Is Common Sense the thing best shared in the world?
And if all this were only a matter of common sense? From their comfy little clouds, have today’s philosophers lost touch with reality? Since their heavily weighted and politically correct philosophy forms only their sole means of existence in the eyes of the world, they do a good job of keeping themselves from philosophizing before they have taken account of the currents of the times. One could blame them for this, but they are not wholly responsible for it. If a certain Descartes, inadvertently, had not veered the train of reasoning toward doubt and the negation of reality, he would not have furnished his successors with these shrunken concepts. How did this happen? By reducing reality to the Cogito ergo sum, Descartes voluntarily denies all other realities in their essences and accidents.
Nevertheless, we must see that this negation of that which – for many – appears very evident, was not new. We find it in Greek antiquity, e.g., with Zeno the Eleatic, and with his famous anecdote: one day, the philosopher went to see his friend Diogenes to present to him his latest work. Completely pleased to take on his arguments, he explained to him why, according to him, movement did not exist. This news did not please in the least Diogenes, who straightway left his profound but hemmed-in resting place, went to find the “lost movement”, and left the philosopher in his immobile solitude.
After all, those who wish to reduce the real world to that which can be strictly demonstrated by reason would not be with the truth, would they? Does the world which encompasses us exist only in as much as we can explain it by the use of our reason? Thus, would not the tree in the middle of the road become real only for him who is able, by his reason, to rise above the illusion transmitted by his senses? Spontaneously we respond, “no”. If I walk down this path and I ignore the tree, I am liable to run into it. I am certain of it, even if I am seeing a tree for the first time. By what mechanism, which would precede a deep rational study, do I arrive at this certitude? What means transmit to me this enlightenment?
This is the work of that which we call the Common Sense.
What is the Common Sense?
We first come to know these things in an imperfect manner before we know them scientifically. This (first) knowledge is called common knowledge. This body of knowledge has given its name, by extension, to those works which simplify the scientific concepts in order to open them up to all.
Man cannot acquire the knowledge of everything, he can’t specialize in everything, but he can in the end obtain a general or common knowledge of many different domains.
A sponta
neous knowledge according to three orders
The Common Sense can thus be described as an imperfect knowledge, anterior, general, often formed from simple opinions or beliefs which are more or less well-founded, but this knowledge also brings with it some veritable certitudes that we can order in three groups:
- The given of sensible evidence: what allows us to affirm that the tree found in our path is big, tall and solid.
- The intelligible principles that are of themselves evident. These allow us to affirm that the whole is greater than the part and that, therefore, the tree is not as big as than the forest that contains it.
- The immediate consequence of these same principles: if the tree is solid, it’s better for me that I avoid an “encounter” with it in my journey.
After having recognized that these certitudes arise spontaneously in our minds through the work of our reason, we can now say that they follow upon our human nature. Thus, they must be common to all men. These certainties spring from our common perceptions instinctively and are therefore products of a common sense.
A spontaneous knowledge of the truth
Despite our chronic incapacity to render an account of these certainties – there are even times when we cannot explain it, nevertheless these truths remain no less founded than scientific certitude. Implicit reason, whence these have arisen, renders them certainly less perfect as to the mode or state in which they are in our minds, but it does not affect the weight of their truth.
All the while, this value of truth is not recognized by all, as we have seen. Its spontaneous character and its inability to render an account of its certainties have rendered these intuitions wholly suspect in the eyes of some philosophers. Others have compared the Common Sense to a sort of instinctive faculty without relation to the intelligence, or to a sentiment that is alien and superior to reason, but in these two cases, the Common Sense would be blind and incapable of enlightening us, for there is not in us another light than that of the intelligence, or reason. The light of the Common Sense is the same as that of science, it’s the natural light of the intellect. Yet, there remains a distinction in the Common Sense: this light is not reflective.
We know now what the Common Sense is, next time we shall examine the rapports it has with Philosophy.
Author : Edouard Le Conte
Translation : Jonathan Arrington
