How useful is "common sense" Epistemology?

[Pattern-chaser]

I have no difficulties with "common sense" since "I am inclined to skip even that" term. "Being inclined" to skip "common sense" due to the meaning of "common sense" being non-evident should be understood actually that I skip it here in this thread but I would not necessarily refrain from using it in everyday life if someone else makes use of this term.

But referring to your response the basic issue seems to be that you have issues with me saying "it isn't evident what "common sense" means". But this can be resolved easily if you can present a definition of "common sense" that obviously will be agreed to by every individual that uses, has used or will use the term "common sense".

I take your points. But they are theoretical, academic points. They are no less true for that, of course, but they are less than useful or practical. It seems to me that either you must accept the practical compromises we make with language, as we have nothing better, or you must stick to your principles, and cease posting, or indulging in any non-trivial communication with other humans.

Yes, language is an imperfect communications tool. It is IMO impossible to remedy the problem(s) you refer to. Most words have several meanings in the dictionary; ambiguity is intrinsic to, and embedded in, our language, in that sense. For most meaningful concepts, there are no words or phrases that define and describe them completely and accurately. And yet, we manage with what we have, even though there are misunderstandings everywhere.

So will you accept the 'universal' compromise of using our imprecise language, or...?

[stevie]

I have no difficulties with "common sense" since "I am inclined to skip even that" term. "Being inclined" to skip "common sense" due to the meaning of "common sense" being non-evident should be understood actually that I skip it here in this thread but I would not necessarily refrain from using it in everyday life if someone else makes use of this term.

But referring to your response the basic issue seems to be that you have issues with me saying "it isn't evident what "common sense" means". But this can be resolved easily if you can present a definition of "common sense" that obviously will be agreed to by every individual that uses, has used or will use the term "common sense".

I take your points. But they are theoretical, academic points. They are no less true for that, of course, but they are less than useful or practical.

Expressing what appears to me in a given moment and context I find useful and practical.

It seems to me that either you must accept the practical compromises we make with language, as we have nothing better, or you must stick to your principles, and cease posting, or indulging in any non-trivial communication with other humans.

Don't know whether I have principles. What I have written has a clear context in which it was written. I think I have clearly expressed that. You must not exaggerate what I have written beyond the specific context in this thread.

[The Beast]

In the Socratic school it is “common” to say: “They don’t know anything” The question is: “Who is they” They is Socrates who said: “I don’t know anything” but in using thoughtful dialogue and the method known as the elenctic method or an elimination based in logic he arrived at some truth and therefore to a relation with knowledge. But he kept saying he knew nothing. The question raised by Epistemology was: How do we know truth if we only have access to appearances? The practical non metaphysical correlation with well-being might serve as a definition of common sense or as just one possible definition: common sense is the practical correlation with well-being.
So, in testing the common sense Epistemology we could access appearances of the Ukrainian war and media. I can start with: “Russian troops with heavy artillery formed a caravan of many miles to the Ukrainian capital” “Some of the troops did not know they were invading Ukraine” “Ukrainian troops pick the convoy apart and pushed the Russians back” “The Russians were untrained and easily destroyed” “Putin miscalculated and underestimated Ukraine” This is the world of appearances aided by well-wishers. Common sense method assigns a different correlation: Putin did not underestimate anything. The first wave is the first wave and, casualties are as high as 90%. The enemy runs out of ammo and the war machinery breaks down. Russia has a superior war machine. Most of all, if common sense, there is a reason for an invasion that by the common sense Epistemology definition cannot be metaphysical but necessary in the great scheme of well-being.

[3017Metaphysician]

In the Socratic school it is “common” to say: “They don’t know anything” The question is: “Who is they” They is Socrates who said: “I don’t know anything” but in using thoughtful dialogue and the method known as the elenctic method or an elimination based in logic he arrived at some truth and therefore to a relation with knowledge. But he kept saying he knew nothing. The question raised by Epistemology was: How do we know truth if we only have access to appearances? The practical non metaphysical correlation with well-being might serve as a definition of common sense or as just one possible definition: common sense is the practical correlation with well-being.
So, in testing the common sense Epistemology we could access appearances of the Ukrainian war and media. I can start with: “Russian troops with heavy artillery formed a caravan of many miles to the Ukrainian capital” “Some of the troops did not know they were invading Ukraine” “Ukrainian troops pick the convoy apart and pushed the Russians back” “The Russians were untrained and easily destroyed” “Putin miscalculated and underestimated Ukraine” This is the world of appearances aided by well-wishers. Common sense method assigns a different correlation: Putin did not underestimate anything. The first wave is the first wave and, casualties are as high as 90%. The enemy runs out of ammo and the war machinery breaks down. Russia has a superior war machine. Most of all, if common sense, there is a reason for an invasion that by the common sense Epistemology definition cannot be metaphysical but necessary in the great scheme of well-being.

