are at liberty to re-define this phrase as you see fit, but then that would be to change its unclear meaning for one that you might prefer (this is called a 'persuasive definition'). Now, unless you can produce a convincing argument that supports this re-definition, there is no reson for anyone to accept it. And, even if we were to do so here, at RevLeft, there is no way that your re-definitioin will become the accepted definiton across the planet.

In fact, despite what we say here, this incohate notion will remain such for the foreseeable future.

And that still applies. And there is nothing you can do to get around this insurmountable obstacle, howsoever hard you try.


I also feel sorry because you are all the time arguing and a simple example like this should be easy for you.

You should in fact feel sorry for yourself if you can't explain this allegedly 'simple' example.


What i want to mean and connected with what I said is that the object (the phone) is a preformed object that exist outside of the mind and that is also created not by the direct user (in this case the person who wants to use it). Commom sense in this case (or the bourgeoisie definition) would stand that the phone is useful for calls. The equation object=function doesnot provides the full concept of a phone. If we want to go beyond common sense in this case we can reflex about the phone as a historical product of a determined stage of the production forces that is useful for calls but that has to be developed historically by man. Also that is a tool of comunication that in our time is also used to spy people, in my country for example phone is used to communicate kidnappers each other, drug trafficants (here I´m explaining the social use of phone). So if you can see what going beyond means is not taking the immediate notion of a thing but to know what the thing is itself, that is the meaning of

There is in fact no 'bourgeois definition' of 'common sense'. That class (and their ideologues) are just as confused about this obscure notion as RevLefters seem to be.

And thanks for trying to explain this to me again, but I am no clearer about what you are trying to say than I was before.


I hope you can give me a less "incohate" definition.

I do not in fact wish to define this useless term.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apeiron:


I agree with Gramsci on this point: common sense - that is, our 'common' pre-reflective intuitions, prejudices, opinions, and practices - is merely the most insidious form of ideology. It's an obstacle to any revolutionary political struggle, no doubt.

Well, Gramsci was wrong, as the arguments I have presented in this thread have shown.

His re-definition (and that of many other comrades) was just an elitist way of ruling out the views of ordinary workers -- all the easier, then, to substitute for them (as a good Stalinist).

[SEKT]

I do not in fact wish to define this useless term.

Ok you are only confirming that the object=function or in you case use is right.

The point it is "useless" as you argue doesnot mean it cannot be object of critique.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SEKT:


Ok you are only confirming that the object=function or in you case use is right.

Look, I do not if the problem here is because English might not be your first language, but I have no idea what you are on about.


The point it is "useless" as you argue doesnot mean it cannot be object of critique.

The point is that if no one has a clue what this phrase means, then no one can 'critique' it!

[SEKT]

Ok explanation again:

Object=Function (example Phone=make calls) see!!!!

In your case Object=Function Commonsense=Useless
"Useless" is still a function of the object(common sense) no the thing itself.

And if no one has a "clue" of the "common sense" how can you know it?? Do you have the "clue"???, Can you give me the "clue" so this discussion can stop??(sic)

[Apeiron]

Apeiron:



Well, Gramsci was wrong, as the arguments I have presented in this thread have shown.

His re-definition (and that of many other comrades) was just an elitist way of ruling out the views of ordinary workers -- all the easier, then, to substitute for them (as a good Stalinist). There's hardly anything elitist about Gramsci's notion of the 'organic intellectual.' He explicitly says 'everyone is a philosopher.'

You've demonstrated that 'common sense' is ephemeral, yes, but this by no means undermines Gramsci's point. Common sense can't be identified as strictly this opinion or that one; otherwise it'd be far too easy to undermine. As ideology, common sense is an entire, - and necessarily bourgeois, - means of understanding and experiencing (i.e., practicing) the world.

I just found this quote I quite like:

"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. 'Common sense' 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. "

I must ask, do you believe any theory of ideology? Marx's? If so I don't see why you so vehemently oppose this notion of 'common sense.'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SEKT:


Object=Function (example Phone=make calls) see!!!!

