TA 100 (Smith)


Commentary 3 (to C2 by Krippner)



by Fred Abraham

20 December 2007, posted 29 December 2007


Krippner: "Now what you need is an operational definition of common sense. {cf. 84, 89} To start, couldn't you say that "common sense" is the ability to make decisions (that are functional for the individual as well as for his/her social group) based on experience and past learning ?"

Stanley has made a very nice perspective in the strengths and weaknesses of Smith's brilliant essay.  However, the point of the need for an operational definition for common sense (which has been my primary concern of Roulette's topic; difficult to do because of the ambiguities involved), I think that it would be difficult to supply the same by characterizing behaviors that are functional, for this just shoves the need for operational definition to the new word "functional", which is just as likely to be fraught with operational difficulties.  Much of the judgment as to what is functional (or common sensical) may depend on shifting and differing views of the behavior and the context in which the behavior occurs.  The need for hermeneutics remains.



frederick david abraham
     e-mail <abraham (at) sover.net>