HexHammer wrote:

I will largely agree with you.

Imo "common sense" is common stupidity, common sense will change over time, and be very individualistic.

It is a commonsense belief that there exist other people, that there are material objects, and that the world has existed for many years. I would not call those beliefs stupid, would you?

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

I will largely agree with you.


It is a commonsense belief that there exist other people, that there are material objects, and that the world has existed for many years. I would not call those beliefs stupid, would you?

So that which you present here makes up for all common sense? No? I wouldn't call that common sense, I would call it logically, but can be shoe horned into common sense.

Each years, well least here in Denmark, we see how common sense goes horrible wrong, how naive people are and waste millions on useless crap, how politicians make babble statemens with their common sense.

K-A, you should know that common sense isn't some universal unifyed belive, but very individualistic, it varies heavily from person to person.

It is universally believed that,there exist other people, that there are material objects, and that the world has existed for many years.

? ..ur just repeating uself without new question?

Jebediah;173906 wrote:

In these he points out, I think, the absurdity of dismissing common sense. If you reason that the external world is not mind independent, by the time you have finished reasoning you will have used memory in some way, and surely you have no reason to think that your memories are real if what you see is not. And so he suggests this as the way to do philosophy:

Great post. Yes, it's a bit silly to say the world isn't mind independent, but I would go farther than that. Where is this "mind"? What do we organize under the concept "mind"? And what we organize under the concept world? And how do these overlap? I think we do have some common sense dichotomies which are justified practically but not dialectically. And to investigate these can enrich one's life aesthetically, as well as giving one the pleasure of a more coherent conception the relation of "mind" and "world."

Here's something I have always found stirring. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on it.

Quote:

5.62 This remark provides the key to the problem, how much truth there
is in solipsism. For what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it
cannot be said, but makes itself manifest. The world is my world: this
is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language
which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world.


5.621 The world and life are one.


5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)


5.631 There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains
ideas. If I wrote a book called The World as l found it, I should have
to include a report on my body, and should have to say which parts were
subordinate to my will, and which were not, etc., this being a method of
isolating the subject, or rather of showing that in an important sense
there is no subject; for it alone could not be mentioned in that book.--


5.632 The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of
the world.


5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be found? You will
say that this is exactly like the case of the eye and the visual field.
But really you do not see the eye. And nothing in the visual field
allows you to infer that it is seen by an eye.


5.6331 For the form of the visual field is surely not like this


5.634 This is connected with the fact that no part of our experience is
at the same time a priori. Whatever we see could be other than it is.
Whatever we can describe at all could be other than it is. There is no a
priori order of things.


5.64 Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are
followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of
solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the
reality co-ordinated with it.


5.641 Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk
about the self in a non-psychological way. What brings the self into
philosophy is the fact that 'the world is my world'. The philosophical
self is not the human being, not the human body, or the human soul, with
which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit
of the world--not a part of it.