Danpech

A Faint Hope II, or, Common Sense, Critical Thought, and Free Thought


First, some preliminary observations and then on to the question.

Concepts, ideas and feelings, not words, are the medium of communication. Words are just the medium of communicating concepts, ideas, feelings, and such.(What you just read is a bit a of semantics.)

When the 'meaning' of a word, phrase, or title is not shared in common between two people at a given point in time, then, when one of those people use that word, phrase, or title at that time in attempting to communicate with the other person, the other person misunderstands the first person. This is a problem of semantics.

Sometimes, neither person is aware of this misunderstanding and, so, the two people talk past each other like Laurel and Hardy discussing Who's on First. (If you don't know about that discussion, or else have, but it does not come to mind upon reading that title I gave it, then that is a case of your not having that title in common with me at 'this' point in time.)

Sometimes, when the second person replies, the first person thinks that the second person has misundertsood him when he has really not.

Sometimes, when the second person thinks that he has understood the first person and says as much in so many words, but, that, in fact, he has not understood him, the first person knows this and replies to the effect that he has been misunderstood. Then it might proceed to something like this: "I have understood what you are saying and are trying to say, but I disagree." "No, you have not understood, and so you are disagreeing with something which I do not mean". "No, I have understood your meaning." "No, you have not."



Now the question.

What is common sense and what is critical thought? Are they the same thing but said with different words, or are they two different things? What is free thought?

Many people have the idea that common sense is simply what a majority of people believe in common about something. But, upon asking them how beliefs came to be accepted in common by so many people in the first place, something more is revealed: many things which are considered common sense arose not because of consensus, but because of something which is independent of consensus. Although, when in experiment, challenging one of these beliefs in the minds of people by changing the apparent consensus around them often makes many people change their minds or at least have some doubts, this does not prove that consensus is how we know anything or posses mental competence to discover anything. That is what I call common sense: knowing what things have in common, whether those things are people, ideas, inanimate objects, etc..

Critical thought makes use of common sense---the mental competence which is inherent in the person (and mental competence is how anyone can learn anything at all in the first place, whether of ideas, the ablity to walk, the ability to communicate through sensory forms (language), etc.. But, critical thought is not common sense. Sometimes, critical thought is motivated by a hyper-critical psychology, and thus misapplies some common sense and comes to erronous conclusions. This is what was originally meant by the phrase, "A little knowledge is dangerous", (which, by the way, is only the first half of the proverb from which the phrase had been taken). Critical thought attempts to get behind why we, someone, or anyone takes for granted whatever things we or they take for granted, and what we or they think those things are and are not.

Free thought attempts to discover the common sense of things, and thus must reject consensus and tradition as the primary guides for thought. Free thought assumes that the individual has the potential to know things and discover things apart from concensus. It grants that epistemology is a personal affair, and that communication and society possess integrity only to the degree to which the individuals which make them up possess integrity.

miriam

Hi, I am new to these boards and your post was interesting. I wasn't real sure if you had a question or if you were only clarifying a few points first. But, your definition of semantics was accurate from my experience, free thought, commonsense and critical thinking were different.

My idea of commonsense is that way of thinking that one is born with - to see the best way of doing something or the way the majority of people would do it if given the same situation. It is not a learned behavior for those who have it, but for those who are born without it, can learn it. An example: commonsense tells you not to store gasoline beside a flame.

Critical thinking is the problem solving process many use daily. The person takes in information and processes it coming up with an explaination or conclusion as to what is the best plan of action.

Free thought I was never sure what was meant with this term, but after reading your explaination. I guess I did have some idea as to what I thought it meant. I assumed it meant freedom to speculate about subjects or situations, using critical thinking skills to formulate a conclusion. A process open to all ideas concerning the subject, ruling each one out systematically until the explaination or conclusion was attained.

Thank you for the information. I may have to think about this longer.

Miriam

John Page

Daniel:

How about "Free Thought uses disbelief to engender Critical Thinking that, once generally accepted, becomes Common Sense".

So free thought is anarchy, an agent of change through denial or rebellion against the accepted. From the mist of anarchy may emerge strong truths previously undiscovered. Of course, once everybody knows the truth, its common sense, right)

Cheers

jpbrooks

In my experience, "common sense" is a very "slippery" term that has been used almost exclusively by "herds", er..., sorry, groups of individuals who just happen to think alike, and who oppose my independence, to "browbeat" me into succumbing to their views. The point that is inevitably raised in my exchanges with such people, is that promulgating nonsense as "common sense", makes no sense.

Jamie_L

Case in point about misuderstandings and mis-used words and concepts:

It was Abbot and Costello, not Laurel and Hardy who did "Who's on first."

Common sense is refexive - it is something that you do not give thought to. It's common sense to be careful around a hot stove. I don't take time to critically think about whether or not it makes sense to be careful around a hot stove.

Critical thinking is not reflexive. It is careful examination, questioning, and use of reason.

Both are derived from experience - they are learned. Using critical thought may become a reflex. In fact, at some point it may become "common sense" to use "critical thinking" in certain situations, rather than just relying on common sense alone. But the act of critical thinking does not become common sense.

As a critical thinker, it's common sense for me to examine a person's argument to determine its validity. Examining it is not an act of common sense. It's an act of critical thought.

Jamie