Does common sense exist?

Let me add to this thought for you...Here you say everything is subjective, and deny that it can be one quality and like another quality... In another thread you say all that humans do is natural... Well, if all that animals do is natural, and all the humans do apart from other animals is natural then the terms un-natural and natural both lose their meaning... If all is one thing then the word loses the power to qualify anything... It needs its opposite or antipod in order to describe anything unless you are looking for mere tautology...The same is true of the word subjective, that if we cannot imagine something objective at least to a degree then the term subjective describes every human experience and so describes nothing.... We know that some human activities are more natural, and some less so... We know that some human experiences are more subjective and some less so, so your conclusion that it is like being half pregnant is simply nonsense...

Fido, They don't lose anything; that's the reason why we have laws to control the masses from acting our their natural tendencies. It helps to protect other people.

Okay... Just for example... If you need laws to keep people from act ing out of their natural tendencies, then laws must be unnatural; and you say all we do is natural... So what is it??? You might better stop and think about what you intend to say before you say it... It might save you from looking like a bone head...

Well..there is Society, and the need for it, and common Law...

...and there is personnel interest, and self preservation, or inner instinct...

...although in conflict they both are natural and needed...

You are confusing two different issues. Have you ever heard "the law of the jungle?" Without laws, we would all live in chaos. What do you think would happen without laws? Do you believe you can survive in any society without laws? Laws are natural to keep humans in line to protect the society at large.

You're the one who shoots off your mouth before understanding what you write. I've challenged everything you have posted that disagrees with logic and common sense - including the subject of philosophy.

Your perceptions about reality show how ignorant you are about these topics. Where did you dig up the idea that laws are unnatural? Unnatural to what? To you? Why don't you go live in the jungles of Africa since laws to you are unnatural.

There, there...is this needed ? You both have some points right...Just bring them together without so much testosterone in between...

...we are always loosing focus with this fighting over words and figures of speech when we all know what was meant in the first place...(myself included even if passively or in response to a previous aggression)

If there were such a thing as a person having it absolutely correct I would say that you just did. The problem that I think I seen was people speaking in absolutes along with emotions involved.
But who am I? I am only one who is observing and that does not mean that I am observing correctly!

I get personal when the other poster gets personal. I also get personal when any poster on a2k continues their non-sensical blather without any credibility, but are personal imaginations without evidence of fact or common sense.

I also will continue in conversations until people start to get emotional then I find it almost useless to carry on.
I do think That both you and fido understand many things that I do not so it is not like I am pretending to know so much.

Well, yes... I have heard of the law of the jungle, and the king of the jungle, and even the supreme court of the jungle... What is that supposed to mean: that when others speak cant, blather to you, that I should think cant and blather... You made nonsensical statements about our perceptions of reality being subjective... I called you on it... You elsewhere made the statement that all we do is natural, assuming we are natural which shows me you have no understanding of the meaning of the words you use, and I am expected to follow your blather and cant as if presuming I know what you are actually trying to say... Get outa Dodge... If you want to say stupid stuff and contradict me in the process you better look for me coming back at you, because I an not well educated, but I am knowledgeable and I have given it some thought, including my choice of words, and I do understand what I am attempting to communicate... So keep your cant and blather...

We impose the law of the jungle on the jungle, other wise, what happens would have no particular order... It is not law at all, but chance, and balance; many prey and few preditors, each working toward their common survival while working individually toward their own...

Law at a human level is not natural, but actually inhibit natural relationships... Before law there was feud, and with feud there was group authority and group repsonsibility... If natural groups (Nations, tribes, clans, families) met in a doom, or moot, or thing to decide issues of conflict, they did not yeild group authority or deny group responsibility... The primary effect of law as we know it, Western Law, which has only come to primacy in the last one thousand years, -has been to separate the individual from his group, leaving him defensless, and in fact, to consider all people, even children as individuals, and this has destroyed community after community by robbing the groups of their power to politce and protect their own...

People still organize, but such organizations as corporations are not natural any more than the Bar is a natural organization... You must be more careful of your choice of words, but even more careful of the nonsense you think... Your notion that people just came up with stuff to burden each other is nonsense... Even today we have a lot of natural relationships, and natural relationship still play a huge part in our lives... It is just that in having law as we have it, the authority of the community and the responsibility to ones community has been erased...

