Common sense

While it is fallacious to base an argument on the majority action or thought, this is not what I, or indeed any of the many philosophers who (from the very first philosopher who gave us the actual term ‘philosophia’) give common sense it’s due value use as the justification for doing so. You can find my justification in the OP.

If you have a difference of opinion on this, you are welcome to provide an argument. Do not just dismiss something without any justification other than a fallacy that is not apparant (i.e. something you have invented to assist your dismissal of the first argument). :slight_smile:

“if everyone else jumped off the bridge…”

the inductive fallacy is apparant to anyone who has read and understood hume…

but as far as obvious fallacies are concerned, appeal to false authority ranks up there as well, yet I digress…

give 'em hell GCT…

-Imp

You’ll find neither in my original post… go on, be a sport and contribute an argument. :slight_smile:

no, it isn’t the “message”… who has time to actually read and think when tv is on? besides, there’s work to be done…

right… it exists in this moment now… the future can not be known… to claim that the future will exist because it has always been so begs the question which is fallacious… the belief is not justified…

rights are not given, they are taken.

sure there is… plenty of philosophy has been penned based upon a faulty ontology… marx is a perfect example…

no, the fact is you interpret the world as working in a certain way… you suppose that it could work in this way or that… you assume that because you have seen one event in the world that all subsequent events must be like the prior events… this is hume’s fallacy of induction at its finest…

the only “truth” is that which one can impose on the world

exactly the opposite is needed…

only for the moment and the moment’s gone…

you are grabbing for the constant in that which is nothing but flux…

“our philosopher is almost (perhaps quite) certainly wrong.”

not as far as logic is concerned, but if you wish to reduce common sense to some form of mysticism, that is a different problem…

-Imp

My point is that if we listen to Hume on this, we will never be able to achieve anything useful with Philosophy. You disagree, and give marx as your example of useful philosophy that was achieved on ‘faulty ontology’. Worse that this, however, is that Hume (on this point) provides only doubt.

If you want to base your philosophy on the possibility of doubt then that is your choice. If you do so, logically you will not achieve much. If someone bases their work on a foundation which is doubt, nothing therein and after can be anything more than doubt. If you want to achieve only doubt, that is fine. You may argue that there is no alternative - but if that is the case, one might argue as to the relevancy of philosophy to anything.

So we pull common sense back into the picture. Common sense shows us that based on our experiences we can safely predict the future. Because every day for as long as human’s have recorded history the sun has risen (eclipse and poles excluded) we are confident it will rise tomorrow similarly. If you want to alert me to the fact that, thanks to Hume et al, we cannot be sure, then that is fine. If you want me to actually be concerned that this might be the actuality - that the sun may actually not rise, then you are wasting my time, as explained above - I want to get somewhere with my philosophical work.

Your argument is exactly what Grice was referring to in the bit I cited. Muller et al will tell you, that is a very shoddy way of trying to get anywhere with philosophy. I see thatyou like Heraclitus because in many of your posts you refer to flux. This means it is unlikely we are going to agree, but perhaps we can get somewhere other than doubt by exploring common sense.

Wow, I can’t believe I missed that post for so long!

Yes I have questioned my state of being. Thank God I did! In your arrogance you have assumed that the questions were not answered. I am not confused. I do not doubt reality. I simply have had the horizons of my reality expanded. Therefore my idea of common sense is different to yours.

Who defines your reality? Your 5 senses? Other people? Scientists? mathematicians? Your family? Religious leaders? Reality IS. It is beyond these things. Have you ever even considered that there are different, more accurate ways to understand reality?

You think that my kind of posts “further the destruction of philosophy, encourage doubt, lack of realism and no common sense” That is an example of your limited thinking, nothing else. The whole point of them is that they PUSH thinking, expand ideas and encourage looking at things from new perspectives thus expanding our reality rather than limiting it. For as long as people are thinking, and questioning, then philosophy will continue. It can’t be destroyed.

What purpose does your life serve Oxfordwill? Is there really anything beneficial coming from your time with philosophy? Why are your posts any more valuable than the more metaphysical ones? And valuable to whom exactly?

I don’t say that the keyboard/apple doesn’t exists on a whim you know. I know the keyboard exist. I also know that it an illusion. I have experienced the reality of both, I suspect that you have experienced the reality of only one.

