In a message dated 97-04-13 16:03:27 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
wilson) writes:
<< 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. >>
preponderence of evidence? since you won't listen to reason and the
POSSIBILITY of premises other than yours or that yours CAN be false, i say:
PROVE there is a universal common sense
PROVE there is a universal human nature
PROVE there is a universal anything
now if you prove such things exist (or prove that their non-existence is not
even a possibility, logically or otherwise) everyone who has this human
nature and common sense, both being universal and a quality of every single
human being, should be able to agree with you. if not, either you are right
and many are wrong, or you are wrong and many are right. if you admit at
least the possibility that you may be wrong, you've defeated your own
argument and i commend you. since i, among others, agree that there are no
universals, how can you be so sure that there are? btw, mathematics is a
human constructed relationship.
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx
wilson) writes:
<< 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. >>
preponderence of evidence? since you won't listen to reason and the
POSSIBILITY of premises other than yours or that yours CAN be false, i say:
PROVE there is a universal common sense
PROVE there is a universal human nature
PROVE there is a universal anything
now if you prove such things exist (or prove that their non-existence is not
even a possibility, logically or otherwise) everyone who has this human
nature and common sense, both being universal and a quality of every single
human being, should be able to agree with you. if not, either you are right
and many are wrong, or you are wrong and many are right. if you admit at
least the possibility that you may be wrong, you've defeated your own
argument and i commend you. since i, among others, agree that there are no
universals, how can you be so sure that there are? btw, mathematics is a
human constructed relationship.
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx