Common Sense

Okay, I made this topic, so i really don't care if it gets off topic. So, here we go with something that I just thought about.

Incest. Okay, since we've all originated from the same two people, (That being supported by Christianity as well as Atheism), is their such a thing as incest? If everyone is a brother and sister, then isn't everything incest. Or should we just say that nothing at all is incest? Just puttin' it out there. ^^

How does it follow from the fact that we all have some common ancestors, that there are no differences among people in intelligence, or skill, or in any other way? Even in the case of brothers or sisters there is often a disparity in abilities and capacities. Why shouldn't there be the same disparity among far more distant relations?

i think a big factor is environment: cultural conditioning, geography and climate, economics.

there are others, it is also mixed up with the level of our being aware of what we do, which if you know what it means to be self-conscious (like shy) it can really inhibit you. so some people got dumbed down, etc. but that is during one lifetime, not involving genetics.

what i wondered is why dont we all look alike like chipmunks? obviously there is something different about human beings. i do see some facial differences and body composition differences in certain animals, but not like the variety we have in humanity.

I wonder whether chipmunks think they all look alike. It might be that they think all people look alike, and that chipmunks look very different from one another. We are not very much attuned to differences among chipmunks, you know. Why should we be? It also may be that the differences in other species are (perhaps) smells (that people cannot detect) and not looks. And, also, dogs don't all look alike. Maybe that is because we are more interested in dogs than in chipmunks.

i am more interested in chipmunks than dogs!

This is something I've been wondering about for a while. Or rather, I'd just like to view someone's thought on it.
_________________________________________________
Common Sense, often used in example such as these:

"Why don't you tie your shoes after you put them on? It's common sense."

"You don't know 2+2? Come on dude, it's common sense."

"Bring a Jacket to school when it rains. it's common sense!"

Well, there's such a thing as common knowledge. Common knowledge is subjective to the area that you live in; Knowledge that comes naturally to you is based upon the things and people that surround you. For example, your common knowledge is different then someone who was raised into a family of cannibals. They may have different "Morals", "Perspective", or "Knowledge," based upon everything they were raised upon.

Barring the idea that common sense is equal to instinct, tell me what you think after reading this.

Is there such a thing as common sense?

If not everyone has an objective sense, based upon the knowledge they have acquired over their lifetimes, (long or short), then how can there be a common sense?

My conclusion is that common sense varies with every person, based upon what their common knowledge is. Thus, common sense isn't very common at all.

My conclusion is that common sense varies with every person, based upon what their common knowledge is. Thus, common sense isn't very common at all.

Pierce and other pragmatists used to talk about "common sense" in philosophy. Pierce used the term "commonsensism" some more modern writers talk about hard core common sense metaphysical assumptions
among the suggestions of things everyone presupposes in practice even while possibly denying them in theory are:
-the existence of an independent external reality
-the agency of free will
-The notion that some outcomes are better than other outcomes
These are concepts which are necessarily presupposed in the practice of living and thus denying them in metaphysical speculation is to abandon "common sense" and serves no pragmatic or utilitarian value whatsoever.
So there may in fact be some universal "common sense" even if philosophers routinely try to cast "doubt" sophistry.

My suggestion is one should accept these common sense notions until it is absolutely proven they are "false". They should be the default position. Despite claims to the contrary neither science nor reason has proven any of them "false".

-

Quinn;110455 wrote:

My conclusion is that common sense varies with every person, based upon what their common knowledge is. Thus, common sense isn't very common at all.

Pierce and other pragmatists used to talk about "common sense" in philosophy. Pierce used the term "commonsensism" some more modern writers talk about hard core common sense metaphysical assumptions
among the suggestions of things everyone presupposes in practice even while possibly denying them in theory are:
-the existence of an independent external reality
-the agency of free will
-The notion that some outcomes are better than other outcomes
These are concepts which are necessarily presupposed in the practice of living and thus denying them in metaphysical speculation is to abandon "common sense" and serves no pragmatic or utilitarian value whatsoever.
So there may in fact be some universal "common sense" even if philosophers routinely try to cast "doubt" sophistry.

My suggestion is one should accept these common sense notions until it is absolutely proven they are "false". They should be the default position. Despite claims to the contrary neither science nor reason has proven any of them "false".

-

Is there such a thing as common sense?