Tag Archives: Plato

Common Sense

Isabel Overton took the ‘Philosophical Britain‘ module at Queen Mary in 2016. In this post she writes about ‘common sense’ as a philosophical keyword.

As a result of studying in one of the most expensive cities in the world, upon moving to London in September 2013 I found myself working part time in the supermarket chain Waitrose. Located in a particularly affluent area of London it boasted a continuous stream of business professionals and upper middle class families. Working in such an environment it is no surprise that I have been witness and recipient of many ‘unique’ queries. Whilst some have provided vast entertainment during an otherwise tedious shift (I once had a man ask me where we kept the ‘premium houmous’) others have been baffling in their lack of what we would call ‘common sense’. It would seem that many people, so drained from their fast paced city lives, seem to have no energy left to try and manoeuvre the minor speed bumps they may face when doing a food shop. I’m sure i’m not alone in being familiar with the phrase ‘use your common sense’, but how productive are we actually being when urging someone to tap into their inner instinct. Furthermore, where does the term ‘common sense’ stem from, and how common, or sensible, is it?

Greek philosopher Aristotle coined the term ‘common sense’ to describe a sense that unified all five human senses, such as sight and smell, allowing humans and animals to distinguish multiple senses within the same object. This came in response to a theory put forward by Plato that all senses worked individually from one another but were then integrated within the soul where an active thinking process took place, making the senses instruments of the thinking part of man. In Plato’s view, the senses were not integrated at the level of perception, but at the level of thought and thus the unifying sense was not actually a kind of ‘sense’ at all. Aristotle on the other hand, attributed the common sense to animals and humans alike, but believing animals could not think rationally, moved the act of perception out of Plato’s rational thinking soul and into the sensus communis, which was something like thinking and something like a sense, but not rational. He also located it within the heart, as he saw this as the master organ.[1]

“Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it”[2]

– Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method

French Philosopher Rene Descartes

French Philosopher Rene Descartes

Contemporary definition can be summed up as the basic ability to judge and perceive things shared by the majority of the population. Father of modern western philosophy, French philosopher Rene Descartes, in Discourse on Method established this when he stated that everyone had a similar and sufficient amount of common sense. He went on to claim however, that it was rarely used well and he called for a skeptical logical method to follow, warning against over reliance upon common sense.

During the Enlightenment common sense came to be seen more favourably as a result of works by philosophers such as religiously trained Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. Often described as a ‘common sense philosopher’ Reid developed a philosophical perspective that provided common sense as the source of justification for certain philosophical knowledge. Reid wrote in response to the increase in scepticism put forward by philosophers such as David Hume, who held an empiricist view towards the theory of ideas, arguing that reason and knowledge were only developed through experience or through active research.[3] Reid, alongside other like-minded philosophers including Dugald Stewart and James Beattie, formed the Scottish School of Common Sense, arguing that common sense beliefs automatically governed human lives and thought. This theory became popular in England, France and America during the early nineteenth century, before losing popularity in the latter part of the period.

Political philosopher Thomas Paine

Political philosopher Thomas Paine

In terms of American influence Reid’s philosophy was pervasive during the American Revolution. England born political philosopher and writer Thomas Paine was a key advocate of common sense realism, and used it to advocate American independence. Published in 1776, his highly influential pamphlet Common Sense conveyed the message that to understand the nature of politics, all it took was common sense. Selling around 150,000 copies in 1776 during a time when the rate of illiteracy was high amongst the American population, Common Sense was both a tribute to the persuasiveness of Paine’s argument and his ability to simplify complex rhetoric.[4]

In the early twentieth century British philosopher G. E. Moore developed a treatise to defend Thomas Reid’s argument titled A Defense of Common Sense, that had a profound effect on the methodology of twentieth century Anglo-American philosophy.[5] This essay listed several seemingly obvious truths including “There exists at this time a living human body which is my body” arguing against philosophers who held the idea that even ‘true’ propositions could be partially false.[6] He greatly influenced Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein who, having previously known Moore during time spent in England, was reintroduced to his work when a former student was wrestling with his response to external world skepticism. Inspired, Wittgenstein began to work on a series of remarks, eventually published posthumously as On Certainty, that proposed there must be some things exempt from doubt in order for human practices to be possible.

