Question

Can common sense be trusted and accepted, or should it be question?

Answer 1

If guided by conscience, common sense can be trusted and accepted. If conscience convicts, and common sense chooses to go against conscience, then common sense should neither be trusted nor accepted.

Answer 2

Common sense is what is called a rule of thumb. It is something that works most of the timess, as any generalization made by a human being. For example, at one point, common knowledge stated that the man was unable to fly and that common knowledge has remained mostly useful to these days with the exception of the airplane and other forms of aerial transportation.

It's usefulness lies in the fact that common sense can be used when the circumstances do not allow you enough time to make a more precise decision. It is a "rough decision" not unlike quickly moving away from loud noises, which is one of the most primitive known forms of "common sense".

So, to answer your question, yes and no. It is not a matter of "either this or that", it is not binary, black or white, question or trust... if you take it that way, any answer will be wrong. It would be meta-common sense in the sense that it would be a very big generalization, kind of like common sense applied to common sense, which is like rough thinking about rough thinking, which is quite a weird psychic phenomenon and very prone to error.

So if I were to accept your binary universe of possibilities I would tell you this: if you trust common sense, you are bound to do quite well but never exceptionally and it will not prevent you from making mistakes. If you only question common sense that will cost you a lot of time and time is non-refundable.

So a better way to answer would be to formulate a law that would allow more flexibility within the binary trust/question universe, "whenever you can afford it and the decision is worth it, question common sense, whenever you can't or if it is not worth it, just trust common sense".

And by the way, you should not take this answer as a correct one. It might be helpful in that it points in a direction that can let you take your thoughts even further down the rabbit hole you are exploring but it is by no means a "correct" and "definitive" answer.

And to leave you with Timothy Leary's psychedelic words to think about: "question authority".

Answer 3

However, if equated with truth, truth will always win out! Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it truth... (i.e. If you believe you can fly and jump off a building, the truth of gravity will prove you wrong...)!

Answer 4

Thank you... I enjoy constructive confrontation...

Answer 5

If Timothy Leary is the difinitive authority then the answer leaves much to be desired... (I grew up in his era).

Answer 6

@WriterzWeb2U Who said that Timothy Leary is the definitive authority? I didn't even imply it. I only quoted it because I think the quote is interesting in the context of what I said.

I mean, read what you write; if Timothy Leary is the definitive authority, then by his own words, you should question him, the quote being "question authority". The problem is that you will have trouble "getting it" because you have to actually think in order to do so.

I do not see how quoting him at the end of my answer would make my answer "leave much to be desired", which for me, is just very rude from your part (dismissing my answer like that).

Also, know that beginning your answer with "However" doesn't make it so that what you say is actually related to what was said before. It makes it so that it appears to be that way, but in this case, I am talking about heuristics and you respond talking about "the truth". It is like talking about magic to scientifically explain a phenomenon or talking about God in a mathematical demonstration.

Really, conscience will only take you so far. You can consciously try to think that what you were saying was true but your unconscious knows better.

And let me add something else in a way that I am certain that you will be able to understand:

The reason why I believe that there is an implied un-usefulness in your first answer (the one about consciousness) is because of the way it is given: it presents conscience as a panacea for the problem (it is actually, as one could expect it, the same reason that gives your second answer the same un-usefulness as the first one, as a direct result of that compulsion of yours of trying to find one explanation for everything), giving an answer that arises no further thought and that would stagnate anyone that would accept it as "truth". To say it otherwise, your answer implies that there is no need to think (actually, no thinking at all) as long as you know the truth and you are conscious, which makes me know for a fact and beyond any doubt that you know the truth and you are a very conscious person.

That's why you don't know how to know when you don't know something, which is something that you might want to change (you might want, but then again you might not, now that I have said it).

To say it in the words of the Douglas Adams the Magnificent (nickname given by me), the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 (you can check google, it will confirm this). Now you just have to find the question.

So, to get back to the original question, in case that Hikari93 cares about having a clear answer: you can trust common sense but never as a definitive answer or truth or you will end with preposterous ideas and responses that do not fit the specific context in which you find yourself, like talking about "the truth" in an heuristic argument or using the vaguely defined word "consciousness" as the way to know whether common sense is right or wrong.

Answer 7

I love it… A philosophical critique! Re: Hikari93’s question… I did not intend to imply, or infer, that it was your intent to proclaim Timothy Leary as a definitive authority. However, Leary’s mantra, “Tune on, tune in, drop out,” does leave much to be desired; in so far as, “insightful,” rhetoric is concerned. As a “countercultural” phrase, popularized by Leary in 1967, he set a standard, or rather a sub-standard, which helped to shape that era. In essence, what he was really stating, though he may have not intentionally realized it at that particular moment in time, was just another form of, Aleister Crowley’s thesis based upon, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” I would neither question, nor hold in regard, the ranting s of someone like Leary, (or Crowley, for that matter.)… As far as, having to actually think, I have lived long enough to see the end results of Leary’s, (and Crowley’s), way of thinking… Leary, (as was Crowley), were simply puppets… My intention was not to be, “rude;” nor “dismiss your answer.” Only to challenge the rational. By referring to heuristics, you seem to imply speculative reasoning, as opposed to objective reasoning; which is what both Leary, and Crowley, for that matter, advocated.
Inasmuch as my ability to, “understand…” The word “Conscience,” means, “With knowledge.” Ergo, “Conscience,” is not only the panacea, but the basis of truth.
Your hypothesis asserts that, “thinking,” hinders the reality of, “truth;” and that acceptance of, “truths,” hinders the freedom to, “think.” Yes, I do know truth, yet not with the arrogance that you presume! Not always, as such, do I know truth, and am very conscious of it.
But, please, I am not the authority… By all means, continue to stand by your, “Binary universe of possibilities…” And, contrary to your conclusion, I desire objective rational! I am transitioning out of a career of almost thirty years, where objectivity was necessary, yet not the absolute…
Only a narcissistic individual would reply to my response with such fervor; as clearly indicated by your closing; “Your statement, “That's why you don't know how to know when you don't know something…” gives evidence to your unwillingness to your own resistance to objectively examine tangible facts, and then be humble enough to admit the possibility of error, on your part…”
I do thank you for your response… It must mean that my opinion, “struck a nerve,” within the wonderful cloistered halls of academia!