TB!

Thank you for those thoughts. one could challenge your analogical premise of the Putin example by arguing the opposite. Meaning, you said there is common sense relating to his 'underestimation' of the invasion and so forth. What would be common to that notion of one's common sense understanding of themselves?

As apposed to extreme physicalism or materialism, one could easily make a case for an extreme sense meta-physicalism. Since one's Will to invade a particular country is emotive in nature and arises from one's (metaphysical) need for purpose; striving, wanting, and so on, the conscious thinking subject who requires a (common) sense of self esteem or self-importance (ego) cannot be reduced exclusively to neurons, atoms and molecules.

An easy way to parse that notion of common sense epistemology as it were, would be to consider the logically necessary subject-object dynamic. So unless I've misunderstood, the reason for the invasion would be considered metaphysical "in the great scheme of well-being".

Perhaps back to the OP question:

7. Does having a 'gut feeling' about something correspond to the Will and its ability to cause people to behave the way that they do?


Answer seems to be Putin's Will caused him to act. Is his common sense understanding of his Will (his needs) a purely physical feature of conscious existence?

Anyway, interesting take on the idea of epistemic awareness...

[The Beast]

It is interesting that you hold not a practical reason/common sense but a metaphysical reason for the invasion of Ukraine. There is no practical reason in underestimating if anything in war practical would be overestimating. My understanding of practical is an overall system/method of evaluating the enemy hence the term Epistemology. What else than evaluating loses vs practical potential gains. On the other hand, you could say that the reason is metaphysical and therefore, the method of common sense Epistemology does not apply. So, if dynamic ever correlates with practical then I might see the point in the future maybe as a dynamic metaphysical idea of practical/common sense.

[The Beast]

In the Socratic school it is “common” to say: “They don’t know anything” The question is: “Who is they” They is Socrates who said: “I don’t know anything” but in using thoughtful dialogue and the method known as the elenctic method or an elimination based in logic he arrived at some truth and therefore to a relation with knowledge. But he kept saying he knew nothing. The question raised by Epistemology was: How do we know truth if we only have access to appearances? The practical non metaphysical correlation with well-being might serve as a definition of common sense or as just one possible definition: common sense is the practical correlation with well-being.
So, in testing the common sense Epistemology we could access appearances of the Ukrainian war and media. I can start with: “Russian troops with heavy artillery formed a caravan of many miles to the Ukrainian capital” “Some of the troops did not know they were invading Ukraine” “Ukrainian troops pick the convoy apart and pushed the Russians back” “The Russians were untrained and easily destroyed” “Putin miscalculated and underestimated Ukraine” This is the world of appearances aided by well-wishers. Common sense method assigns a different correlation: Putin did not underestimate anything. The first wave is the first wave and, casualties are as high as 90%. The enemy runs out of ammo and the war machinery breaks down. Russia has a superior war machine. Most of all, if common sense, there is a reason for an invasion that by the common sense Epistemology definition cannot be metaphysical but necessary in the great scheme of well-being.

TB!

Thank you for those thoughts. one could challenge your analogical premise of the Putin example by arguing the opposite. Meaning, you said there is common sense relating to his 'underestimation' of the invasion and so forth. What would be common to that notion of one's common sense understanding of themselves?

As apposed to extreme physicalism or materialism, one could easily make a case for an extreme sense meta-physicalism. Since one's Will to invade a particular country is emotive in nature and arises from one's (metaphysical) need for purpose; striving, wanting, and so on, the conscious thinking subject who requires a (common) sense of self esteem or self-importance (ego) cannot be reduced exclusively to neurons, atoms and molecules.

An easy way to parse that notion of common sense epistemology as it were, would be to consider the logically necessary subject-object dynamic. So unless I've misunderstood, the reason for the invasion would be considered metaphysical "in the great scheme of well-being".

Perhaps back to the OP question:

7. Does having a 'gut feeling' about something correspond to the Will and its ability to cause people to behave the way that they do?


Answer seems to be Putin's Will caused him to act. Is his common sense understanding of his Will (his needs) a purely physical feature of conscious existence?

Anyway, interesting take on the idea of epistemic awareness...

What you say is a “gut feeling” is the omnipresence of truth filtering into the personal space with the feeling of certainty. Of course, this allows for a mental mode much like the one of a Prophet (the messenger) to speak words and dreams that are left to the council of elders to interpret. For most of humans, certainty just happens with no control when. Although, certain rituals and methods had been implemented as to the how. It could also be that he likes his/her position as the Prophet.

[3017Metaphysician]

In the Socratic school it is “common” to say: “They don’t know anything” The question is: “Who is they” They is Socrates who said: “I don’t know anything” but in using thoughtful dialogue and the method known as the elenctic method or an elimination based in logic he arrived at some truth and therefore to a relation with knowledge. But he kept saying he knew nothing. The question raised by Epistemology was: How do we know truth if we only have access to appearances? The practical non metaphysical correlation with well-being might serve as a definition of common sense or as just one possible definition: common sense is the practical correlation with well-being.
So, in testing the common sense Epistemology we could access appearances of the Ukrainian war and media. I can start with: “Russian troops with heavy artillery formed a caravan of many miles to the Ukrainian capital” “Some of the troops did not know they were invading Ukraine” “Ukrainian troops pick the convoy apart and pushed the Russians back” “The Russians were untrained and easily destroyed” “Putin miscalculated and underestimated Ukraine” This is the world of appearances aided by well-wishers. Common sense method assigns a different correlation: Putin did not underestimate anything. The first wave is the first wave and, casualties are as high as 90%. The enemy runs out of ammo and the war machinery breaks down. Russia has a superior war machine. Most of all, if common sense, there is a reason for an invasion that by the common sense Epistemology definition cannot be metaphysical but necessary in the great scheme of well-being.

TB!

Thank you for those thoughts. one could challenge your analogical premise of the Putin example by arguing the opposite. Meaning, you said there is common sense relating to his 'underestimation' of the invasion and so forth. What would be common to that notion of one's common sense understanding of themselves?

As apposed to extreme physicalism or materialism, one could easily make a case for an extreme sense meta-physicalism. Since one's Will to invade a particular country is emotive in nature and arises from one's (metaphysical) need for purpose; striving, wanting, and so on, the conscious thinking subject who requires a (common) sense of self esteem or self-importance (ego) cannot be reduced exclusively to neurons, atoms and molecules.

An easy way to parse that notion of common sense epistemology as it were, would be to consider the logically necessary subject-object dynamic. So unless I've misunderstood, the reason for the invasion would be considered metaphysical "in the great scheme of well-being".

Perhaps back to the OP question:

7. Does having a 'gut feeling' about something correspond to the Will and its ability to cause people to behave the way that they do?


Answer seems to be Putin's Will caused him to act. Is his common sense understanding of his Will (his needs) a purely physical feature of conscious existence?

Anyway, interesting take on the idea of epistemic awareness...

What you say is a “gut feeling” is the omnipresence of truth filtering into the personal space with the feeling of certainty. Of course, this allows for a mental mode much like the one of a Prophet (the messenger) to speak words and dreams that are left to the council of elders to interpret. For most of humans, certainty just happens with no control when. Although, certain rituals and methods had been implemented as to the how. It could also be that he likes his/her position as the Prophet.

TB!

Perhaps in that case, we have a subject whose well-being is satiated by inflicting harm, death, destruction and the like, to effect its ego. For some, an interminable proposition of sorts. It seems as though one's Maslonian ordinary life of striving is to effect its ego in the foregoing deleterious ways, while its 'gut feeling' somehow enables it to do so. In Putin's case, a twisted sense of "truth" and purpose.

Be it the Golden Rule, or Kant's Imperative not to treat others simply as means to and end, 'common sense' self-awareness (epistemology) tells an emotionally stable or healthy person would normally treat others as one wants to be treated. Of course, moral epistemology often requires a cause and effect thought process from childhood on, which can nevertheless still result in some level of dysfunction considering the finitude in man.

Existentially, man can easily project its own level of dysfunction onto others in many ways. Similarly, things like power and greed are tempting addictions. All of this too, is nothing new under the sun.

[The Beast]

My issue with process and terminology has nothing to do with the factual compendium. One possible subjective explanation is madness. Here, we could separate madness as a way of life, episodic madness, or a metaphorical descend to madness. Power and Madness in the usual combination. Historically, Caligula suffered from poisoning that changed his status. Many said it was the poison the cause of his madness. Yes… A categorical anarchy to use Kantian terminology. “blind intuitions” or “dynamical principles” “ or that the blind intuition are the source of the rogue objects conceptualizing reality.