A quick search of the page reveals the use of the phrase "common sense" almost routinely. I will admit up front, that I have some difficulty understanding what someone is driving at when they use this phrase.

Question for Debate

Does "common sense" have any uniform or universal meaning? If so, what is it?

Does "common sense" have any uniform or universal meaning? If so, what is it?

I want to answer this question because i know that i have been guilty of throwing this phrase irresponsibly out in the past. But i think that it is used meaning that when there is a certain action that the consequence of that action is widely known to the point of being expected. For instance, it is common sense that if i drop my cup of water on the floor, then the glass will break and the water will go all over. I think this logic is applied to actions in politics and international relations by debaters and others. But of course, things are little bit more complicated in politics and social situations. People and life are just too unpredictable. So while there may be some cause/effect relationships that fall under the category of "common sense"...politics is not one of them.

Thanks for your answer leder. I'm not saying "common sense" doesn't exist, but difficult to define. The glass and water is explained by the law of gravity. What might be common sense, is cleaning up the water and broken glass before someone comes along and slips or cuts their foot - if not common sense, this would be acting responsibly, but that doesn't always happen.

My former landlord tore the fence down behind the duplex I lived in before I moved two doors down last November. He piled the debris from the fence up - in the now unenclosed back yard - where it's remained for several months. Rusty nails are sticking up in the air, just waiting for some kid to step on one of them.

It would seem "common sense" might dictate cleaning up the debris, but apparently not. My former landlord is acting in what he considers his self-interest, but can't be "common sense" because it isn't common to this landlord. Further it is not common responsibility. I've turned him in to code enforcement and his time for cleaning the mess up expired today. CE is supposed to start writing citations. Quite frankly I wish they'd toss his worthless tail in the slammer for about thirty days. That, if possible, have to wait a month or so. He goes to Colorado every summer to do Christian mission work. Ah, paradox of paradox - a Christian slumlord.

Yeah, thirty days. You guessed it, there is some animosity here.

Very good question BoF.

The definition of common sense - that makes the most sense (no pun intended) to me come's from a website that I use frequently for definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common+sense

Particularly this one :

common sense
n.
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

Seeing as to how we all know that everyone doesn't have common sense, the word common doesn't neccesarily mean everyone but widespread. It also state's native "good" judgement, so you could also have native "bad" judgement - meaning no common sense, or that particular action wasn't common sense seeing as to how it was native bad judgement.

I'd disagree. I'd think that common sense might dictate that someone SHOULD clean up the debris if it is in someone's interest to do so, but if he didn't care... then common sense would dictate to leave it. Was it costing him money? Time? Lost revenue from tenants? If so- then maybe it should be done. Understanding and action are two very different things.

There's no real paradox in being Christian and not always doing the right thing, of course unless this gentleman has been known to tell you what to do. Common sense would dictate that you'd know that the bible admits openly that man is flawed. Goodness should be inherent, but if I were a gamblin' man I'd say that there's a good chance that had this landlord been a liberal educator that your reaction might not be so tainted.

I believe that common sense is a culturally based statement. For instance, I have a friend and old fraternity brother from the Bronx. Most of my buddies, grew up in the Deep South, where as Allan spent the majority of his formative years in the city. I probably have a dozen stories where Allan looked like a idiot for the things he did/said... to include a fence fixing story where I sent him to the store for concrete and he brought back cinder blocks, a story about a car radiator issue that kept turning his car off (safety valve) that baffled him, a story about a charity skeet shoot and him nearly blowing himself up, a story about taking a little Nissan pick up across a S. Louisiana median when it was wet and the truck was 2-wheel drive (and getting stuck), etc. Should it be common sense to know that you don't take a 2whl drive pick up across a wet and muddy South Louisiana Median? OF COURSE! When I got the call to come pull him out, I must've laughed for 20 minutes. How would he know? He saw other trucks crossing...
My first trip to NYC also proved to show my "lack of common sense" in that I got on a train going north instead of south, as I didn't know the 3 train went in both directions. Should I have known that?

I think it's generally relative to exposure. One more story... I dated a girl from Seattle who lived in Dallas but never had AC. One month she complained and complained about her electric bill... and I pulled her ac filter and it looked like a science project. Should she have known that?

This has to be the most asinine statement I've seen on this board in over two years.

How do we equate not cleaning up a potential hazard in a way that "common sense" equals self-interest - when the city's code compliance regulations demand that he clean it up and provides fines if he doesn't.