The philosophical debate surrounding common sense shows itself as complex and immersed with disunity, so it is important to view how modern society has taken the idea of common sense and what platforms of discussion it features in. Whilst many people take for granted what they assume to be an innate natural instinct, it seems that over the past two decades there has been an increasing documented lament over the decrease in common sense within society as a whole. In 1998 author Lori Borgman released an essay entitled The Death of Common Sense in which she remarked:

“A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet.”[7]

She then noted the decline of ‘Common Sense’s’ health in the late 1960’s when “he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus”[8]. It is unsurprising that countless idle news stories reporting the ‘misgivings’ of people who appear too incompetent to make the most basic decisions has led to such a cynical outlook on how sound societies judgment is. An example that springs to mind is the plethora of multi million pound lottery winners who spend all their money within a year only to find themselves in debt wondering where it all went wrong. This is something reiterated within psychologist and professor Jim Taylor’s article Common Sense is Neither Common nor Sense, and instead he argues for a focus on ‘reasoned sense’ as opposed to ‘common sense’.

Naturally, this perceived lack of common sense has led many to question how common it really is. According to Voltaire common sense was not so common[9] but the more accurate assumption might be to suggest it was not so commonly used in particular situations; on the down side this is not nearly as memorable. Nevertheless, education teaches us to make decisions based on careful, calculated thought, something that people lacking education fail to do. Whilst almost all people have common sense, it is usually those who are more intellectually capable that ‘fail’ to use it, at least initially, when in the process of basic problem solving. This is through over-calculating however, not under-calculating, and ultimately not an accurate measure of capability.

Some theorists believe that educational intellect can clash with basic common sense

Educational intellect does not impact the amount of common sense people hold

Many lighthearted studies have been done that test this theory, one of the most popular being to have a child and adult solve the same simple brainteaser. Studies seem to suggest that a child is more likely to solve a simple problem faster than an adult, as their lack of knowledge disallows them to overcomplicate the problem put in front of them. An example of this is found in the short clip featured below:

This use of common sense is of course unique to brain teasers and jovial mind games, and through the course of day to day life, the majority of the population are unwittingly using their common sense concisely, whether it be to look both ways before they cross the street, or to let their coffee cool down before taking a sip.

It has been argued however, that group judgment can impair individual common sense, thus providing debate towards how significant it is when used as a means of judgment. Social theorist Stuart Chase is believed to have remarked that common sense was that which told us the world was flat, putting focus on the semantic ‘common’ in its raw sense to mean widespread, that is to say, consensus of opinion.[10]

Group judgment can impair individual thinking

Group judgment can impair individual thinking

In 1841 Scottish journalist Charles Mackay in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds observed: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”[11] It is natural for something to gain credibility the more universally it is agreed upon or known, but this does not necessarily make it right. For example, studies have shown that the commonly held belief of never waking a sleepwalker as it is dangerous is actually a myth. Whilst they may find themselves disorientated upon being woken, the act itself is not harming.[12]

Through all this we have seen the reshaping, acceptance, memorial, criticism and dissection of the term, and use of, common sense, and it is ultimately personal opinion that can decipher how prevalent an individual will view it. Some pride themselves on their developed intelligence through precision schooling, whereas others prefer to boast of their natural intelligence. All this aside, I am sure I stand in the majority when I admit that this natural guide has helped me maneuver my way out of a tricky situation on more than one occasion, and so for that I am happy to look upon it favourably as a silent guardian, justified or not.

[1]Gregoric, Pavel, Aristotle on the common sense, Word Press, https://arcaneknowledgeofthedeep.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/aristotleoncommonsense.pdf

[2] Descartes, Renes, Discourse on Method 1635, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/descartes/1635/discourse-method.htm, [accessed 19th February, 2016]

[3] David Hume, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.standford.edu/entries/hume/, [accessed 15th February, 2016]

[4] Thomas Paine, History, http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/thomas-paine, [accessed 19th February, 2016]

[5] Philosophy of Common Sense, New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense, [accessed 15th February 2016]

[6] Mattey, G. J., Common sense epistemology, UC Davis Philosophy 02, http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi102f03/moore.html

[7] Borgman, Lori, The Death of Common Sense, http://www.loriborgman.com/1998/03/15/the-death-of-common-sense/, [accessed 15th February 2016]

[8] Ibid.

[9] Voltaire, A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford World’s Classics, 2011

[10] Hayakawa, S. I. and Hayakawa, A. R., Language in Thought and Action, Harvest Original; 5th ed. 1991, p.18

[11] Mackay, Charles, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Wordsworth Reference, 1995, p.xv

[12] Future, BBC, bbc.com/future/story/20120208-it-is-dangerous-to-wake-a-sleepwa, [accessed 19th February, 2016]

 

Further Reading

Lori Borgman, The Death of Common Sense, http://www.loriborgman.com/1998/03/15/the-death-of-common-sense/

Ian Glynn, An Anatomy of Thought: The Origin of Machinery of the Mind, (Oxford University Press, 2013)

Pavel Gregoric, Aristotle on common sense, (Oxford University Press, 2007)

S. I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, (Harvest Original; 5th ed. 1991)

Philosophy of Common Sense, New World Encyclopedia, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense

 

Idealism

In this post, Nicola Isaacs, who took the ‘Philosophical Britain‘ module at Queen Mary in 2015, writes about ‘Idealism’ as a philosophical keyword.

There is no term so vague as Idealism. No satisfactory definition of the word has ever been made; because since Plato and Aristotle wrote, hundreds of writers on Metaphysics and Philosophy have handled the subject of Idealism in Life and Art and so enmeshed and obscured the matter, that it is of no practical use for the layman to wade through the oceans of speculative and transcendental writing on the subject.[1]

These are the words of Frederick Wellington Ruckstuhl from an article dating back to January 1917. We can infer that Idealism has always been exceedingly difficult to describe, thus, many academic texts on this topic have always confronted the study with a pessimistic attitude. I fear that any attempts to discern a definition, unavoidably begins on a negative footing.

In the above quotation Ruckstuhl alludes to Idealism’s philosophical roots in Platonic thought. It is frequently referred to in this domain as ‘an eternally existing pattern of which individual things in any class are imperfect copies.’[2] It is here which marks the beginning of a turbulent chronology in philosophical thought however its etymological base ‘idein’ literally translates as ‘to see’ – whilst this definition is somewhat useful provides a comprehensive view of what idealism is; it simultaneously encompasses a wide scope of sub-contexts and divisions which cannot be defined so simply.

Idealism has innumerable connotations and departs into many different avenues. Searches offer a broad spectrum of results amongst which include more of the popular idealisms, such as transcendental, pragmatic, Kant and Collingwood; but also listed are less familiar concepts, like crazy Idealism, Buddhist practices such as Yogācāra Idealism, or one article by journalist Alan W. Down, examining Muscular Idealism – the notion of promoting peace in Middle East by using military power – not a vigorous fitness regime. From this selection of search results, it is clear that defining the term by any means of precision proves to be problematic, however in spite of this some commendable attempts have been made. In an article written in 1933, Edgar Sheffield Brightman alludes to this predicament, writing:

Whatever be the reasons for hostility to the definition and use of terms descriptive of philosophical systems, it has had undesirable consequences. It has tended to aid and abet the fiction that we have reached a point where there are no fundamental differences among systems or “schools” of philosophy. It has encouraged each philosopher to entertain the delusion that the implicit (nameless) system which he holds is the only truth, or (worse still) is so original and so genuinely unique that it cannot be related by any conceptual definition to any other system. (That way lies madness.) It has fostered the disintegrating belief that no system is worthy of attention and that philosophy consists solely of specialized problems.[3]

This quote of Brightman’s summarises the ambiguities of Idealism well. There is a plethora of persuasive arguments from different individuals within different schools convincing us that their concept of the term is correct. However one of the most notable is German Idealism.

