Sober Philosophy: Common Sense (Mark presents, AZF)

Symptom-free (of potentially contagious disease) people with the capacity to listen considerately to diverse viewpoints are invited to attend after successfully RSVPing.

We begin the meeting at 7:30 pm sharp in the mezzanine of the Graduate Hotel. Feel free to come up to 30 minutes early and hang out with us beforehand. After you come down the stairs we may be in either the main room on your left or in the conference room around the corner on your right.

From the front Hotel entrance go to the right around the corner to enter through the north valet entrance. If the valet questions you just say you're here for the philosophy group. Go straight to the main lobby and turn right behind the large bookshelves before the elevators. Go up the stairs to your left and through the first door you encounter to enter our meeting room.

Common sense: What is this? I think I have most often heard this term in two different phrases:

1. "[someone] doesn't have any common sense."
2. "It's just common sense."

In both cases these statements seem to me like their function is mostly to devalue the judgment (or “sense”) of someone (could be a group of people or even an institution) not in agreement with the speaker. As a person who since childhood has often had viewpoints far different from the mainstream of thought I don’t remember ever being sympathetic to this deployment of the concept of “common sense”. To me the above cited usages of this phrase have three distinct implications.

1. Avoiding Discussion
This is an assertion that the opposing idea is not just wrong but so wrong that there’s no point in engaging with it because the vast majority of people will agree with the speaker and there is nothing worth the effort involved to be learned from the person asserting such an opinion. I consider this a viable possibility. I once met a person who was a Breatharian, who believed that food and water were not necessary for human life and that humans could get all the nourishment they required from breathing. I had no interest in discussing this or any other issue with this person because I figured their views were so distorted by some intense internal emotional trauma that talking to them I could only learn about their particular psyche and nearly nothing about reality. So I for myself there are people whose beliefs I consider so unfounded that I avoid talking to them. If someone labels an opposing idea as such they are implicitly stating that not only do they see no value in engagement with such a viewpoint perhaps you shouldn’t as well. This can be an effective way of avoiding engagement and can protect a viewpoint which the speaker can’t actually effectively support or defend.

2. Shaming Opposition
This can be a subtle way of saying that one who holds the view lacking “common sense” is not just wrong but stupid. This can subtly intimidate someone who thinks the view might have merit into not bringing it up in order to not look stupid in front of others. This can be an effective way of suppressing discussion and questioning of dominant viewpoints.

3. Venerating Conformity
In my way of thinking what is “common” is average and so half of all people have a sense above “common” and half have a sense below it. Did Albert Einstein, Darwin or Copernicus have common sense? To me it seems that in some way they all had extraordinarily uncommon sense. So, saying something is not “common sense” is only defamatory if people feel like the “common” is something to be strived for. In other words, they feel themselves to be below average and achieving what is “common” would be an improvement. Besides judging oneself as inferior I can think of a subtler reason to aspire to “common sense”. That is because viewpoints that are uncommonly above average threaten the status quo and can undermine the privilege of everyone who inhabits the top rungs of the status quo. In this sense it can be safer to appear to have “common sense” as opposed to uncommon or extraordinary sense in order not to attract the attention of those who might feel threatened by extraordinary sense. Thus, unconsciously many people may be attracted to the “common”, average or mediocre, because being like everyone else is safer. It is a way to avoid being singled out for individual repression, whether that repression is as mild as criticism, more severe like ridicule and ostracization or as intense as imprisonment or execution. One safely in the midst of the “common” may suffer from group disparagement by being labelled “average” or “mediocre” but is unlikely to be singled out for specific, individual punishment for being like everyone else.

What does “common sense” mean to you?

How do you interpret and/or use this concept?

AMAZON FORMAT (AZF):
We will begin the meeting by taking turns reading the sections from the text above alound together.

OPENING ROUNDTABLE FORMAT (ORF):

1. The topic presenter begins the discussion by explaining why they are interested in the topic and some introductory thoughts on it.
2. Each participant in turn going clockwise from the presenter describes their general thoughts on the topic.
3. If one is not ready to speak they can just say “pass” and the next person speaks.
4. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to comment.
5. Once everyone has given opening remarks or passed twice, Opening Roundtable is completed and the meeting shifts into its main format.

TIMED DIRECTION FORMAT (TDRF>5):
If there are more than 5 people present we will use the format below.

1. We will divide up the timed direction discussion time by the number of participants plus one (for a buffer). A timer will be set for this amount of time.
2. Each participant in turn will become a Discussion Director and lead the group discussion.
3. If one is not ready to direct they dimply say “pass” and the next person becomes the Discussion Director.
4. Anyone who arrives after step 1 (above), may participate but will not get a turn as Discussion Director.
5. The Discussion Director can make statements or ask questions, or interrupt or redirect the discussion at their discretion.
6. The discussion participants can state their own opinions only when asked by the Discussion Director, not Interrupt others and accede to the Discussion Director’s interruptions or redirections.
7. When the timer goes off the person speaking finishes their thought and then the next participant clockwise becomes the next Discussion Director.
8. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to direct.

At the end of the meeting, participants will have an opportunity to vote on the topic and format for the following meeting.