I think you can make a case for equating "common sense" with self-interest, but not when it's a flagrant violation of city ordinance or some other duly enacted law.

I believe in non-violent, passive resistance, but leaving a pile of dangerous crap in a yard for almost a year doesn't strike me as a noble cause. Now he can resist if he wants, but he will be fined and he will still have to clean it up and possibly pay more fines. "Common sense"?

This is a prime example of why "common sense" doesn't really have much meaning.



These are some very good thoughts, in my opinion, Vampiel. Perhaps we are getting somewhere. My cats are smiling at you.

"Common sense" is the "poor" man's appeal to authority. I mean, take Leder's example re the cup and the water. True, "common sense" [or has leder put it, common "knowledge"], but the common sense/knowledge can be expressed by use of the laws of physics, which serve as the real explanation. I too have been guilty of overuse of the phrase [I'll be beginning my electroshock therapy to discourage my use of the same shortly], and more often than not, my use of the same usually occurs when I'm either simply too lazy to explain or otherwise have something to say but don't think that I can articulate the supporting basis or rationale all that well. And for why the soon coming electroshock therapy, well, when do we usually use the phrase, or more correctly, what is our state of mind when we do so? Are we trying to teach and/or treat with respect, or are we not so secretly trying to make the point that the addressee is ignorant and/or stupid in some respect? And so I'll be starting the electroshock therapy with that old 9v battery to the tongue.

There is really no redeeming feature re "common sense." I mean, if it were common knowledge, then the other would know it, and we'd have no reason to point it out. In the meantime, while I'm in therapy, I'll also be making sure that I'm not on the other end of the common sense, and so call me captive to that website called howstuffworks.

Almost forgot, common judgment. You mean like knowing and applying the lessons of the laws in physics? Or in some other sense? If the former, then again, all we would be saying is that someone either doesn't know or for whatever reason is not applying the lessons of physics. As concerns the rest, well, once we get past those immutable laws of physics and such, there is no common, since when some report that travel broadens the mind, they mean to say that with travel one gets to learn the lesson that just when one thought that one had it all figured out and that everyone thought a certain way [within some known variation], one was rudely brought back to his senses, and there's a whole other world [or two or three or four] out there and it isn't so common when it comes to judgment. And so, to the electroshock therapy, the captive to howstuffworks, I suppose that I can add, well, that Descartian self-examination for purposes of determining whether what I've believed to be true [in both absolute and relative senses] is really true [since with that travel, some new data has been received that need be accounted for in the analysis and determination].

Sorry, one more. BoF, well, you are describing a disheartening yet oh so human phenomenon. My read of the circumstance re the fence leveler is simply that he or she does not care about the risk involved. And by that I don't mean that he or she is consciously disregarding a known risk, since it might simply be the case that the person's foundational mental and/or moral construct is such that the matter of risk to human health, etc., never arises in the first instance. And the disheartening part is that you and I not only recognize the risk, our own mental and/or moral construct is also such that on the scale of ranking, we place maximum importance on the human health now at risk by those exposed nails, and we also believe that those most likely to be hurt are indeed the most vulnerable. And so, for the life of us, we cannot see how the fence leveler could be so callous and/or stupid.

Such is also kind of like the way I feel about the Ted Bundy types. Well, even some lesser evil souls than he, but though I claim to be able to recognize this thing that we call "evil" when I see it, and can otherwise understand the literal mechanics of the act and its consequences, for the life of me, I simply cannot understand how one human could do such things to another human. I suppose that the word "alien" or the word "foreign" would be the applicable word[s], since the mindset that does those things is simply not comprehensible to me [it doesn't compute]. I also suppose that I can say that while I can understand the history of the event, I simply cannot understand how it could ever get to that point. Which probably explains why, if I were ever given the chance, my initial remarks to persons such as Ted Bundy would not bear a harsh and hostile tone, but more that anguished inquiry asking how that soul could have ever done such a thing...what were you thinking? Now, don't make me the saint, since after my own mental or moral construct deals with the incomprehensible, then I have occasion and desire to vent all that anger and rage. Not such a bad phenomenon in Ted Bundy's case, but maybe dangerous in others, since I've noticed a pattern. Expressions of notions of the incomprehensible, shortly followed by the apparently programmed response to the same, which apparently is, if I cannot undertand it, even if after trying, and it seems rather evil, then no time but time to condemn and to crush. I lastly suppose that on my own internal scale, the more evil the conduct and the less sign of remorse, then the more condemning and crushing the desire.