Answer 8

First, please do not imply in any way that I am Academic. God forbid. I am not. I like learning, not bragging about what I am supposed to know.

Then, I never talked about Crowley or "tune on, tune in, drop out". You are basically discussing with yourself here... you are answering to things that I did not say... which, seeing that you grew in the sixties, is not that surprising.

Now, you do consider conscience as the panacea and the basis of truth. We can agree to disagree, but I doubt it that we will ever reach a real agreement, given that to me, your reasoning is mostly word play and is pretentious from the moment you pretend to hold any objective and absolute truth...

Also, you are dismissing heuristics which is the basis for computer science, and you do that by saying that Crowley and Leary did it? That is just no argument. I have nothing to say for or against them, I just quoted one sentence from one of them. Talk about a sore thumb.

I just cannot assert the superiority of "objective reasoning" compared to "speculative reasoning" because to me, all reasoning is speculative which is to say that even scientists are quite lost in regards to how the universe works and knowing the difference between what is true and what is not. Everything can be questioned, it is just a matter of how much it is worth to question it. We do not have, as human beings limited by our senses and nervous systems, access to "the truth" itself but only to the partial and subjective models of it that we can make through our experiences of "reality".

Now, to cite Gregory Bateson making a reference to Alfred Korzybski, "the map is not the territory". An image of the sun is not the sun. The sun you see is not the sun, it is an image of the sun. You do not even perceive all the electromagnetic radiations that vibrate outside of what humans can see. You cannot see the ulta-violet or the infra-red, yet they are there.

What I am saying is that it is pretentious to think that you know the truth and, once again to return to the original question (about which you do not seem to care), any "common sense" is temporary, just as any other knowledge. It can be trusted (sometimes there is not much alternative), but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

You see, you say that : Only a narcissistic individual would reply to my response with such fervor; as clearly indicated by your closing; “Your statement, “That's why you don't know how to know when you don't know something…” gives evidence to your unwillingness to your own resistance to objectively examine tangible facts, and then be humble enough to admit the possibility of error, on your part…”

YET, I AM ACTUALLY SAYING THAT I CAN BE WRONG. ALL ALONG SINCE MY FIRST POST I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT I CAN BE WRONG. Yet to you the fact that I am telling you that you cannot admit an error "gives evidence" that I cannot admit an error myself? Sounds a lot like kinder-garden logic to me... which is weird given that you are such an intelligent person with over thirty years of experience in I-do-not-care-what.

NOW, IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE, you would have noticed that I never said that the universe is binary. I said that the question implied a binary universe of possibilities, either to trust and accept common sense or to question and reject it (you can count, it's TWO possibilities, hence binary), thus what I was actually implying is that there are actually more than two.

"By all means, continue to stand by your, “Binary universe of possibilities…” And, contrary to your conclusion, I desire objective rational! "

"Objective and rational" what? Don't you notice that "I desire objective rational!" is missing a part to actually be a sentence and mean something?. You do appear to me as the rockstar who yells the name of the city to get a round of applause or the politician who tries to say the word progress as many times as possible to get a positive crowd reaction.

Anyways, let's have it your way:

I believe in true maximum! Conscious equality for the incredible! Respect and love the true meaning of! Notice how the words!

Answer 9

"The word “Conscience,” means, “With knowledge.” Ergo, “Conscience,” is not only the panacea, but the basis of truth. " -- I mean, c'mon, you cannot get any more sophist than that.

You can attract flies with honey better than you can attract them with vinegar, but it is even better if you just use manure. See? I can be rhetoric and sophist too!

I can barely believe that you take yourself seriously when you speak. Then again, given the circumstances and what you are proving to me, I wouldn't doubt that you do take yourself very seriously.

To say it in a way that both goes back to the original question, is rhetoric, is based on common sense and sums up what I have been trying to tell you so far: "all that glitters is not gold", and you are glared by the sparkles.

Now that's "truth and common sense".

Answer 10

You really need to chill out and not take such minor philosophical pondering so seriously… We can certainly agree to disagree, (if for no other reason than to end this redundant banter). So I will acquiesce and allow your sage wisdom to prevail. (This discussion is not the discussion. It is only the illusion of a discussion.)… I have discussions with myself often, (I enjoy musing with intelligent people). Clearly you have a flare for flinging manure and attracting flies. (Though, I do have to laugh at the thought of myself as a rock star)… I became disillusioned by the glare of the sparkles a long time ago; as well as, taking myself seriously! I stand by my simple, and sincerely humble, answer to the original twelve word question, “Can common sense be trusted and accepted, or should it be question?” Realistically, common sense is lacking significantly, especially in today’s world. I pretend nothing, especially knowing everything. (That would, well, make me perfect)! And I am far from that. You refer to me as being a sophist, yet you dissect my words with frequent quoting. I apologize if I offended you by using the term, academia. I too would find that an offense. Nevertheless, life is too short, and when it gets right down to it, who really cares!

Answer 11

Well, we can agree that you can use common sense as a guideline but it is not enough by itself...

In any case, I am glad to see that you got a small glimpse of stardom from my rambling verbal nonsense.

Answer 12

Enjoyed the exchange of intellect.
God bless!