On either side of an equal sign there should be two mathematical expressions, not words. So, no I do not understand. Are you saying that phones are mathematical expressions?


And if no one has a "clue" of the "common sense" how can you know it??

Well, I understand the English language.


Do you have the "clue"???, Can you give me the "clue" so this discussion can stop??(sic)

No really. If you do not have an equivalent expression in your language, there is not much I can do to help you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apeiron:


There's hardly anything elitist about Gramsci's notion of the 'organic intellectual.' He explicitly says 'everyone is a philosopher.'

Except a large group of these 'philosophers' (i.e., ordinary human beings/workers) are lost in 'common sense', to quote you:


that is, our 'common' pre-reflective intuitions, prejudices, opinions, and practices - is merely the most insidious form of ideology. It's an obstacle to any revolutionary political struggle, no doubt.

Whereas, a tiny section of these 'philosophers' (which included Gramsci) have clawed their way out of this ideological hole, and see things as they 'really are'.

So, he was an elitist, after all, with a theory that implied a two-tier array of philosophers: the great unwashed on the bottom, elitists like him at the top.

On the other hand, if Gramsci hasn't clawed his way out of this hole, there is no good reason to listen to him.

Either way, there is every reason not to.


You've demonstrated that 'common sense' is ephemeral, yes, but this by no means undermines Gramsci's point. Common sense can't be identified as strictly this opinion or that one; otherwise it'd be far too easy to undermine. As ideology, common sense is an entire, - and necessarily bourgeois, - means of understanding and experiencing (i.e., practicing) the world.

I haven't actually demonstrasted anything, least of all that 'common sense' is ephemeral. What I have claimed is that no one seems to know what it is.

And if we do not know what it is, it cannot be correct to call it 'bourgeois'.

Thanks for that quotation, by the way, but it doesn't really helped, since it is thoroughly confused.


"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. 'Common sense' 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. "

For example, this seems to suggest that 'common sense' is a human being, for how else can it create:


the folklore of the future, a relatively rigidified phase of popular knowledge in a given time and place.

This appears to imply that 'common sense' is a sort of Enid Blyton/JK Rowling figure who forces us all to believe in certain bourgoeis fairy tales.


I must ask, do you believe any theory of ideology? Marx's? If so I don't see why you so vehemently oppose this notion of 'common sense.'

Sure I do, but I do not see what ideology has to do with 'common sense'.

For far too long comrades have looked down on ordinary workers, and declared they are all lost in 'bourgeois common sense'. In that case, they need teachers who have miraculously risen above all this, who, like prophets of old, can 'teach the working class' the pure truths of Marxism. And one of these self-appointed prophets was Gramsci.

This is all part of the top-down, substitutionist approach to socialism that Marx himself opposed.

It's not surprising therefore to see this elitist attitude perpetuated by a Stalinist like Gramsci.

Same with Mao.

[Apeiron]

I realize this is a bit late, but a few points in defense of Gramsci...

- Gramsci's theory of revolution is not top-down. I really do not wish to reproduce the entire strategy of his concept of the 'war of position' here, so I won't, but in the end his strategy is one of cultivating alternative worker-organized institutions, not run by professional intellectuals, but by workers themselves, in order to 'de-center' the state and overturn existing relations.


Whereas, a tiny section of these 'philosophers' (which included Gramsci) have clawed their way out of this ideological hole, and see things as they 'really are'.

So, he was an elitist, after all, with a theory that implied a two-tier array of philosophers: the great unwashed on the bottom, elitists like him at the top.

On the other hand, if Gramsci hasn't clawed his way out of this hole, there is no good reason to listen to him.

Either way, there is every reason not to.


- You seem to be merely calling Gramsci an elitist for being a philosopher; the same can be said for Marx or Lenin* or whomever you wish. Making any point that is in any way novel or not merely self-evident is, according to this line of reasoning, to be disregarded. Even so, the undesirability of a given proposition is no argument against its existence.

*Perhaps more so in the case of Lenin. Is there not a strong argument to be made regarding the elitism of vanguardism?

- If, as I said, common sense (and ideology for that matter, being more or less the same thing) exists in practices, then it is reasonable to refer to it as something productive; as I have said, it is not reducible to merely this or that opinion or proposition, but is an entire (ideological) way of experiencing the world.


Sure I do, but I do not see what ideology has to do with 'common sense'.
Is commodity fetishism not capitalism's 'common sense'? Or the liberal myth of the rational self-interested individual? Experiencing and practicing the world through these seemingly 'self-evident' categories is the means by which existing relations may come to reproduce themselves. I think Marx makes this clear enough, Gramsci merely extends the point.

Also, Gramsci was quite vocally opposed to Stalinism... I suppose you're merely using the label in some pejorative sense as a catch-all for all currents of Marxism you find to be undesirable, then?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apeiron, there is much in what you say with which I agree, however, I think you miss the tension that runs through Marxist theory in general -- which is that while many comrades say they are not top-down theorists, their attitude to theory and thus to workers tells a different story.


You seem to be merely calling Gramsci an elitist for being a philosopher; the same can be said for Marx or Lenin* or whomever you wish. Making any point that is in any way novel or not merely self-evident is, according to this line of reasoning, to be disregarded. Even so, the undesirability of a given proposition is no argument against its existence.

Indeed, I am. The same comment applies to other prominent Marxists. I think, however, that Marx himself tried to break with this elitist tradition (in that he rejected philosophy, whereas the vast majority of other Marxists welcomed it with open arms).


If, as I said, common sense (and ideology for that matter, being more or less the same thing) exists in practices, then it is reasonable to refer to it as something productive; as I have said, it is not reducible to merely this or that opinion or proposition, but is an entire (ideological) way of experiencing the world.

In view of the fact that we do not know what 'common sense' is, but we do know what ideology is, they cannot be the same.


Is commodity fetishism not capitalism's 'common sense'? Or the liberal myth of the rational self-interested individual? Experiencing and practicing the world through these seemingly 'self-evident' categories is the means by which existing relations may come to reproduce themselves. I think Marx makes this clear enough, Gramsci merely extends the point.

I think you have swallowed far too much of the traditional story here. None of the things you mention can be part of 'common sense' (whatever that is) since ordinary human beings do not view the world through 'categories'. Moreover, 'commodity fetishism' affects Marxist theorists too, except in a different way -- they take the products of the relations between human beings (for example, language) and regard them as the real relation between things, or as those things themsleves. The result is called 'dialectics', a ruling-class way of viewing the world through 'fixed' and mystical categories (such as 'contradiction', for example: this word refers to a verbal wrangle between human beings, but it has been reified into a relation between things and/or processes under Hegel's influence).

And that is why prominent Marxists are all biased toward elitism, and why only the collective action of the working class can save such comrades from themselves. They need workers far more than workers need them.

So, in reality, things are the exact opposite of the way most comrades see things (ruling-class ideology has inverted the way they see reality -- as in a looking glass, to paraphrase Marx) -- a rather nice ironic dialectical inversion for you to contemplate. Marxists in general in fact need the material good sense of workers to help flip things back to 'normal'. Even Lenin had to learn about the soviets from Russian workers, for goodness sake.


Also, Gramsci was quite vocally opposed to Stalinism... I suppose you're merely using the label in some pejorative sense as a catch-all for all currents of Marxism you find to be undesirable, then?

Maybe so, but then the vast majority of leading anti-Stalinists are elitists too (dialectics renders them that way, as I noted above).

[Apeiron]

Well, I appreciate your response and you certainly have an interesting perspective, but I really do not wish to get into a discussion on dialectics with you -- I may be new here, but I've read enough of this board to know how those tend to end up :).