A Defense of That Which Requires None: Common Sense (Reprise)

We have explored some of the exotic, almost mystical cosmology of Chinese philosophical Daoism in previous meetings. We can interpolate the vastness of philosophical thought by revisiting what is often considered the opposite extreme – the disciplined, rationalistic approach to philosophy embraced by the modern Western analytic tradition. Seemingly even more contrasting, in particular, is G. E. Moore's philosophy in defense of common sense.

However, I argue the contrast between the two philosophies is primarily in approach, not in content. It's not hard to argue the philosophies are, at least, not in conflict. More ambitiously, I argue there is some profound agreement. I argued Daoism is, in fact, quite sensible and reasonable. Common sense is considered quintessentially mundane, but Moore's arguments defending common sense are exotic and have inscrutable and ineffable implications.

In particular, Moore's essay *A Defense of Common Sense* is famous for arguing against philosophical skepticism – a philosophical approach valuing minimalism that, in moderate forms, consists of objecting to claims considered common knowledge, and in more radical forms, objecting to most or all claims of any knowledge. Adherents to philosophical skepticism tend to argue skepticism is the safest, most rational, and most parsimonious approach to philosophy.

A common argument against *radical* skepticism is that it presupposes the truth of that which it argues against – if no claim is true, then the claim "no claim is true" cannot be true. Moore takes this to a deeper, more sophisticated, more widely applicable and unexpected level in not only arguing against *radical* skepticism, but arguing against *moderate* skepticism, as well as affirming radical certainty.

Moore's essay is also famous in that it received (rare) praise by one of the most famous philosophical skeptics in 20th century philosophy – Ludwig Wittgenstein. In fact, Wittgenstein wrote his final work *On Certainty* in acknowledgement of and in response to Moore's essay. Moore's argument was so influential that, in *On Certainty*, Wittgenstein somewhat moderates his position from *Philosophical Investigations*, often considered the most influential philosophical work of the 20th century.

Thus, we will discuss section one of G. E. Moore's *A Defense of Common Sense*. The reading is short. A link is given below.

[A Defense of Common Sense](http://www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.html)

G. E. Moore's *A Defense of Common Sense* demonstrates conceptions and conclusions that are quintessentially mundane contain radical presuppositions that are defensible by scintillating and counterintuitive justification.

------------------------------------------------------------

Links to some of my previous meetups are below. [Family and Fractal Cosmology](https://www.meetup.com/thesymposium/events/308400825/?eventOrigin=group_events_list) [How to Enjoy a Tasty Snack of Minced Human Liver](https://www.meetup.com/thesymposium/events/303963532/?eventOrigin=group_events_list) [Character as the Source of Virtue](https://www.meetup.com/thesymposium/events/299903686/?eventOrigin=group_events_list) [Prolonging Disfigures, Exertion Deranges](https://www.meetup.com/thesymposium/events/294821732/) [Broken Paragon](https://www.meetup.com/thesymposium/events/291713036/) [What to morality, is proof to truth?](https://www.meetup.com/philosophy-with-heart/events/283227914/) [Back to the Roots – Man’s Search for Meaning](https://www.meetup.com/philosophy-with-heart/events/249625731/)