Solipsist9@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-04-12 15:54:28 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
> wilson) writes:
>
> << common sense tells me that we are social. any counter argument
> has the burden of proof, not the common sense, self-evident one. while >>
>
> but common sense could be nothing more than your ideology which was formed
> throughout your upbringing. are you saying that there is some absolute common
> sense that we ALL have? you'd be hard pressed to prove that one. also, you
> are assuming that there is some human nature that ALL human beings share. i
> say, prove such a thing exists before you give it characteristics. all i'm
> saying is that you are making certain assumptions or beliefs out to be
> absolute, universal truths. if just one human being doesn't share that truth,
> your argument is flawed. something i consider to be common sense, you may not
> agree is common sense. how then can you rely a common sense if it's not
> common?
> john
> solipsist9@xxxxxxx
yes, i am saying that there is a common "common sense". we all have
it. please do not confuse sociocultural "common sense" with a human
based common sense. foucault's disdain for a universal morality is, i
believe, what you are talking about here. this kind of common sense is,
to me, not natural. there is no such thing as a universal culture. but
there are universal common sensical notions: ethnocentricity;
similarity and dissimilarity; mathematics; supernatural; society; etc.
it is common sense that to kill those one associates with is harmful,
period. to kill others includes the notion that they deserve to be
killed or that they are less than human. do you suppose that such
qualifications are necessary for a person to kill another person? or do
you believe that there are necessary qualifications to keep from killing
people? it seems that the latter assumption is untenable, while a
perponderence of the evidence shows that the former is at least more
realistic.
>
> In a message dated 97-04-12 15:54:28 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
> wilson) writes:
>
> << common sense tells me that we are social. any counter argument
> has the burden of proof, not the common sense, self-evident one. while >>
>
> but common sense could be nothing more than your ideology which was formed
> throughout your upbringing. are you saying that there is some absolute common
> sense that we ALL have? you'd be hard pressed to prove that one. also, you
> are assuming that there is some human nature that ALL human beings share. i
> say, prove such a thing exists before you give it characteristics. all i'm
> saying is that you are making certain assumptions or beliefs out to be
> absolute, universal truths. if just one human being doesn't share that truth,
> your argument is flawed. something i consider to be common sense, you may not
> agree is common sense. how then can you rely a common sense if it's not
> common?
> john
> solipsist9@xxxxxxx
yes, i am saying that there is a common "common sense". we all have
it. please do not confuse sociocultural "common sense" with a human
based common sense. foucault's disdain for a universal morality is, i
believe, what you are talking about here. this kind of common sense is,
to me, not natural. there is no such thing as a universal culture. but
there are universal common sensical notions: ethnocentricity;
similarity and dissimilarity; mathematics; supernatural; society; etc.
it is common sense that to kill those one associates with is harmful,
period. to kill others includes the notion that they deserve to be
killed or that they are less than human. do you suppose that such
qualifications are necessary for a person to kill another person? or do
you believe that there are necessary qualifications to keep from killing
people? it seems that the latter assumption is untenable, while a
perponderence of the evidence shows that the former is at least more
realistic.