What does one define as "Common Sense?"

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What I define as “common sense” may not necessarily be what others define as “common sense.” You can make a compelling argument that something that is “obvious” to YOU is NOT “obvious” to others.

It depends on one’s definition of what is “obvious,” and “widely agreed” to. Or if certain things are objective (which I personally agree they are) or not.

Also-----can one actually “develop” common sense? Or does it have to be inborn?
So what do you guys think?

 

[Trishie]

I see how it can be ambiguous. Common sense"could be taken to mean “average majority viewpoint” for action.

When I use it, I intend it to mean “practical, balanced, realistic and reliable good sense”.
That is the sense of common usage where I come from…For instance, I’ve heard more than one employer say," I’d much prefer to find an employee with common sense (practical good sense) than someone who is more highly qualified or more intelligent."

I do know some people who seem to be born without an innate sense of practical balance.
There are times and situations where I doubt my own good sense.
Someone I’ve known many years has always been out of phase with practical common sense, well, almost always. Once in a while she amazes everyone with the most profound wise statements.
Are we born with it? Some more than others, but I do think *formation * and experience of reality does have impact on developing it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So what do you guys think?

I think the phrase is used when it is assumed that two people reason similarly about something. When I’ve seen it used it usually does not take into account that people have different experiences, different familiarity with solute for frequent problems, and different constraints that influence the ones thinking.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

What I define as “common sense” may not necessarily be what others define as “common sense.” You can make a compelling argument that something that is “obvious” to YOU is NOT “obvious” to others.

It depends on one’s definition of what is “obvious,” and “widely agreed” to. Or if certain things are objective (which I personally agree they are) or not.

Also-----can one actually “develop” common sense? Or does it have to be inborn?
So what do you guys think?

Perhaps some quotes may help.

“For Cicero, common sense was primarily the common manner of feeling, the views of the crowd whose tastes the orator had to take into account if he were to influence them (De Oratore, I, 3). However it was also an ensemble of spontaneous judgments with which all men are naturally endowed and which permits them to discern good from evil (De Oratore, III, 50). This double meaning, commonly accepted opinion and opinion founded upon nature and reason, is almost always found in definitions of common sense.”
[Etienne Gilson, *Thomist Realism And The Critique of Knowledge. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, p. 32]

Although I do not side with many things in Rescher’s book, this I do:

“Neither individually nor collectively do we humans begin our cognitive quest empty-handed, equipped with only a tabula rasa. Be it as single individuals or as entire generations, we always begin with a diversified cognitive heritage, falling heir to that great mass of information and information that constitutes the knowledge of our predecessors . . . . What William James called our ‘funded experience’ of the world’s ways—of its nature and our place in it—constitute the data at philosophy’s disposal to accomplish its question-resolving work. These specifically include:
• Common-sense beliefs, common knowledge, and what have been ‘the ordinary convictions of the plain man’ since time immemorial;
• The facts (or purported facts) afforded by the sciences of the day; the views of well-informed experts and authorities;
• The lessons we derive from our dealings with the world in everyday life;
• The received opinions that constitute the world view of the day; views that accord with the ‘spirit of the times’ and the ambient convictions of one’s cultural context;
• Tradition, inherited lore, and ancestral wisdom (including religious tradition);
• The ‘teachings of history’ as best we can discern them.”
[Nicholas Rescher, *Philosophical Reasoning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 15-16]

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Perhaps some quotes may help.

“For Cicero, common sense was primarily the common manner of feeling, the views of the crowd whose tastes the orator had to take into account if he were to influence them (De Oratore, I, 3). However it was also an ensemble of spontaneous judgments with which all men are naturally endowed and which permits them to discern good from evil (De Oratore, III, 50). This double meaning, commonly accepted opinion and opinion founded upon nature and reason, is almost always found in definitions of common sense.”
[Etienne Gilson, *Thomist Realism And The Critique of Knowledge

. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, p. 32]

Although I do not side with many things in Rescher’s book, this I do:

“Neither individually nor collectively do we humans begin our cognitive quest empty-handed, equipped with only a tabula rasa. Be it as single individuals or as entire generations, we always begin with a diversified cognitive heritage, falling heir to that great mass of information and information that constitutes the knowledge of our predecessors . . . . What William James called our ‘funded experience’ of the world’s ways—of its nature and our place in it—constitute the data at philosophy’s disposal to accomplish its question-resolving work. These specifically include:
• Common-sense beliefs, common knowledge, and what have been ‘the ordinary convictions of the plain man’ since time immemorial;
• The facts (or purported facts) afforded by the sciences of the day; the views of well-informed experts and authorities;
• The lessons we derive from our dealings with the world in everyday life;
• The received opinions that constitute the world view of the day; views that accord with the ‘spirit of the times’ and the ambient convictions of one’s cultural context;
• Tradition, inherited lore, and ancestral wisdom (including religious tradition);
• The ‘teachings of history’ as best we can discern them.”
[Nicholas Rescher, *Philosophical Reasoning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 15-16]

Thank you SO much for the quotes, Fr.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I see how it can be ambiguous. Common sense"could be taken to mean “average majority viewpoint” for action.

When I use it, I intend it to mean “practical, balanced, realistic and reliable good sense”.
That is the sense of common usage where I come from…For instance, I’ve heard more than one employer say," I’d much prefer to find an employee with common sense (practical good sense) than someone who is more highly qualified or more intelligent."

I do know some people who seem to be born without an innate sense of practical balance.
There are times and situations where I doubt my own good sense.
Someone I’ve known many years has always been out of phase with practical common sense, well, almost always. Once in a while she amazes everyone with the most profound wise statements.
Are we born with it? Some more than others, but I do think *formation * and experience of reality does have impact on developing it.

I tend to define “common sense” the same way.

 

[empther]

Common sense will refer to people’s judgement about fairly simple and well known matters.

For example: it’s common sense that wearing seatbelts could save your life in a crash.

Hitler blamed World War II and every problem on “international Jewry”. Common sense tells us he lied. Everybody knows enough about history to know a few million Jews didn’t control everything that happened in the world.

When liberal politicians tell us we should increase government spending to solve problems, common sense should tell us we “can’t spend ourselves rich”. Look at what European socialist did over there.

When we start investigating more complicated matters, like the structure of DNA or nuclear physics, common sense fails. Then, the experts must take over with disciplined scientific investigation.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Common sense will refer to people’s judgement about fairly simple and well known matters.

For example: it’s common sense that wearing seatbelts could save your life in a crash.

Hitler blamed World War II and every problem on “international Jewry”. Common sense tells us he lied. Everybody knows enough about history to know a few million Jews didn’t control everything that happened in the world.

When liberal politicians tell us we should increase government spending to solve problems, common sense should tell us we “can’t spend ourselves rich”. Look at what European socialist did over there.

When we start investigating more complicated matters, like the structure of DNA or nuclear physics, common sense fails. Then, the experts must take over with disciplined scientific investigation.

True.

 

[rossum]

What I define as “common sense” may not necessarily be what others define as “common sense.” You can make a compelling argument that something that is “obvious” to YOU is NOT “obvious” to others.

It depends on one’s definition of what is “obvious,” and “widely agreed” to. Or if certain things are objective (which I personally agree they are) or not.

Also-----can one actually “develop” common sense? Or does it have to be inborn?
So what do you guys think?

I have seen common sense defined as: “Anything you have been told by your parents before you reached the age of eight.”

There is enough truth in that to make it a useful approach. Common sense is usually useful, but it is not infallible, and it may not work in every situation.

rossum

 

[Robert_Sock]

You need to define common nonsense that people, like atheist, use to escape reality within the secular world.