The philosophy you so strongly defend is the philosophy that suits your world view. Any challenge to this and you don’t like it. Metaphysical ideas are important to philosophy. If you destroy that, then you will cut philosophys’ lifeblood and then it will die.

You mention that “even if it is a dream, is is still real.” So everything in your imagination is real? But my point is, do you even know the nature of the imagination? How? Read it in a book? A teacher told you?

I do understand your concern, that people will say pointless things with nothing to back it up, and add nothing to the discussion. You must also realise that the discussion adds up to nothing anyway. What isn’t pointless? That’s something you have to discover on your own. The scientists, the churches, the mathematicians, they can’t tell you. It isn’t something that can be expressed by a formular. Eventually you’ll have to make the PERSONAL, inner transformation, and when you do you will understand why people write the metaphysical kind of posts like I sometimes do.

Are you sure the sun will rise tomorrow? Does the sun rise at all? Think about it. To us, from our perspective, yes. In “reality” No it doesn’t. So the question becomes: does Philosophy exclude certain perspectives or encompass them all?

What’s your point again??

BOB. I mean DALE. :wink:

The keyboard cannot be an illusion. If you think it is, you’re wasting your time. That’s me pointeroony. I realise you disagree but there is nothing more I can say without repeating myself.

But does the keyboard really exist? Well, the suggestion that it does not is just nonsense. It would be lovely to think that there is a whole host of actualities ‘out there’ ‘beyond our comprehension’ and so on. The fact is that we should work with what we have - and we have the keyboard.

Anything else is nonsense. Nonsense is useless.

“We’re all in the matrix, man.”

Well it is. Are you trying to establish “reality” here or not? (and wasting my time as opposed to what?) Just because something is an illusion doesn’t mean it isn’t real or doesn’t exist. It is obvious that from our perspective the keyboard is real and the apple tastes lovely. All I am saying is that is not the only perspective, and it is certainly not the most complete (real?) perspective.

And we also have a tool much more useful than our keyboard - our mind. So we should work with that too.

Also when you say ‘what we have’, what you are really saying “what I have” and my point is that you have much more than you realise. It’s getting you to realise it which is the tricky part. :slight_smile:

Would it be more useful to deny that possibility, or to consider that possibility?

DALE

I stated in the start that if you were not concerned with achieving anything through philosophy you might as well pack it all in.

But it is ultimately a nonsense term. The word illusion leads you down the path of there being ‘an alterior reality’ and ‘something beyond our comprehension’. As above, useless.

Right. Now let’s begin some philosophy then! Anything else (look at descartes) produces nothing. If a theory produces no results it is time to question that theory.

It is the only perspective we have and therefore the only one of any use to us. Why be so keen to escape what is before us? Let’s sort this out first and then move on to the possibilities of a matrix like existance.

By your own admission you like the taste of the apple and you know the keyboard to exist. Anyone who tries to say that either is not the case is wasting our time. We do not have ‘much more than we realise’. If we do, we wouldn’t know about it because ‘we wouldn’t realise’.

Consider it, realise where it comes from, realise it is ultimately unhelpful and then sit down to some useful thinking.

Oxford Will, I realise we are not getting any place with this. I think this will be the last thing I say on the matter.

Explain what you consider “achievement” through philosophy.

What makes you think like this?

Take, for example, the science of a hologram. It is well known. A hologram is an “illusion” yes? Yet is is also real. There are at least two levels at work there, yes? The level of the lasers & interference patterns and the projected “illusional” level. My point is that we must not rule out the possibility that what we think of as reality is only one level of something “more” real. This isn’t a guess it is simply the reality I am aware of. I wouldn’t bother mentioning any of this if it was beyond comprehension. (I don’t just argue for fun)

If everybody was blind we wouldn’t comprehend colour. You would probably consider speak of it as “nonsense” or lacking common sense. Yet as you know colour is “real”. Colour is as real as your keyboard. I am not saying it doesn’t exist as it obviously does. I am saying “there is a reality to colour that is beyond that which we perceive with our senses” colour is real, but it is still also an illusion.

define “results”.

What results have been achieved so far?

