Michael Moore on Jesus

Originally posted by black beetle
Fine! I would like to see that rare bird, the "true, unbiased openmindness". I believe that such a thing exists not.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should settle for common sense but try to approach that theoretical limit as much as it's possible.

Originally posted by Palynka
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should settle for common sense but try to approach that theoretical limit as much as it's possible.

Would 'practical reason' work better for you than 'common sense'?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would 'practical reason' work better for you than 'common sense'?

I was ready to ask Palynka the same question;

Originally posted by Palynka
It's still too vague for me to accept it as authority. "A is true because it's common sense" would still be an argument that solves nothing. Even if I admit there is some sort of tool like that, it is one that is too different across individuals to be communicable.

Whereas you see it as enabling understanding across cultures and a variety of semiotic prod ...[text shortened]... on constructively is when the communication happens within homogeneous environments.

Now that I read this post of yours again I wonder what exactly is vague, because for me everything is clear. Is it vague to argue that “common” means “shared” and that our five senses (smell, see, touch, hear, taste) are indeed shared? Then, is it vague to conclude that there is a basic uniformity at the way we perceive the natural world around us (for the time being we ‘ld better leave aside the Worlds 2 and 3)?
Of course I know that “taste” is a notion and that its specific characteristics at every given herenow are determined uniquely by each individual, however I ‘m sure that if we were drinking our Porto we could enjoy a conversation regarding the specific properties of, say, its smell, its colour and its taste. We could experience a different palate regarding that exact Porto, sure thing, but we would both agree that we are drinking Porto and not ouzo. Therefore, methinks I could argue that “common sens” is a uniformity because it is exactly whatever our five senses and our phronesis share.

But my Grecian ancestors were thinking that there are solely five (common) senses, because they knew well that one’s intelligence/ evaluation of the mind is the least shared sense! BTW this is the reason why common sens will never teach us neither metaphysics nor chess or mathematics.

Therefore, if you refuse the uniformity I defined as “common sens”, please let me know which notion you prefer to use in order to explain how the five common senses are connected with, say, the Aristotlean phronesis (phronesis is understood as the common centre of the five senses in which the various impressions are received).
Furthermore, you have to explain how our common senses are reduced thanks to phronesis to the unity of every given common consciousness/ understanding and how exactly phronesis is related with consensus at the sociologic level.

Confronted with these problems I prefer to postulate common sens in order to account for various abilities we manifest in the realm of perception, including our ability to perceive common sensibles (ie motion and shape), our ability to perceive whatever and even time, our ability to remember what we perceive and our ability to perceive distinct qualities by different sensory modalities as belonging to the same object (Ferrari red, Damask red).

All in all, I ‘m ready to give you credit solely if you follow Sidgwick’s pathway, according to which we are in front of “dogmatic intuitionism, in which the general rules of Common Sense are accepted as axiomatic”. But this is not the common sens I am talking about
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would 'practical reason' work better for you than 'common sense'?

Do you have a context?

Originally posted by black beetle
Now that I read this post of yours again I wonder what exactly is vague, because for me everything is clear. Is it vague to argue that “common” means “shared” and that our five senses (smell, see, touch, hear, taste) are indeed shared? Then, is it vague to conclude that there is a basic uniformity at the way we perceive the natural world around us (for ...[text shortened]... Common Sense are accepted as axiomatic”. But this is not the common sens I am talking about
😵

The vague part of the concept is not in understanding that common means what is shared, but in being able to pin down what exactly is shared. As you mention, this can be seen as "the least shared sense". And so, in a honest discussion, interlocutors have to be aware of this and make it explicitly what they mean, instead of appealing to "common sense" as an argument. Appealing to "common sense" is the equivalent of restating one's view and claiming it is obvious. It solves nothing and moves the discussion nowhere. Why is it obvious? Why is it common sense? If it's something immediate, it shouldn't be too hard to explain, now should it?

As to your last question, everything is connected to the same thing. Our brain. Our senses developed because our neural system was able to interpret certain signals and the evolutionary process led to the development of both. I don't know what else I have to explain. The development of the senses and the brain's ability to interpret them was complementary. Introducing a subordination in this complementary process is clearly an artificial division and a result of Aristoteles trying to understand things without the neurological knowledge we know have.

I don't know what you mean by "unity of every given common consciousness", nor do I think "consensus (another pure popularity measure, file it next to universality) at sociologic level" requires that artificial separation.

As for the last phrase, of course that's what I'm talking about. When someone says "you should believe X is right because it's common sense", then common sense is being used authoritatively and in precisely that manner.

As usual with you and Bosse, I always feel like I'm perpetually chasing shadows... 😞

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you have a context?

Good question.

I think that my context is the fact of my conscious, corporeal being in a space-time continuum shared with other conscious, corporeal beings whose corporeal consciousness has certain things in common with mine ... In order to investigate this context, one has recourse to mind, of which the five senses are extensions ... Stop.

Actually, I had Kant on my mind, and 'practical reason' sounded good in the context of this thread, that's all. I would prefer to say now that for me 'common sense' means a practical method of investigating things within a given context. I would like to convert it into a symbol entirely devoid of content ... that could be assigned a definition according to any given context.

Please excuse me, I am ... gibbering.

Originally posted by Palynka
The vague part of the concept is not in understanding that common means what is shared, but in being able to pin down what exactly is shared. As you mention, this can be seen as "the least shared sense". And so, in a honest discussion, interlocutors have to be aware of this and make it explicitly what they mean, instead of appealing to "common sense" as an a ...[text shortened]... th you and Bosse, I always feel like I'm perpetually chasing shadows... 😞

Edit: “The vague part of the concept is not in understanding that common means what is shared, but in being able to pin down what exactly is shared. As you mention, this can be seen as "the least shared sense".

Obviously, you misunderstood me. I clearly stated that the shared material is “the various abilities we manifest in the realm of perception, including our ability to perceive common sensibles (ie motion and shape), our ability to perceive whatever and even time, our ability to remember what we perceive and our ability to perceive distinct qualities by different sensory modalities as belonging to the same object (Ferrari red, Damask red).” This is quite specific I reckon.
Furthermore, I clarified that “the least shared sense is our intelligence/ evaluation of the mind”.
Therefore, in a honest discussion, interlocutors have to be aware of this function and take for granted that there is a given uniformity regarding the specific aspects I mentioned above. Appealing to “common sens” this way, is the equivalent of stating that one's views (as I defined them above) are obviously “common” with every other individuals’. This is why methinks it is obvious: because it is a product of common sens! Since this is a fact and it works alright during our universal perceptions as I explained earlier, I cannot understand why you are in such a pain in order to understand it.



Edit: “As to your last question, everything is connected to the same thing. Our brain. Our senses developed because our neural system was able to interpret certain signals and the evolutionary process led to the development of both. I don't know what else I have to explain. The development of the senses and the brain's ability to interpret them was complementary. Introducing a subordination in this complementary process is clearly an artificial division and a result of Aristoteles trying to understand things without the neurological knowledge we know have.”

But we are not talking over neurological issues over here; primary we are talking about common sens at a sociologic basis. If we agree that a triangle is indeed a triangle and we estimate that there is no reason to establish a whole debate regarding this issue, the agent that enables us to act this way is common sens -a faculty of our brain. Why do you deny that our brain has this faculty, along with other faculties? And why do you assume that, since your brain and my brain have a consensus and thus we agree that we are both seeing a triangle along with everybody else, it would be wrong to claim that a newcomer in our party who insists that s/he sees a circle instead of that triangle “lacks of common sens”?



Edit: “I don't know what you mean by "unity of every given common consciousness", nor do I think "consensus (another pure popularity measure, file it next to universality) at sociologic level" requires that artificial separation.”

I mean the uniformity that is accepted as a given fact by everybody (my blood is red, your blood is red). If we agree over this basic issue, this is a basic consensus.



Edit: “As for the last phrase, of course that's what I'm talking about. When someone says "you should believe X is right because it's common sense", then common sense is being used authoritatively and in precisely that manner.”

Now everything is clear to both of us; we are talking past each other my friend. The Aristotlean common sens has nothing to do with Sidgwick’s Common Sense (Sidgwick talks about Philosophy/ Common Sense, whilst I am talking about the Aristotlean Koine Aesthesis). So I agree with you over Sidgwick -but I disagree in full with your thesis regarding the Aristotlean koine aesthesis.



Edit: “As usual with you and Bosse, I always feel like I'm perpetually chasing shadows...

Methinks this very time it was just a misunderstanding -but at the Karma issue it was not!
I wish you well and hope you comprehend😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Good question.

I think that my context is the fact of my conscious, corporeal being in a space-time continuum shared with other conscious, corporeal beings whose corporeal consciousness has certain things in common with mine ... In order to investigate this context, one has recourse to mind, of which the five senses are extensions ... Stop.

Actu ...[text shortened]... gned a definition according to any given context.

Please excuse me, I am ... gibbering.

Oh, methinks common sens would do fine😵

Originally posted by rwingett
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/those-you-your-way-church-morning-note-michael-moore

In this letter, Moore says basically the same thing that I've been saying in this forum for a while now: that Jesus was a de facto socialist. Capitalism is antithetical to what Jesus preached. You cannot serve both god and mammon.

If Michael Moore was competent to make any commentary on Christianity, I'd comment. But, since he isn't...