Common sense leads philosophy astray

And the alternative of scientific rigour

Leading analytic philosophers, like Timothy Williamson and Derek Parfit, argue that common sense is a way of testing the truth of philosophical theories. If philosophy seems to contradict what we take to be commonsense knowledge, they argue, so much the worse for philosophy. But common sense can be wildly misleading, merely reflecting the prejudices of a particular culture or era. What was once considered common sense knowledge is today known to be false. Instead of relying on common sense, philosophy should consider using scientific knowledge as a starting point and test for its claims, argues Marcus Arvan.

 

In Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning, Timothy Williamson contends that philosophy starts from commonsense, and that commonsense can serve as a ‘check on the philosopher’s provisional conclusions’. As an example of the latter, Williamson contends that our commonsense knowledge that people often eat breakfast after getting up in the morning refutes philosophical arguments that time is unreal. Williamson is far from alone in thinking along these lines.

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Mariah Carey 8 August 2022

Great solution, I've been having a lot of headaches with this for the past week. Thanks very much.

J. Mackie 18 March 2022

great points, until you brought in marxism. don't you think it's kind of embarrassing for a professional philosopher to have such a minimal grasp of one of the most influential theorists in philosophical history? this is why people are exhausted by and dismissive of analytic philosophy—you point out yourself how contingent common sense attitudes/methodologies are to their historical context. this is one of the most cutting critiques of analytic philosophy on the table. then you fall into the same trap, accepting a media-influenced image of what marxism is, equivocating it to bloodthirsty regimes which do not follow marxist theory, and finally ignoring the death toll created by liberal democracies around the world.
but most importantly, your final version of what philosophy ought to be mentions nothing of examining the historical conditions which give rise to the kind of philosophy we do, in terms of problems, methods, and politics.

Janet Wilson 10 March 2022

Thanks