My dictionary defines the aim of Philosophy as ‘use of reason in seeking truth and knowledge of ultimate reality.’ This argument comes about because we have different ideas on “reason” :slight_smile: But we should be able to account for that.

nonono! That is where we our problem is starting. It’s the only perspective YOU have at the moment. There is a bigger perspective, I have experienced it, some religions talk of it, some avenues of science are discovering it.

Agree. I am simply highlighting the need to take into account perspective. Going back to your imagination - imagine a keyboard. Is THAT keyboard real? Is it Illusion? Or is it both?

explain “useful” thinking.

DALE

I have to agree with Askewd. While I do not personally think that the keyboard is an illusion, it wouldn’t matter if it were.

When you look at Hume’s personal writings, he admits that one cannot live by the principals a skeptic believes. Just because I believe food is an illusion, doesn’t mean that I can decide to stop participating in the illusion.

not at all… marx was an idiot, his philosophy is flawed from the word go… it was useful to no one but tyrants in the guise of “communists”…

you get nowhere… it is based on an error… everyone thinks they have the truth, they do not. “getting somewhere”? like what? having mindless followers? that is not philosophy, that is the job of a politician or priest…

no, you cannot… you have herd mentality… common sense for that herd… you will not find “truth” that way…

if you argue that this is the truth because I say it is… it cannot be logically proven, but take it on faith… bow at the altar of this new “philosophic common-sense” religion…

do not be afraid to call a spade a spade…

-Imp

Dale: If you wish to stop having this conversation that’s fine. :slight_smile:

Imp:

Thing is, you’re not really responding to my post. How do you get from me saying achieving something to that meaning I want followers?

When what I am saying goes against nearly all modern philosophers, how do I have ‘herd mentality’ and even if I did, what does that have to do with the conversation at hand?

I am not arguing the case for any particular truth. If you bothered to read my post before hitting the reply button you would already know that I am advocating a way of doing philosophy, not a particular philosophy.

Your comments about this being a ‘new philosophical religion’ that I have somehow found myself ‘bowing at the altar of’ are laughable in their naivety.

If anyone else has any decent argument as to why common sense is not relevant in philosophy, by all means speak up. The only argument of any worth that has been presented is that of common sense relativism. I tried my best to deal with that but I fear the value of that particular conversational route was lost as soon as someone began posting about reality.

As usual. :slight_smile:

Ya, let’s fit our beliefs into the truth of the world around us!! We are all sometimes incoherent with our worldviews and constantly need to change them on the basis of facts presented to us that we haven’t seen before. We can’t twist everything to fit our view because then we wouldn’t really get down to the truth that way. We would just end up with a more screwed up world-view. I think that it is very practical what you suggest OxfordBrookesWill. Kootos to you!

Ya, if I say “hey this keyboard doesn’t exist” I am kind of refuting myself by acknowledging the presence of the keyboard. lol. Don’t you find that funny?

If this world is a dream why not just take up the belief of relativism…lol

If this life is just a dream, why go to school? We already have all knowledge and there’s no need to learn anything. We already know how to change a tire, if not, we can change the rules to fit our knowledge because it’s our dream. And by the way, you’re only a dream figure and don’t exist, according to your doctrine, so why are you telling me how things are. I own you in my mind. Stop telling me how things are in my own mind. It’s my dream!!! LOL…

meh

Have a great day!

-The Brain :smiley:

fine, be the extreme existentialist and keep your philosophy in your head… do not write a word… but what would that achieve?

commonsense is common… common amongst the herd… that is exactly what it has to do with it…

yes I know, you are advocating becoming a mystic, starting a religion, following the way of the common sense… your way is not new, and it doesn’t work…

laugh it up then… you are not using logic to back up your philosophy and your arguments are unfounded…

deal all you like, scoff all you like, use as many ad hominems as you like, your argument is still unfounded and your idea of basing philosophy on some mytical undefinable common sense is nothing more than mysticism…

-Imp

Ya, let’s fit our beliefs into the truth of the world around us!! We are all sometimes incoherent with our worldviews and constantly need to change them on the basis of facts presented to us that we haven’t seen before. We can’t twist everything to fit our view because then we wouldn’t really get down to the truth that way. We would just end up with a more screwed up world-view. I think that it is very practical what you suggest OxfordBrookesWill. Kootos to you!

