Пес Ебленский - Strange Tales 124-141 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
rex_weblen

[ website | Наши рисуночки ]
[ userinfo | ljr userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| update journal edit friends fif tiphareth recent comments ]

Strange Tales 124-141 [Mar. 2nd, 2025|07:02 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell A Friend Next Entry
LinkLeave a comment

Comments:
[User Picture]
From:[info]rex_weblen
Date:March 5th, 2025 - 09:33 pm
(Link)
Да, нет все логично.

Просто «здравый смысл» — говно.

И нам Б-г показывает, какое это говно на примере Трампа.

И нюхавшие Гете и Канта европейцы это прекрасно понимают.

Здравый смысл это философия хиллбили, редников и жлобов всех национальностей.

>
My concerns about philosophy ‘starting with commonsense’ are partly rooted in history. To put it bluntly, commonsense has a terrible track record, both in the sciences and in philosophy. Begin with science. Here, we learn that Galileo was basically run out of town from the University of Pisa because his mechanistic philosophy contradicted the Aristotelian ‘commonsense’ of the time. (Cropper, pp. 5-6) Then of course there was Darwin, whose theory of evolution by natural selection was assailed by numerous critics as an assault on the ‘commonsensical’ idea that humans are unique, divine creations. (Clark, pp. 135-41) Then there was Einstein, whose theory of relativity was mocked by a number of eminent scientists—most famously Philip Lenard—for flouting the “simple, sound common sense” that space and time must be absolute. (Hillman et al., pp. 37, 55, 57) As physicist Sir Oliver Lodge once put it, relativity is just "repugnant to commonsense." (Brian, p. 102) Suffice it to say, all of these affairs (and many others) turned out to be a pretty bad look for commonsense. Throughout the history of science, commonsense has a pretty awful track record.

What about philosophy? Here, ‘commonsense’ hardly fares better. For example, in 17th Century England, Sir Robert Filmer enjoyed widespread fame for defending the ‘commonsensical’ idea that God endowed kings with a divine right to rule. However, this ‘commonsense’ did not stand the test of time. Instead, it was John Locke’s heretical idea that all people have natural rights—contrary to the classist and religious prejudices of the time—that served to influence future political and philosophical thought. Similarly, if we go back much further, to ancient Greece, we find that Aristotle took it to be simple commonsense that some people are fit to be slaves; Pythagoras thought it simple commonsensical that one should not eat beans, look in a mirror beside a lamp, or worship without shoes on. (Baird, p. 16) And so on. What we find here, again—throughout philosophical history, as in scientific history—is that what one generation takes to be commonsense the next takes to be foolish prejudices.

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2019/06/against-commonsense.html