The meaning of the word Common sense according to the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary:
Common sense is a vague term and mostly used for evil. should mean the normal state and correct action of a person’s mental powers. Normal, in general, are those judgments and views that correspond to the true meaning of things, logically deduced from reliable data. But since the actual opinions of the majority of people are determined not so much by an understanding of objective truth, as by prejudices, habit, suggestions of passions and the demands of material interests, and since every person, feeling and recognizing his physical weaknesses and ailments, does not, however, doubt his mental health and in the correctness of one’s way of thinking, the result is a concept of common sense that has no direct relation to true norms, but expresses only the average opinions and ordinary interests of the human crowd in given conditions of place and time. Such a meaning is generally aimed at protecting the current state of social life and thought, against everything that moves people forward and elevates their spiritual level. In the name of such a meaning, for example, the moral teaching of Socrates and the astronomical system were condemned. Copernicus, Columbus's enterprise. the same Z. meaning defended the burning of witches and heretics, the use of torture, etc. This undeniable historical experience inspires legitimate mistrust of simple references to the Z. meaning. any such reference should be checked by certain standards of truth and justice and, in case of contradiction with them, should be decisively rejected as an impostor claim. Abuse of common sense is often found in the field of philosophy, which is not immune to routine and complacent mediocrity. strong denunciations of such abuse are found especially in Kant and his successors. Philosophical principles of common sense should be distinguished from the stated concept of common sense.
(common sense. see Reed, Scottish philosophy) and
the consent
of all people (consensus gentium. see Lamennais, Traditionalism).
Vl. WITH.
Law and common sense. Who will win?
In short, looking at modern legislation, not only Russian, but the world as a whole, I see that there is nothing left of the codification of common sense, and everyone is driven by codified nonsense combined with a thirst for profit.
Examples? I don’t want to be unfounded myself, so please.
At first they are funny , although the fines for non-compliance are not very funny:
In the US state of Washington, people who come to the state with the intention of committing a crime must first call the police and inform them of such plans. In the US, bathhouses are banned in California. And again the USA: in the states of New Jersey and Oregon it is prohibited to pour gasoline into the gas tank of a car yourself. There, in the state of Washington, all sexual positions except “missionary” are prohibited by law.
I'll digress for a second. To this example, on my blog, one friend wrote a funny answer: “...I wonder, how is the implementation of laws checked? I present my wife’s complaint against her husband: he fucked him doggy style, thereby violating my legitimate interests. Please hold me accountable! It must be fun to work in the police there!” I apologize to the reader, but this is a quote. I laughed for a long time. However, let's move on.
In Britain it is illegal to die in Parliament. In Switzerland, it is illegal to flush the toilet after ten o'clock in the evening. In Swaziland, women are prohibited from wearing underwear. Carrying a Bible is prohibited in Singapore. In France, the sale of dolls whose faces are not human is prohibited. In Thailand, it is illegal to step on money.
Now frankly mercantile :
In Gambia taxes are 287%. In Belarus, taxes account for 145% of income. (This is generally worthy of mention by professional comedians.) At an online auction, an 18-year-old Romanian woman decided to sell her virginity. A buyer was found and the girl’s innocence was valued at 10,000 euros. The “purchase and sale” itself took place in Venice, but the money was transferred in Germany, so local fiscal authorities demanded that the enterprising girl pay tax on the sale of her virginity. Window tax in England. Cow flatulence tax. Ireland and Denmark have introduced a tax on cow farts. In Ireland - 18 euros per head per year, in Denmark - 110. In France there is a tax on Google. They collect $29 million a year, by the way. Shadow tax in Venice. Owners of shops and cafes are out of luck, the shadow of their awnings and umbrellas falls on municipal land. Sun tax in the Balearic Islands. Each tourist must fork out one euro per day of stay. Dance tax in Egypt. Every dancer must pay tax. Annual revenues from belly dancing are estimated at US$264 million.
Is that normal? How, have you seen a lot of codified common sense ? And this is just what came to mind, but if you scour the Internet thoroughly, you can find something like this - wow!
So, this is easy to explain with the thesis “I want money, but here’s a reason,” but it is not explainable by common sense.
But that is not all.
There are fines separately, but not those and not for the ridiculous reasons that I gave at the beginning of the article, but what everyone is used to taking for granted - fines for violating traffic rules.
In fact, I have a lot to say on this topic, but I decided to focus on traffic rules for the simple reason that it is close to the overwhelming number of readers. Let's consider a fine for not wearing a seat belt. Why do I write in quotes? Because if someone decided to push their car into a concrete wall, without a seat belt, they would inevitably die. And with a seat belt, such a person has a chance to survive. Only here it is appropriate to ask: why was he carried up against the wall?
And this is where it turns out that if a car has seat belts, then the likelihood of a collision for it increases sharply. Does it seem fantastic? But no, psychologists even have a so-called theory of “risk homeostasis,” which can be expressed as follows: consciously or unconsciously, we change our behavior according to the changing risk in such a way that the total risk remains almost the same. If danger increases, our caution increases, and when danger decreases, we become less careful.
The overall probability of dying in a car accident is the sum of the probability of being involved in it and the probability of dying as a result of it. If the second component decreases as a result of the use of seat belts and other means of saving human life, which are used by the modern automotive industry, then the first component, on the contrary, only increases from the use of such means. That is, that’s what it turns out to be.