Ya, if I say “hey this keyboard doesn’t exist” I am kind of refuting myself by acknowledging the presence of the keyboard. lol. Don’t you find that funny?

If this world is a dream why not just take up the belief of relativism…lol

If this life is just a dream, why go to school? We already have all knowledge and there’s no need to learn anything. We already know how to change a tire, if not, we can change the rules to fit our knowledge because it’s our dream. And by the way, you’re only a dream figure and don’t exist, according to your doctrine, so why are you telling me how things are. I own you in my mind. Stop telling me how things are in my own mind. It’s my dream!!! LOL…

meh

Have a great day!

-The Brain :smiley:

You’ve asked questions, all be them largely irrelevant (sorry pal, but they seriously are. I wonder if you are contributing to this conversation or simply being difficult).

Why? Because it might be an illusion? :slight_smile: Achievement is a simple term Dale.

The word illusion means an erroneous perception of reality. If I am erroneously perceiving my keyboard when I use my sense of sight to do so, there is only logically one explanation: I am not seeing that which is real. If I not seeing that which is real, I am being deceived. If I am being deceived, there is a reality ‘somewhere else’ or ‘in some other form’ (or there is no reality in which case skip right to the last sentence of this paragraph). If that is the case, we come to ‘an alterior reality’ and ‘something beyond our comprehension’ or ‘something beyond’ or ‘something beyond our senses’. Given that our senses, for which example I shall include our faculties (including reason) are the way in which we perceive and make sense of anything that we happen to perceive, we now reach a useless position wherein we can know nothing.

This is the result of a time when humans were scared and life was unstable. It is understandable but lets not let it get in the way so.

No. You use the word illusion quite differently here. The fact you didn’t realise this while typing it out is ridiculous.

I already agreed that we shouldn’t rule the possibility out. Like I said before, and am saying again and will no doubt have to say once more, we do not rule out the possibility but we also do not let is cause as so much concern that we take it to be a reason to dismiss common sense.

If everyone was blind, which isn’t the case, we wouldn’t know what colour was. You talking about colour would have as much meaning to humanity as this:

“Clhsd sokwe;lj selkj”.

Regardless, in that example you cannot talk about colour. You are asking us to consider something that would not exist in your example.

Not in a world of the blind, no. Completely nonsense argument.

Achievement, usefulness - results. Descartes wanted to get somewhere - understanding. He failed, he got no results. He is subsequently only of use to first year philosophy students, and people on web boards who love the matrix.

Oh boy. There are things you take for granted and have done so your entire life thanks to the results of philosophy. Terms you use such as ‘perception’ and ‘potential’ are concepts and understanding we have thanks to philosophers. Why are you not aware of this? Have you never bothered to read any history of philosophy?

Please don’t expect me to consider a dictionary as a valid justification for your opinions on the nature of reality.

No, again you jump to reply without having read the whole paragraph. We have only our senses as tools of perception. The fact the keyboard is not edible is known thanks to our perception - there is no other perception that tells us the keyboard is actually a chicken and quite edible.

I’m concerned you are about to tell me that you have a set of magic crystals that keep you safe and well.

Dale, if I imagine a keyboard in my head, it does not exist. I am imagining it. It is not an illusion because I know it to be in my head, as I chose to imagine it.

I will again humour your constant requests for me to define terms everyone already understands. Useful is something that helps us achieve something. In this sense, it is not useful to spend your time travelling down these metaphysical pathways that lead, as I have deductively shown, to dead ends. It may be fun, it may be what you like and you may think you gain understanding about yourself from it. All that may be true. It will not help you achieve anything through philosophy, is my argument that no one has yet refuted with anything other than ‘you don’t know what is real, Will’.

To qualify the truth value of that wouldn’t it require you to know the truth? But if you know the truth then it is not the case that everyone does not know the truth.

Imp, replying to that most recent of your reponses is likely to ensure that this degenrates to an unacceptable level of nonsense. My argument is logical and I do provide justification, you need only scroll up.

Nice to see someone agreeing with me up there, light_eclipseca :slight_smile:. You managed to be more succint than me with your summary of why common sense is important.

Back to Imp who thinks common sense is not valuable as it is used by common people. About as tenuous as one gets, really.

and there are absolutely no absolutes…

:laughing:

no, it doesn’t require my knowing a thing for I know nothing…

-Imp