And, no, I'm not saying that we tar and feather the fence leveler at our earliest convenience, though a midnight raid and a note left on the door is a plausible alternative. I suppose that our legal and moral defense will simply be that exigent circumstances were present to justify the immediate trespass to both land and chattel and we were otherwise seeking only to abate a nuisance, one attractive to children. Such might be moral or merely the devious and selfish workings of this lawyer's mind. I'll let you know after I finish today's therapy session and immediately subsequent episode of Descartian self-examination [in the described sequence on the theory that pain purges the mind of the truly extraneous].

I think of "common sense" as a sort of informal version of the scientific method. I observe the universe around me; I make guesses as to how it works; I change my behavior based on how accurately my guesses predict what will happen. In the case of the dropped glass, it is only a case of "common sense" if I have reason to predict that glass objects break when they hit a hard surface. (A very young child might have never had this experience, for example.)

"Common sense" can vary from person to person, based on experience. When I first learned to drive, I ruined my first car because I had no clue that you were supposed to change the oil once in a while. Most of you probably think of this as a violation of "common sense." However, I think of it as simply a case of severe ignorance on my part. If I had previously had any experience with oil changes, it would have indeed been a violation of "common sense" on my part.

I fit the stereotype of the "absent-minded professor" pretty well (although I am not in the world of academia) so I violate "common sense" all the time, from lack of attention and general daydreaming.

In the case of the landlord, this would seem to be a violation of "common decency" and possibly some short-sightedness rather than "common sense." If the landlord doesn't care if anybody gets hurt, and has the hope (possibly a foolish one) that he won't get in trouble if he doesn't clean up the mess, he is not violating his own "common sense." (Perhaps he even has some experience to tell him that he can get away with leaving the mess. If so, he would be following his own "common sense.")

Common sense is simply layperson's wisdom.

I'd agree that it varies depending on a person's experience. I usually call it 'self-evident'...For example "We hold these truths to be self-evident.." IMO, is really just another way of saying it's common sense that all men are created equal, yadda yadda...To avoid having to explain in detail something obvious.

Of course during that time this was a very new form of "common sense" and far from universally accepted. It even violated historical precedent, and took decades to actually stick (end of slavery, female emancipation, ect...)

In BOF's landlord's case, I'd say he both violated common decency and sense. Common sense would indicate that he could be sued if someone came along and hurt themselves. Common decency would dictate that his trash was an eyesore.

Sensus Communis

Common sense has allways been a general expression indicating good judgement, the idea is everyone has it but some people simply don't use it. I am allways amused when someone tells me that so and so does not have common sense, I will invariably tell them that's impossible, common sense is by defintion something we all have in common. Believe it or not philosphers have studied this and they seem to affirm that common sense is based on common experience. Given the same experiences it is expected that people will react with a reasonable amount of insight and comprehension. Not all human reasoning is conscious, that is why in school you were drilled with math, facts, figures and memorized important documents like the Preamble. That is how the brain is programed to react instantaneously with having to stop and peice things together, repetition builds an automatic reflex.

A buddy of mine was complaining to me that his son was book smart but had no common sense. I talked to him a while about how saying that presumed a common experience and his son might not have experienced what he had. After a while he repeated what he originally said saying he was book smart but had no common sense. I said that was impossible because common sense was by definition 'common'. Then I asked him if he had worked when he was his sons age, he said,' yea, I was raised on a farm and we worked all day long'. I said, 'What does your son do?' He said, 'Mostly he watches TV and plays his video games when he is not in school. I said, 'That's why, he has a totally different range of experiences so he does not sense things the way you do'.

I will leave off with Kant's description of common sense and he characterises it as perception that give meaning to sense data. The existance of common sense is based on what he called presumption. It's kind of a head trip way of looking at it but I get a kick out of how philosophers figure out things for us that we allready know:

"This differs essentially from common understanding, which is also sometimes called common sense (sensus communis): for the judgement of the latter is not one by feeling, but always one by concepts, though usually only in the shape of obscurely represented principles.

The judgement of taste, therefore, depends on our presupposing the existence of a common sense. (But this is not to be taken to mean some external sense, but the effect arising from the free play of our powers of cognition.) Only under the presupposition, I repeat, of such a common sense, are we able to lay down a judgement of taste." The Cirtique of Judgement, Immanuel Kant

phaedrus,

This made me think of an impression I got while walking into the local public library. A young couple was coming out, mama with a baby stroller full of baby and papa behind, loping along with this white-boy street cred act (baggy jeans, cap, piercings, the works).

Thoughts:

I can't understand this young guy.
But being a papa this young still is real tough.
Your woman is leading you, and you're following with what seems to be resentment.
Done got replaced? Or maybe you weren't all that sexy, just workable?
She got what she wants, now where's yours? Maybe you already got it.

Then, aha! Each generation has to relearn the same lessons. I now have the kind of common sense that older people have, and that older people have had over the millennia.

But it is brand new stuff for the kid in the cap. That makes it uncommon, tied to age and experience, and only common once one has paid the dues.

The question that comes to mind given the discussion underway is does this guy have common senese? Do we really know that everyone has this mixture of common experience, perception and judgement of taste Kant said was, 'arising from the free play of our powers of cognition'?



Wow, I'll bet you can write some dynamite poetry, it sounds like you could call it, 'ode to the white crep papa'. I honestly don't know how much things change from one generation to another. When I was a kid it was the hippies, then as a teen it was long hair and jeans with the knees out. Now my daughters into some ridiculas gothic look and she paints her room black after I worked so hard to dry wall the attic, and I am not kidding, she paints it all black. I try to tell her who Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was and she could care less, apparently the gothic thing has nothing to do with the Renaissance novelist. Is there a judgement of taste that emerges for the free play of cognition, I know I have lost interest in jeans with holes in them and suspect my daughter will lose interest in black walls.

What is important here is that you have something in common with this guy as odd and unhappy as he might look. You both have this mysterious ability, this Kantian sensus communis except that one of you might not be using it.

Does "common sense" have any uniform or universal meaning? If so, what is it?
Yes, it does have a uniform meaning. The dictionary says it means "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." I think this pretty much sums it up. You can argue over what normal and native are if you want to debate for debate's sake. I think it speaks for itself.

On this issue, I think one definition, be it dictionary or otherwise, is about as good as another. My dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2004 says something similar:



Other definitions are sometime negative:





At other times positive:



http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_common_sense.html


Of course, the first thing that comes up in a Google search is the famous pamphlet of that name by Thomas Paine.

I am not going to quibble about the meaning of the phrse "common sense," presented by anyone here - the variety of definitions tells us something about the subject. As a tactic used in debate it is mostly meaninngless and without merit.

In reference to the earlier example of the man not cleaning up his mess in the backyard I would have to say that it is virtually impossible to determine whether he was exercising or not exercising his common sense. What if I told you that due to unforseen financial obligations the man no longer had the financial resources to clean up the mess within an "acceptable" time frame? Of course, he may still understand that he runs a serious risk of being cited or much worse, of hurting an unsuspecting 3rd party but he also understands that diverting the funds to clean up this mess might affect his ability to pay his auto insurance, purchase groceries for his family, and the like.

In circumstances like this and in an infinite number of others it would seem almost common sense to forego the clean up until he finds himself in a better financial situation. In doing so he has balanced potential pros & cons of the clean-up and has made the decision that he believes best suits his current situation. Perhaps he has an impeccable common sense?

I suspect there are very few examples of legitimately appealing to common sense. And as is usually the case, arguing for what it isn't seems much easier to tackle.

The very opposite is true. The man is loaded with money, enough in fact, that he spends the summers in Colorado and the winters here. He has a large dually he uses in his construction business. He wouldn't even have to haul the stuff off, just drag it out to the curb and let the city do it. There's maybe an hour's work involved and about the only expense would be a nominal dumping fee.

You are the second (Very) Conservative Republican who has tried to argue that this perverted self-interest type common sense overrules obeying the law or as Bill Clinton recently put it, "the common good." All this time I've been hearing that Republicans are such paragons of law and order.

BoF, you misunderstood my point. The "fact" that this gentleman has the financial resources as well as the means (his truck) only eliminates those few hypotheticals I presented. The point is there are innumerable variables that may influence his decision to clean up his mess. Don't get me wrong, it "sounds" like this gentleman should clean up the mess pronto. Don't assume though that just because you & I may agree, he therefore has no excuse or isn't exercising his common sense.

It may sound like I am arguing from a relativist point of view (i.e., "Who is anyone to tell me I shouldn't do this or that?"). I believe a purely relativist point of view would get us nowhere. For this reason, I will not take him to task or cast dispersions upon him as you too easily do. It is merely a matter of practicality for me - he has a mess in his backyard, it irritates me (although I may or may not like him personally), the city says he should not have this mess, I can't see any extenuating circumstance for why the mess should stay for so long, therefore I will report him.

Finally, I'm not sure what to make of your final paragraph. I guess it's part of the game to bring in petty references to one's political persuasion when debating something that has nothing directly to do with political persuasion? To the contrary, I am one conservative who believes it is this "perverted self-interest" which contributes significantly to the problems we have in Washington, DC as well as in our own neighborhoods-second only to individuals who pass judgment on the motivations of others without ever really getting to know them.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is not that I "too easily" cast aspersions (you meant?) on this bunny. I know too well what he's like. I rented from him for five years. It's not "convenient" for him to obey the law. If we want to define "common sense" as doing what is convenient, then we'll add that to the list.

We could equally define "common sense" as knowing when to do something when it isn't particularly convenient or in someone's immediate self-interest.

Fair enough. I'm still myself quite confused by the meaning of common sense though. That your neighbor hasn't any good excuse (as you presume) for not cleaning up his mess doesn't entirely address the issue as I see it.

Assuming for a moment that you do understand all pertinent variables in this situation, what if your neighbor's sense told him to wait to clean it up for as long as he could drag it out thus enabling him to save on time & energy indefinitely? That being the case it seems his calculations payed off (he was allowed to leave it there for almost a year.) Yours and Clinton's appeal to the common good (as you suggested in a previous post) seems something different. I can imagine another doing something that he believes would be for the common good but that would go against his common sense. I don't believe these two ideas equate in every case.

Additionally, when I hear appeals to common sense it is in the context of somebody doing something that has had negative consequences for himself or another. Comments like, "He should have known better. Where is his common sense?" usually follow. I don't hear those same comments made when the person under scrutiny has not experienced anything negative from his decision (as in your neighbor's case thus far.) Obviously, the suggestion is that you must have this negative consequence before appeals to common sense can be made, no?

At any rate, my common sense tells me that I get ahead of myself and way too bogged down. Seeking further clarification.

To start with, this guy isn't my neighbor, he's my former landlord and guess who turned him in to code enforcement.

Negative consequences? According to code enforcement, he has been issued a citation. He has three options. He can pay it, set a court date or ignore the whole thing. As I've said, the job would involve minimum time and expense. Going to court takes time and expense - perhaps a lawyer.

He can also ignore the citation, in which case they can issue more. If he doesn't pay or doesn't set a court date and gets stopped for a traffic violation, the police will have a warrant and wisk him off to jail.

Whether or not "common sense" is involved, he's fighting a battle he probably won't win. I would call that a severe lapse in judgment.

Does "common sense" have any uniform or universal meaning? If so, what is it?

There have been some very interesting answers to this one. And it is a great question! This one really makes one think! This is way outside my area of expertise, so it is interesting to throw my views out there and see where it goes.

The closest I can come to providing an answer would be to suggest that 'common sense' is that which is either instinctive or by a vast majority learned regardless of race, language, locality etc..
Age can have a skewing effect, so I propose that what would be 'common sense' to someone 60 years old may not be so common to someone who is 10.
For example:
It would be common sense that if one steps off a cliff, one knows one will fall. However, the knowledge that one will probably be seriously injured or die isn't necessarily commonly known(fear of heights is based in instinct, but enhanced or negated through learning). This would be age dependent, something learned.

So, common sense can be instinct in nature (that would be universal sense i.e. tribe (defense), food, reproduction, etc.. )
It can be sociological in nature (a behavior begets a uniform response)
It can be physical in nature (falling, heat, cold, physical injury etc.. )


So let's assume (I hate that word, but in this instance, I can't think of another that is flexible enough) above the age of 16 in the US, it would be common sense where:
if I punch someone in the nose, I will probably be punched back.
if I put my hand in fire, I will get burned (same goes with hot liquids in the lap)
if I step in front of a moving vehicle, I will not be on the winning side of the impact.
if I treat people kindly, it will be assumed I am a liberal
The list goes on..

But to the world at large, I think the only things that could be considered common sense would be in the area of instinctual and physical (as outline above). Anything sociological is (obviously) socially dependent.

That was the short answer.