Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 10:33 pm
@Quinn phil,
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. ^^
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 10:38 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;111094 wrote:
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. ^^


But it isn't really true that we are all brothers or sisters. That's just a figurative expression to indicate that we are all very distantly related. We are more distantly related than, say, third cousins twice removed. And there can be no incest between third cousins twice removed, so how could there be incest between much more distant relations?
0 Replies
 
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 10:44 pm
@Quinn phil,
Oh, you're right. I thought the definition of incest to be sex with any 'family' at all. But I looked it up, and it's to do with closely related family only.
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 11:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111093 wrote:
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 11:19 pm
@salima,
salima;111107 wrote:
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.
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 11:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111113 wrote:
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!
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 11:33 pm
@salima,
salima;111116 wrote:
i am more interested in chipmunks than dogs!


Well, look more closely at them. Who knows? You may find a Brad Pitt look alike.
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 05:14 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;110455 wrote:
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.


I would say that common sense is the lowest common denominator of all knowledge/logic. Of course, not everyone posseses even this lowest common denominator, but more do than don't, hence it is common.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:12 pm
@Quinn phil,
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".

-
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:21 pm
@prothero,
prothero;111687 wrote:
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".

-


I agree. We should presume them innocent unless proven guilty. They are, as philosophers like to put it, prima-facie true. But really, who is going to be able to show that there are no other people in the world, or that there are no "external" objects? How would anyone be able to show such a thing.
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 11:11 am
@prothero,
prothero wrote:

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".

-


interesting-the agency of free will is a metaphysical assumption and a commonsense notion. i like that!
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 04:27 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn phil wrote:
Is there such a thing as common sense?
Imo yes, but not all have a good common sense.

As I see it, common sense is heavily reliant on itellitgence, experience, logic, knowledge and wisdom.
It will be influenced by group think, naivity, flock instinct ..etc.

Unfortunaly many politicians will rely on common sense and produce very weird laws.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Common Sense
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 02:30:42