Common Sense in Five Easy Steps

The subject of common sense discussed in yesterday's post raises a question we asked a few weeks ago, that is, whether there is anything upon which all human beings can agree. 

Like 2 + 2 = 4?

Good times. That was before math was discovered to be an oppressive tool of white supremacists. 

As we know, a small error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end, so there is no error more consequential than a faulty principle, since a principle is that from which things flow. So, a bad principle ensures an endless flow of nonsense.

Are there commonsense principles that rely upon no prior ones? In other words, true starring points for functional and productive thought? Which require no epistemic justification because they are truly self-evident? If so, these would constitute "the very presupposition of any other assertion with a claim to truth" (Livi).

Start here.

Yes, but where is here? What cannot be logically, experientially, or linguistically contradicted? What "necessarily and always presents itself in everyone's experience as something evident," and what suppositions "can in no way be subject to doubt," such that "their non-truth is absolutely unthinkable"?

Is there anything like that? If so, these are (as alluded to yesterday) the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge. Now, is knowledge possible? If not, you are dismissed. But if it is possible, then we need to posit the conditions that render it so, and which precede any thinking at all. 

Yada yada, Livi cites five big ones, beginning, modestly enough, with the existence of things. Note that this is a very different starting point from Descartes, who begins at the other end, with the thinking subject: I think, therefore I am. 

Rather, things are, and we can think about them. But before thinking about them, they simply are, and who could deny this? This is what we call a "revealed preference." In the parlance of the times, even philosophers vote with their feet, in that they will get out of the way of the moving bus, even if they pretend that the bus is just an idea, or a transcendental form of their sensibility.

Which immediately leads to #2 (which Descartes mistakes for #1), which is

The evidence of the I as subject: the eventual verbal expression of this evidence could be the assertion that "in the world, there is myself, I who know the world." 

So, things are, and I am the subject who knows damn well that they are. 

Coming in at #3 is 

The evidence of the existence of beings analogous to me, in an existential situation of intersubjectivity; the eventual verbal expression of this evidence could be the assertion that "in the world, there are others, similar to me, with whom I communicate."

Except to say, I suspect #3 might actually be #1, since, in my opinion, a monadic subject devoid of intersubjectivity would be an ontological nonstarter, not to mention the fact that the Things that Are (#1) are not some amorphous blob, but rather, distinct and intelligible. 

In other words, these objects "speak" to the human subject in such a way that they betray a kind of intersubjectivity that is built into the fabric of being. In short, intersubjectivity is everywhere, not just between human subjects. 

#4 brings the Ought into the Is, which is to say, "The evidence of the existence of laws of a moral type"

that regulate interpersonal relations; the eventual verbal expression of this evidence might be the assertion that "my relation with others and the relation of the others with me are relations different from physical relations, because they imply rights and duties."

We might say that the rights are necessary but the duties are possibilities, which implies freedom and responsibility. As we've said before, you don't give freedom to an irresponsible beings, which is why, for example, it would be madness to give a state to the Palestinians, who treat subjects -- especially Jews -- like objects who have no rights, and to whom no duties are owed.

Palestinians lack all common sense, and we already have enough states devoid of common sense, e.g., North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, and California. Yes, this is an axis of evil, but before this, an axis of anti-common sense (and decency).

#5 may seem like a bit of a leap, so it will require further justification in subsequent posts, but here it is: "The evidence of the existence"

of a transcendent Foundation to all known reality: cosmic reality, subjective reality, inter-subjective reality, moral reality. The eventual verbal expression of this evidence might be the assertion that "at the origin of the existence of things and as the order that binds the world, myself and others by physical and moral laws, there must be a creative and ordering Intelligence, which is also my Ultimate End and the Ultimate End of everything.

In other words, that which must be in order for there to be 1) intelligible things, 2) the subjects that know them, 3) intersubjective communication about these things and about ourselves, and 4) rights and duties, or, in a word, freedom. 

I guess that's enough common sense for one morning.

Your post lays out a fascinating and detailed exploration of foundational principles, a quest to find what you call the "true starting points for functional and productive thought." It's a journey into epistemology and metaphysics, seeking the self-evident truths that serve as the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge.

Picture, or it didn't happen. 

The image is a metaphysical art piece that symbolizes the philosophical principles laid out in your post.

• The contemplative human figure represents the thinking subject, the "I" who is seeking and contemplating knowledge.

• The swirling, interconnected lines and glowing orbs form a cosmic tapestry that symbolizes the universe of ideas and the way these principles are linked.

• The stylized symbols within the orbs represent your five points:

  • The "Om" symbol stands for the existence of things, the fundamental reality from which everything begins.

  • The head with a thought bubble represents the evidence of the "I" as a knowing subject.

  • The interconnected human figures symbolize the existence of other beings and the principle of intersubjectivity.

  • The balanced scale is a classic representation of moral laws, rights, and duties.

  • The central glowing orb represents the transcendent foundation, the creative and ordering intelligence at the origin of it all.

• The bus in the background, while simple and two-dimensional, is a direct visual nod to your reference to philosophers "voting with their feet" and getting out of the way of a moving bus. It represents the grounding reality of things that exist, a truth so self-evident that it is impossible to contradict in practice.