In a general sense, Immanuel Kant is recognised as the personification of German idealism. Nonetheless, there are factions within this school, Kant is principally associated with the branch of Transcendental idealism. Philosopher and theologian Keith Ward gives a lecture detailing Kantian ethics, he claims that, ‘Kant’s proposed solution of polarities is at the heart of his Critical philosophy. It is the doctrine of Transcendental Idealism.’[4] Transcendental Idealism is the postulation of a reality without any sensory experience. Robin G. Collingwood resents the notion of Idealism as intrinsically German, and divorces the two in his work, often justifying Idealism’s separate identity.

It is Collingwood who is most often associated British idealism and who denounces the realists most emphatically. However recent commentaries challenge this stereotype, James Connelly questions whether Collingwood should be labelled an Idealist; he makes the suggestion his persona mirrors the complications of the term, in that both Collingwood and Idealism both deny any certified definition. To elaborate, Connelly observes: ‘The key to Collingwood’s Autobiography lies in what he opposed. He opposed realists and said so.’[5] In fact, more often than not, it seems that idealism is defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. In this respect, it is realism which is its antithesis. Whilst featuring heavily in philosophical spheres; this juxtaposition – between Idealism and Realism – can, too, be identified in the literary realm.

In 1925, George Bernard Shaw won the Nobel Prize in Literature ‘for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity. Its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty.’[6] In his 1891 essay The Quintessence of Ibsenism he argues that society constitutes of three discrete types of people: philistines, who have no capacity for creative thought; idealists, who believe in the tangibility of the impossible; and realists, who can see the world for what it is.[7] His 1905 play, Major Barbara is representative of his personal philosophy, conflicting religious idealism against pragmatic realism within a single family unit, the play demonstrates that neither extreme is viable, for idealists often do not accomplish anything, and realists are too concerned with the practical.

Major Barbara

Here is an image of Wendy Hiller from the 1941 film Major Barbara. Bernard Shaw helped write the screenplay. The link – see bibliography -shows a short clip of Barbara giving her most famous speech.

In his text The Sources of Idealism Shaw grapples with the idealism-realism dichotomy again. He writes:

[…] the two cannot agree. The idealist says, “Realism means egotism; and egotism means depravity.” The realist declares that when a man abnegates, the will to live and be free in a world of the living, and free, seeking only to conform to ideals for the sake of being, not himself, but “a good man,” then he is morally dead and rotten, and must be left unheeded to abide his resurrection, if that by good luck arrive before his bodily death. Unfortunately, this is the sort of speech that nobody but a realist understands. It will be more amusing as well as more convincing to take an actual example of an idealist criticising a realist.[8]

Following this argument, Keith Ward delivers another insightful lecture uncovering the meaning of this final sentence. An Idealist View of Reality explores the origins of Idealism, which Ward explains is typified by British idealist Bishop George Berkeley. In simple terms, Berkeley posits the idea that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas.[9] Ward expands upon this, commentating that ‘Idealists do not deny reality-in-itself – this is one prevalent misunderstanding of Berkeley- Idealists say that what we call the material or physical is a set of appearances that exist as we see them only in human minds. Whatever it is that appears, it is not identical with appearances. Therefore reality-in-itself is not physical. What we call the physical is in fact mind-dependent.’[10]

Realism was not Idealism’s only enemy. Stefan Collini in his article Idealism and ‘Cambridge Idealism’ surveys that, alike German Idealism, the British context of the nineteenth century witnessed tempestuous disputes between scholars. Collini records a certain spat between two Oxbridge academics. The quarrel saw accusatory insults denouncing each other’s theses as ‘dogmatic’, ‘vehemently propagandist’ and ‘superficial and sometimes even unintelligent.’[11]

ngram realism

A Google Ngram Viewer graph showing the divergence of frequency of use between ‘realism’ and ‘idealism’ since the 1940s.

