Why Say “It’s Common Sense?” It Doesn’t Exist
When we are in online discussions, in Philosophy and especially Politics, we often hear the phrase “It’s common sense!” What does it even mean for something to be common sense? Does it even exist at all? In this essay, I will be attempting to persuade you that it does not exist. If common sense does not exist, then we should stop using it as a reason. This essay will go over one singular argument that goes over common senses’ existence, followed by substantiation for each premise. We will then go over some implications, and what people tend to use the phrase for. My argument for the non-existence (yes, arguing in the affirmative of a negation) is in a syllogism, it is as follows:
“Common sense means self evident. Self evidence does not exist. Therefore, common sense does not exist.”
Now, with this out of the way, let us start with common sense meaning self evident. Generally, I dislike using a dictionary for words used commonly, however, people generally like to start there when trying to rebut a claim that has to do with a definition. The Oxford dictionary defines common sense as “good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.” The problem with definitions from a dictionary is they may not reflect the way a term is used in common usage, not to mention ‘good sense’ here is rather ambiguous; what does it mean to have ‘good sense?’ We can have many arguments over this. So it’s not a very good definition. In most cases, when people refer to common sense, they are generally using it in one of two ways.
The first way is as a perfectly self evident claim, such as “Socrates was a man.” This way of using it is meant to reflect the obviousness of a statement. As if a fact just is what the fact is. I call this usage of the term, intuitive common sense. However, any Philosopher worth their weight will always have a Sceptical bone in their body. Was Socrates a man? Or was he a character created by Plato? (Fun fact, there is evidence to support this!) Even this premise can be debated. “All men are mortal” is the second premise in the well known syllogism. Here we would need to decide what we mean by mortality. Is going down in history as a great Philosopher a kind of immortality? Heck, is my experience self evident, or can my experience be an illusion? If it is an illusion, and I don’t actually exist, then I can’t be mortal, or immortal. This first way of using common sense goes to show that my first premise of “common sense means self evident,” is correct when used in its’ common context. It also supports my second premise that “self evidence does not exist,” showing how everything can be questioned, as a Philosopher should be doing. If everything can be questioned, it’s not so obvious. If these two premises are correct, then my ultimate conclusion that common sense does not exist is the only logical outcome.
There is, however, a second, much more devious use of the term “common sense.” This usage is meant as a way to seem like the first usage of the term, but instead is used purely to persuade an interlocutor. Their argument essentially boils down to “it’s common sense. Therefore, I am correct.” Which itself is underhanded and selfish, not to mention non-sequitur, and thus, not a reason or argument at all. This usage of the term may seem like the first usage of the term, however it comes down to an intuitive reasoning backed by emotion. I call this usage of the term persuasive common sense. I wish not to get political, however, we can take the issue of abortion and see where this can become underhanded pretty quickly. Is a fetus a human being? If so, then is it wrong to ‘kill’ it? Or is a fetus not in fact a human being? It is not obvious either way. Emotion does not equate to logic. They are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. If you are wanting to use reason, then you should strip emotion from the conclusion.
The hope I get from readers of this article is to not necessarily bar anyone from using the term common sense. I am not an absolutist. It can be quite practical (a part of the Oxford definition that I agree with), in the case of the classic aristotelian syllogism of “Socrates was a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.” It’s quite straightforward, and useful for us if we want to have an understanding about Socrates. But we can always inspect one of the premises further and come to the conclusion that it may not be so simple after all. My argument of “Common sense means self evident. Self evidence does not exist. Therefore, common sense does not exist.” Should be clear now, however. The goal is, ultimately, for us to think about it before using it in an argument. Is this really common sense? By this I mean, is it really self evident? I would again say that nothing can be self evident. Not even my own argument within this article. One can also analyze, however, which version of the term they would be using. Is it an intuitive common sense, or a persuasive common sense? Are we using it in a legitimate or illegitimate way? I choose, however, to avoid any of this due to my second premise and just not use the term “common sense” at all. If you agree with my argument, maybe you will join me in doing so.
Want more?
On top of following here on medium, I do post original Philosophy meme’s (and share others) on my facebook page, five minute philosophy at https://www.facebook.com/fiveminutephilosophy
