Common sense is the best defense for American Identity.

Because I saw it quoted, I see that America the Beautiful is once again being obsessed over. It proves my point though. Philosophy/rhetoric is a weapon (as well as other things). Sometimes this weapon is wasted on crap.

I agree. And, as you can see, there is a growing, general rejection of common sense now by the American population. They know where to get the money and the sex but have rejected reasonable argument on political grounds. They find their precious "freedom" precisely by accepting only the irrational and the crazy, calling "common sense" a theory of Fascism.

A person could replace the use of the word "philosophy" with the word "rhetoric," but "philosophy" has a better reputation.

Common sense would strip naked the selfish non-sense they embrace. It would show the truth, that they are not expressing themselves rationally; that they are behaving stupidly and that there are real consequences to acting crazy. It would impose a basic level of morality which they reject. Common sense would distinguish between what is clearly good and what is clearly wrong and they hate it.

They hate common sense, they despise it, they revolt against it in the name of 'freedom' which is, in reality, nothing but selfish non-sense. They have destroyed the public decency and lurch toward cultural and historical illiteracy.

They are freaking insane!

Gramsci distinguished [...] "common sense" from what he called "good sense". Common sense is "the folklore of philosophy", a kind of pseudo-knowledge which hides the exercise of domination by prevailing powers; "good sense" is a drive of the consciousness grounded in the defence and affirmation of people's needs. "Good sense" grows out of the healthy nucleus of "common sense", which responds to the awareness of what people need in order to affirm themselves. According to Gramsci, "good sense" (which is never definitive) criticizes "common sense", trying to introduce a more appropriate world-view for people's consciousness. This is especially possible when important changes in history challenge people's understanding of the world.

Despite its claim to be novel and unprecedented, existentialism represents a long tradition in the history of philosophy in the West, extending back at least to Socrates (469-399 BC). This is the practice of philosophy as `care of the self' (epimeleia heautou). Its focus is on the proper way of acting rather than on an abstract set of theoretical truths. [...] Socrates himself warns the Athenian court at the trial for his life that they will not easily find another like him who will instruct them to care for their selves above all else.

They hate common sense, they despise it, they revolt against it in the name of 'freedom' which is, in reality, nothing but selfish non-sense. They have destroyed the public decency and lurch toward cultural and historical illiteracy.

They are freakiY insane!

If I may quote a wodge of someone else's text (not being entirely sure, myself, whether by "good sense" Gramsci meant something independent of culture and history, although I would guess that as a Marxist he wouldn't:
The concept of civil society - page 5 | Ecumenical Review, The

Quote:

Gramsci distinguished [...] "common sense" from what he called "good sense". Common sense is "the folklore of philosophy", a kind of pseudo-knowledge which hides the exercise of domination by prevailing powers; "good sense" is a drive of the consciousness grounded in the defence and affirmation of people's needs. "Good sense" grows out of the healthy nucleus of "common sense", which responds to the awareness of what people need in order to affirm themselves. According to Gramsci, "good sense" (which is never definitive) criticizes "common sense", trying to introduce a more appropriate world-view for people's consciousness. This is especially possible when important changes in history challenge people's understanding of the world.

Showing all the flies a way out of the fly-bottle, perhaps?

My own tentative definition (only dreamed up today, and only to be thrown into the mix with the rest): philosophy is psychotherapy done right.

And here (if I may quote another wodge of somebody else's text) is another. from Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (2006) (which, almost needless to say, I haven't actually read):

Quote:

Despite its claim to be novel and unprecedented, existentialism represents a long tradition in the history of philosophy in the West, extending back at least to Socrates (469-399 BC). This is the practice of philosophy as `care of the self' (epimeleia heautou). Its focus is on the proper way of acting rather than on an abstract set of theoretical truths. [...] Socrates himself warns the Athenian court at the trial for his life that they will not easily find another like him who will instruct them to care for their selves above all else.

As for the OP's "philosophy as consciousness of freedom" (or words to that effect - sorry, I can't see the OP on the page right now, not yet being very sure of how to use this interface safely):

While I do rather like that, I doubt that it actually defines philosophy, because the legendary man on the Clapham omnibus no doubt is conscious (in his "common sense") of his freedom, while perhaps he lacks the "good sense" to be conscious of his own personal identity, or of the personal identity of others, which I think (or rather, I feel, or I intuit) is more definitive of philosophy.

Another good one, I think, is Levinas's: not so much the love of wisdom, as the wisdom of love. Perhaps this definition also returns to Socrates's (or was it Plato's?) conception of philosophy as eros. (I'm bluffing, and I fear I forget where I came across that notion recently.)

(Is this article too long or meandering? I haven't found my feet here yet.)

god bless Pepijn, the obscure!

Philosophy as critical thinking as personal liberation. Philosophy as the destroyer of idols and the encouragement of self-realization. Philosophy as an open path, an enlargement of personality. Philosophy as the consciousness of freedom.

Not philosophy as mere memorization of philosophy past. Not philosophy as the self-abasement before famous philosophers. Not philosophy as the methodical application of other men's statements.

Philosophy as conversation without limits. Philosophy as self-invention. Philosophy as a weapon. Philosophy as a crown. Philosophy as the edge of human language use.

A person could replace the use of the word "philosophy" with the word "rhetoric," but "philosophy" has a better reputation.

I agree. And, as you can see, there is a growing, general rejection of common sense now by the American population. They know where to get the money and the sex but have rejected reasonable argument on political grounds. They find their precious "freedom" precisely by accepting only the irrational and the crazy, calling "common sense" a theory of Fascism.

But you are being dishonest for the sake of the revolution

A weapon is only as good as the weilder's skills.

While I do rather like that, I doubt that it actually defines philosophy, because the legendary man on the Clapham omnibus no doubt is conscious (in his "common sense") of his freedom, while perhaps he lacks the "good sense" to be conscious of his own personal identity, or of the personal identity of others, which I think (or rather, I feel, or I intuit) is more definitive of philosophy.

Another good one, I think, is Levinas's: not so much the love of wisdom, as the wisdom of love. Perhaps this definition also returns to Socrates's (or was it Plato's?) conception of philosophy as eros. (I'm bluffing, and I fear I forget where I came across that notion recently.)