In Britain, popular perceptions of Idealism reserve the term for dreamers, futurists and the impractical, whereas, it is generally argued that Realists are pragmatic, resourceful and sane. Figures show that the uses of the two terms have always shared similar trends, however, since 1945, Realism has ascended on the scale, whilst Idealism has declined.[12] Yet, it should be noted that data such as this, does not provide the context in which the terms are located. So, whether we are a nation of practicality, or a nation of dreamers, is a question that remains unanswered, and – perhaps thankfully – unknown.

Bibliography

Articles

Collini, S., ‘Idealism and “Cambridge Idealism”’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 18/ No. 1, (February, 2009) pp. 171-177

Wellington Ruckstuhl, F., ‘Idealism and Realism in Art’, The Art World, Vol. 1/ No. 4, (January, 1917) pp. 252-256

Sheffield Brightman, E., ‘The Definition of Idealism’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 30/ No. 16, (August, 1933) pp. 429-435

Books

Boucher, D. and Smith, T. (eds.), R.G. Collingwood: An Autobiography and Other Writings: With Essays on Collingwood’s Life and Work, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Websites and Online Databases

George Berkeley, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/, [accessed 15/04/2015]

George Bernard Shaw, Sources of Idealism, [accessed online] available at http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/ShawIdealism.htm, [accessed 11/04/2015]

“idea” – definition of idea in the OED, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idea, [accessed 10/04/2015]

Idealism, Realism – Google Ngram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=realism%2C+idealism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crealism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cidealism%3B%2Cc0, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Major Barbara – The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/major-barbara-shaw-s-morality-play-brought-to-vivid-contemporary-life-1.1489647, [accessed 16/04/2015]

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1925, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/, [accessed 17/04/2015]

Videos

Gresham College, 2008: The Idealist View of Reality – Professor Keith Ward, available at http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-idealist-view-of-reality, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Gresham College, 2008: The Triumph of Idealism – Professor Keith Ward, available at: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-triumph-of-idealism, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Major Barbara Speaking (1941) available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BANsa3_v008, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Further Reading

Berman, D., George Berkeley: Idealism and the Man, (London: Clarendon Press, 1996)

Bernard Shaw, G. The Quintessence of Ibsenism, (London: Kessinger Publishing, 2009)

Collingwood, R. G., An Autobiography and Other Writings, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Howell, R. C., Kant’s Transcendental Deduction, (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications, 1992)

Kant, I., The Metaphysics of Morals, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)

References

[1] Frederick Wellington Ruckstuhl, ‘Idealism and Realism in Art’, The Art World, Vol. 1/ No. 4, (January, 1917) pp. 252-256 (p. 252)

[2] Idea – definition of idea in the OED, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idea, [accessed 10/04/2015]

[3] Edgar Sheffield Brightman, ‘The Definition of Idealism’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 30/ No. 16, (August, 1933) pp. 429-435 (p. 431)

[4] Gresham College, 2008: The Triumph of Idealism – Professor Keith Ward, available at: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-triumph-of-idealism, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[5] James Connelly, ‘Collingwood Controversies’ in David Boucher and Teresa Smith (eds.), R.G. Collingwood: An Autobiography and Other Writings: With Essays on Collingwood’s Life and Work, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) p. 424

[6] The Nobel Prize in Literature 1925, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/, [accessed 17/04/2015]

[7] Major Barbara – The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/major-barbara-shaw-s-morality-play-brought-to-vivid-contemporary-life-1.1489647, [accessed 16/04/2015]

[8] George Bernard Shaw, Sources of Idealism, [accessed online] available at http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/ShawIdealism.htm, [accessed 11/04/2015]

[9] George Berkeley, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[10] Gresham College, 2008: The Idealist View of Reality – Professor Keith Ward, available at http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-idealist-view-of-reality, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[11] Stefan Collini, ‘Idealism and “Cambridge Idealism”’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 18/ No. 1, (February, 2009) pp. 171-177 (p. 172)

[12] Idealism, Realism – Google Ngram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=realism%2C+idealism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crealism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cidealism%3B%2Cc0, [accessed 15/04/2015]