If you're talking about common, you shouldn't ignore Socrates and Plato. To ask the "what is..." question is to do common sense.
Consider the following, however: "Only everybody can know the truth". ~Goethe (kinda) "The opinion which is fated <http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html#note2> to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." ~Peirce (for real). So, what's common sense is different for "everybody" and "all who investigate" and even "ultimately all who investigate". So, when you approach a group we accuse of exercising "common sense", then are they *everybody*, all who investigate or *ultimately all who investigate*? There is also the additional complication of those who are vulgar, vulgar only for now and the learned/philosophers. But this is how things are. Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:54 PM, CLARK GOBLE <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think, your posts have made the problem of the term "average" clear. Am > I right with understanding it like: "Average" usually suggests a completed > statistical calculation, and statistics is mathematics, therefore exact > logic. But in our context, "average" is not meant for an exact, but an > "imperfect" general, so in our case it is about fuzzy logic with the > remainder (and so the general) being not something clearly defined or > known, but being some sort of suggestion of collusion/agreement, due to > change, and itself subject of the communication- not articulated with > terms, but conveyed by their connotations ? Connotations though donot stick > to terms, but rather are a function of how much the communication partners, > esp. the recipient, know about the history of terms, or whatever they have > had internalized along with them each time they have heard, read, or > thought them before. > > > That’s how I understand it. > > I confess I have some trouble relating the coenoscopic and idioscopic > senses (as Peirce terms them) If I have Peirce right then the term > cenoscopic (which he picks up from Bentham) is common experience and > presumably by association common but vague terminology. Idioscopy is more > technical in language and focuses in on new phenomena. > > The problem is the it would seem common experience need not use loose or > vague terms. Likewise common experience often leads to things like folk > physics and folk psychology which aren’t just vague but often error ridden. > (Which leads us to discount them and turn to science for the topics) > > Given that I’m still not quite sure what to make of “average.” It’s fine > to talk about it as “common experience” (Peirce) or everydayness > (Heidegger). But what does that get us ultimately? > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