Consider a good read: Law and Revolution, by Burman... It won an award when it was first published as the best book of its kind that year, and it is still very available... Another book on the constitutional and legal history of England would be valuable...If you want to talk like you know, why not trouble yourself to know???

It simply means that man on his own volition, choice, and freedom will act out in negative and anti-social ways - similar to the jungle environment of wild animals. Laws are needed to control these animal instincts.

That you are unable to see the necessity for man-made laws as natural shows you have very little knowledge and concepts about human behavior and civil societies.

What " man " are you talking about... People are social, and have always been social, and for most of human kind's time as humanity they have not had written laws, police, courts, prisons, or the taxes to pay for them and this while they always had government in some fashion or another... Nature made natural friends and natural enemies, and the law you suggest, and seem to take for granted is recent in our history, almost stretching from the same moment history began that was imposed by victor or victim to keep order instead without the necessity of justice... If you think people are at an animal state, you should not blame them or morals, but law itself which breaks all communities to pieces, makes individuals where before there were comrads and brothers, and robs those individuals of their natural defenses...I may agree that humanity has been reduced by law to so many animals, everyone out for themselves, which I should not need to point out is not how humanity has always been, social, and cooperative... The law is both ineffective as providing order and peace, and is more than effective at allowing the victimization of all of the individuals it creates... This individuation is not our natural state, nor our normal state, and its development has been quite recent and if you look at the way things are now, and judge the purpose of all institutions and forms by the present moment then you are a dunce....

There is evidence a plenty of an anthropological nature, and historical evidence from civilized peoples living beside barbarians ... We know much that is missing from our knowledge of one group from what we know of others since people in the same level of technological development had similar social forms, which again, were built for a purpose, survival, which if not reached, doomed all... Sure; a lot of those people seemed to be going their own way, but everyone was some one in a community... It was not all anarchy, though it was a maximum of freedom... The line between human beings and animals was the villiage limits...Now it is our own doors... To me it is all retrograd progress, and all because people seeing the necessity for law in all the animals law creates, call for more law so law can create more animals... Look at the facts... It is an extreme cost to catch and punish all the vermin loose in society... How would societies in the past ever have managed as we fail to do with our advanced technology??? The fact is that natural means of morality, the affection of family for family and friends for friends reenforced by enemies all about made crime rare even while mental illness of one sort or another may have flourished.... Law has wrecked these communities and made modern nation states possible, but if the result of law is not justice, law then will not produce better human beings, but less humane humans...

It is hard to imagine how we will ever be able to recreate the best part of the past without all the feud, blood and enmity between different peoples; but it is important to realize that the situation you see before you is not the situation as it has always been, but IS the situation that has always maintained before the breakdown of society and the crash of civilizations...We are not a nation... We are not one people... Justice could make us one people, but the justice of one has to come out of the injustice of another... We are making the same mistakes as the Romans and Greeks, thinking we can live with rich and poor dividing the whole society between them... All they would divide they lose... Do we want that??? Because there is no way around it... If we cannot reform our forms, and if we cannot rejuvenate ourselves as a people and make of ourselves one nation we will be rolled over and defeated... We will become the slaves of those we thought we had safely beaten...

Where did you learn your history? It's nonexistent from what you wrote and posted.

Even the bible has the ten commandments; they're called god's laws.

Are you wiser than god?

I have read more books on history than you have ever read in your life, and any time you want to compare libraries, I am ready... In addition, I have read much on antropology, and in fact, something of almost every subject... I was an ironworker for thirty years, and have intimate knowledge of Native Americans and their social forms, and grew up and went to school with others... I am German and Irish, and have looked into their literature and laws and social/legal behavior which differed little from the the Native Americans, or the Greeks and Romans in their tribal times...

But your question regarding history shows that you do not know what you are talking about, because it is law that comes with civilization, and by that time natural relationships were done for the most part... It is not only that civilizations are demoralized, but they corrupt all primitive peoples near by, devide them with wealth and corrupt them mercilessly until the can no longer defend themselves... It is not history I am talking about, but pre-history which we know of, but do not know all about... The story has a lot of holes, but enough facts to build a coherent picture.... People of a certain stage of development out of necessity had to have similar social forms... This can be seen from the Illiad up almost to the present moment among primitive peoples...

Laws do no come from civilizations; civilizations creates laws.

Your supposed mass reading of books has no apparent result in your education. You can't even write proper English.