Research conducted by American scientists suggests that the decrease in fatalities from car collisions is offset by a higher frequency of collisions, so that the total number of fatalities remains at the same level. So if the overall statistics of accidents on the roads is still decreasing, then the reason for this is not seat belts, but the appearance of safer cars, the fact that roads have begun to be made better, separate lanes, etc. University of California professor Armen Alchiyan proposed taking the principle of risk homeostasis to its logical conclusion. To do this, cars need to be equipped not with airbags, but, on the contrary, with sharply sharpened blades, which would dig into his chest with every sharp tilt of the driver towards the steering wheel. Alchiyan argues that such a device would dramatically reduce the number of accidents on the roads.
But this is only one aspect of the issue, and there is another. I am in my car - the master of both it and my own life and health, I am free to do whatever I want that does not pose a danger to others. Right? What does the belt have to do with it? The fact that I didn't wear a seat belt could only cause damage to myself. Following this logic, everyone should take the following for granted.
We came home, cut a fresh cucumber, put a glass of milk in front of us, then suddenly the door opens, and the police/militia (underline as appropriate):
— Hello, I’m your new district police officer.
- Hello...
- You are going to cause damage to your health, you will be fined 500 rubles.
- But I’m at home and this is my health, on what basis are you breaking into my room?
- Citizen, drinking cucumber with milk is harmful. You will have diarrhea. You will spend part of your life sitting in the toilet. The state cares about you! How can you not understand this? Fine. 500 rubles. But we can come to an agreement. 300 - and I wasn't here.
- Yes, I always wash down cucumbers with milk, that’s my metabolism.
“These are all excuses, citizen, but the law clearly states: you can’t.”
And so on. How's the picture? Did you see the parallels?
Also, here another aspect of this issue sneaks up unnoticed: if I was going to cause damage to myself (no matter with a belt or a cucumber), then why is the beneficiary of this act some kind of budget? Where is the logic? Where is the meaning? No, from the point of view of “I want money, but here’s a reason” everything is fine, but in essence, if by my actions I created an unjustified risk and a threat to anyone, then the beneficiary should be exactly that “someone”, and in this case - myself. It's funny, isn't it?
Why did I write this article? But I just really want people, and this is especially true for residents of Europe and America, to think more often about the true reasons and purposes of this or that law, which their state calls on them to follow. I also really want legislators to lie less to their own people and call a spade a spade.
Tags: fines, legislation, laws, society, meaning, humor, common sense
TSB Common Sense Definition:
Common sense is a set of people’s views on the surrounding reality and themselves that spontaneously develops under the influence of everyday experience, which is the basis for their practical activities and morality. Z.s. acts as the life position of a philosophically inexperienced person, requiring him to consider reality as it directly appears to him. Essentially Z. s. represents an uncritical combination of “naive realism” with the traditional ideas prevailing in a given society. Since the basis of Z. s. Man’s practical relationship to the world lies directly; he does not rise to the level of scientific and philosophical understanding of reality, which expresses his limitations. F. Engels wrote about this: “For a metaphysician, things and their mental reflections, concepts, are separate, unchanging, frozen, given objects once and for all, subject to study one after the other and one independently of the other... This way of thinking seems to us at first glance quite acceptable because it is inherent in the so-called common sense of human reason. But the sound human mind, a very respectable companion within the four walls of its home, experiences the most amazing adventures as soon as it dares to enter the wide expanse of research” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 21). Problem Z. s. is posed in Marxism in terms of the formation of a scientific worldview and appears primarily as a problem of critical analysis of everyday, spontaneously emerging consciousness. In the history of philosophy, there are opposing tendencies in the interpretation of the essence and meaning of philosophies. Thus, French materialists of the 18th century. believed that Z. s. man is opposed to religion, while representatives of the Scottish school of “common sense” in the 18th century. believed that Z. s. must inevitably lead to belief in God. T. Reed believed that human consciousness is not a tabula rasa (“blank slate”), filled in through experience, as the sensualists claimed. On the contrary, experience itself is possible only insofar as the human spirit has innate principles of spirituality, which are ineradicable faith in God and in the world around us. philosophy can be built only on the basis of these principles. In modern bourgeois philosophy there are also opposite interpretations of the law. T.n. Realistic trends (neorealism, critical realism) proceed from the fact that Z. s. must necessarily postulate the existence of real reality, without which a person can “neither live nor philosophize” (J. Santayana, USA). On the other hand, representatives of religious movements believe that Z. s. leads to an immutable recognition of the existence of God. Finally, according to pragmatism, Z. s. identical to the benefit or benefit that a person receives in a certain situation. D. M. Lukanov.
Notes
- Common sense // Dictionary of general scientific terms / ed. Doctor of Technical Sciences prof. V.V. Shabanova. - M.: MGUP, 2007.
- Common sense (inaccessible link) // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1989.
- Merriam-Webster
gives: “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” [1], Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, “the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way.”[2], Cambridge Dictionaries Online. van Holthoorn & Olson (1987, p. 9) say that “common sense consists of knowledge, judgment, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument.” C. S. Lewis (1967, p. 146) wrote that what common sense “often means” is “the elementary mental outfit of the normal man.” - Digital library
