yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important. — Tiberiusmoon

Rather, common sense is rooted in intelligence, than philosophical or academic biases. But it may require common sense to see this.

@skyblack I agree!
Common sense should be more common! I mean there are things that are obvious to non academically-corrupted folk.

yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important.— Tiberiusmoon


Rather, common sense is rooted in intelligence, rather than philosophical or academic biases. But it may require common sense to see this.

I totally agree with @skyblack here @Tiberiusmoon.
To think common sense is culturally biased is to fall foul of postmodern skepticism.

I get the dictionary term which supports your view on this, but if you break it down fundamentally of common and sense you have the majority or common group of people who view sense by their own standards of which may not be up to our expectation.

I get the dictionary term which supports your view on this, but if you break it down fundamentally of common and sense you have the majority or common group of people who view sense by their own standards of which may not be up to our expectation. — Tiberiusmoon

view sense by their own standards — Tiberiusmoon

Which may be non-sense.

Common non-sense?
Could also be that the word sense itself is a observationally biased one.

Common non-sense?
Could also be that the word sense itself is a observationally biased one. — Tiberiusmoon

:-)

@Tiberiusmoon This is where excessive reliance on definitional words can lead to trouble.
Your viewpoint here Is leading to skepticism on even the senses.

Its not uncommon to consider such things, much like how time dilation is observed differently between an external and internal observer.
I usually consider such things when perspectives are involved. :)

@Tiberiusmoon Time dilation is common sense. Everyone experiences it.

Yes, and the topic of observational bias being considered in other subject matters is just as vaild for consideration. -The blind men and the elephant.

@Tiberiusmoon The blind man and the elephant is a bad parable.
When I look at a tree what is the observational bias?

Depends on your perspective, if you are 20inches away looking forward you may only see a tree trunk, if you look straight up you only see tree branches, if you are 20 meters away you can see the whole tree.
If a person was only ever 20inches away looking straight at a tree trunk and you who can see the whole tree from your perspective, told that person that the tree is green and brown would disagree because from their perspective it is only a brown tree trunk.

The observational bias being all you see is assuming that its all their is to it.

@Tiberiusmoon And how many folks spend their life 20 inches from a tree?!
The point is from common sense we would say it's a tree. That's not a bias. Bias and perspective are different.
And who assumes all you see is all there is? When I see a tree from the front I know it also has a back,even though I don't see it.
In real life these pseudo biases on common sense matters are vastly overblown.

Ha

You know @Mystic .......

Your response reminds me again of common sense...

@skyblack Common sense is criminally underrated!

You clearly don't understand the meaning of "The blind men and the elephant" then.
Or fail to see how it can be used in other subject matter in order to understand my meaning.

@Tiberiusmoon If you read my post you can see where I'm coming from. The parable is goofy. It's easy to understand but not a good parable.
Why not address what I wrote?

I get it to but your observation is narrow minded, you are just distorting my comment to suit your argument with a strawman fallacy.

Moral of "the blind men and the elephant":
The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Everyone has a subjective experience of common sense, it is this experience that is based on influence which can differ from other peoples perspectives.
It is this that creates bias in what they assume to be common sense.

If you want to assume common knowledge of common sense to be an unbiased judgement then go ahead. :D

@Tiberiusmoon Look at your use of the word subjective here. Now look at your view from nowhere chimera of truth. How many perspectives do you need before you see an elephant?

-Subjective
1.based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Or
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

I see no issue, a lot of influences can create cultural biases.

How many perspectives do you need before you see an elephant? — Mystic

Your still not getting it are you?
The story is about blind men with limited observational ability who assume their observation is all that there is to observe by touch from one perspective.
Such assumption leads to argument between others who observe the same elephant from different perspectives.

In this instance your limited observation is what you observe of common sense to be, but you do not share that same observation with how other people see common sense and assume everyone shares that observation.
Which is why your debating with me now.

@Tiberiusmoon The definitions of subjective above are both misleading for this discussion.
Everything is subjective. Can you tell me anything that doesn't come from your mind when you speak? Note,I don't mean objects exist only in your mind,I mean your perception of an object is from your mind,always!
If you think truth is some kind of democratic elephant modelling exercise then I will just say do you need six men to tell you you are not an elephant? Is your faith in your own perspective that weak?

Done properly, one's awareness of vast ignorance keeps the tendency toward intellectual narcissism at bay.

Life is a well of joy; but where the rabble drinks too, all wells are poisoned. I am fond of all that is clean, but I have no wish to see the grinning snouts and the thirst of the unclean.

[ ... ]

I was almost choked by my question: What? does life require even the rabble? Are poisoned wells required, and stinking fires and soiled dreams and maggots in the bread of life? — TSZ, On the Rabble

How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people? — Tiberiusmoon

"Learn to be indifferent to what makes no difference." ~Seneca

Furthermore, be mindful of

An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself. — Epictetus

:fire:

How would you know if you’re too lazy to read/weak to put in the effort and read books? How would those who only read and interpret written works know if they’re too lazy/weak to think first before studying?

At least scholars of philosophy offer up better mediums through which true thinkers can access and assess what groundwork others have laid down over millennia.

Note: Personally I think getting deep into philosophical study is likely to form early bias for youthful students (ie. practically anyone under 30) because most people that young are hardly likely to know anything much due to lack of experience. The boon of youth is naivety. Raw curiosity and intrigue are better earlier on than filling your head with the thoughts of others and calling them your own.

This is the most philosophical answer I have seen so far. :clap:

:fire: :smirk:

a — intpath32

The most lazy and weak answer sofar. Not even an attempt was made to use the capital A. Great! :lol: