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.

[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

[Dimentio]

A more modern example of the same logics

[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]

[font=Courier]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.[/font]

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

[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 Lichtenstein@July 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?