I wonder if you noticed that you just contradicted yourself... Let me say it your way: Works of art do not come from artist; Artists create works of art...

Laws are neither created by civilizations nor come by them... Rather, civilizations formalize law, often as a means of subjugating a conquered people... And, when laws are formalized, the process by which people obtained peace and established guilt changed, so that peace and punishment were no longer the affairs of two communities interested in preserving or re-establishing their relationship, but instead became something one class imposed upon another...Even in Ancient Athens, were law was instituted in order to bring justice as a matter before the whole population, it stood only for the Athenians, and it was a fact that no other people could appeal for its protection... Under Athenian homicide law, for example; no one could bring the case of a murdered slave before the court... The slave, being foreign had no rights... And it was from this time, with the end of blood feud that we recieve one of our best glimpses into an even deeper past, in the story of Orestes...And though time has considered Orestes most cruel for killing his own mother, custom would have left him no choice... If one of yours was found guilty, and needed killing, then no one but one of yours would strike the fatal blow... Any one else killing one of yours, whether guilty or not, demanded blood vengeance... The only protection was to have the guilty party's family do the deed...That is why Orestes killed his mother...

There must be a distinction between Law and the form or expression of the Law...There are several degrees of order intertwined together in different layers who work together...You have Physics, then Chemistry, then Bio-chemistry, later intellect and culture, now there are emerging rules on networks and computers eventually artificial intelligence...The Law is the same although its expression is different...and none can contradict its predecessors in the "building" formation...what emerges emerges upon what is done !

Well, there is a distinction... Ethics means custom, and we can see the similarity with ethnic... Every person away from his people was expected to follow the rules of his own people, and those rules were supposed to reflect honor back on to his people...Law is supposed to over ride ethics, because ethics often demands an instant response to injustice... This instant reponse, so honorable and ethical is given up for the promise of peace now, and justice later, and that is the social contract... Before civilization law was custom, and after, it is code...

But you simply are talking about the complexity in the forms this different layers interact with each other given their specificity´s...their "materials" are different, so their "rhythms", "pace" and form can change...but not their inner nature. They always are brought up given the same principals...
When you fly in a plain you are not contradicting gravity but countering it, in fact without gravity you would float, not fly !
Human Law is not different in nature from Jusnaturalism (Jus-naturalism) it simply ads further complexity to it.

Its al about networks and centers of decision (processors) layer upon layer upon layer... look for instance into goggle earth and check the resemblance from a city with a circuit computer motherboard...the material changed but the "true stuff" is the same !

Let me reply to the point you seem to be making that actually makes sense... Jus-naturalis is the law of nations which is the first place, and perhaps accidently, that human equality was first put forward as equality between nations... In defining that equality as between individuals, law has destroyed nation after nation and laid all individuals open to exploitation, and when we seek to export law to countries like Afghanistand and Iraq, that is what we mean: Forcing Western Law on them with the quasi concept of the individual because it expedites our exploitation of their individuals even while seeming to give them greater justice and more freedom... Law in the Western sense is clearly un-natural, and anti natural.. It has seemed to give the west an economic edge because it has bled so many people out of their earthly existence, but nothing on this earth can keep it from devouring itself... We have a larger proportion of people behind bars and more people employed in law and law enforcement at greater cost than any other land... In addition we have large segments of our population hooked on legal and illegal drugs... How many people are trapped in anti depressed worlds fearful of being without their happy pills even while their lives are turning to **** before their eyes... We, as a people, cannot admit our unhappiness and anxiety, and face the fact that our forms, our social and moral forms are killing us, drawing the hatred and attacks of the world upon us which we can barely raise a fist to defend against... We have lost it... We are lonely and in pain and wish to export that misery to the world... It is a crime... The crime we must live with, and face is from a failure of philosophy and of philosophical understanding...

The crime we export as war or commerce or law is indistinguisable from the failed forms which have produced it... We are destrying ourselves to preserve a failed form... It has reached a point where it is robbing us of our lives, is being fed on our marrow, and we still believe we cannot live without it... We cannot live with it... We cannot live with our failed economy, and religions, and governments and all the crime law legalizes... Our Jugulars are being laid bare for the first sharp knife that fate will provide... And fate will provide... And just so, all cultures and civilizations have been the victims of fate that they first celebrated and then came to fear, because when a society loses the ability to adapt and face reality with a brave and honest face, it is done...