First an exchange with the author:

I am working my way through your book on common sense and will be writing a review for “Metapsychology” when I am finished. My common sense tells me that I should ask you for a comment on critical thinking (informal logic) as taught in most philosophy departments today. I particularly like your comment, “No, common sense is not reactionary. I argue in the book that the basic slogan “Automatic pilot if possible and investigative attitude if necessary” shows that the capacity for critical thinking is a crucial part of common sense.”

Are critical thinking courses valuable?

Dr. Bransen’s reply:

Thanks, Bob, for your interest in the book and my thinking about common sense. And thanks for the question. Yes, critical thinking courses are valuable. But I am not in favour of a ‘skills only’ view of critical thinking. I should like to argue that the critical spirit part, as Harvey Siegel calls it, is the crucial bit of critical thinking. It should be a kind of self-examination, in the Socratic sense. Critical thinking is not merely a skill that needs to find a place in a scrutinised methodology. Critical thinking implies one’s own engagement, one’s being moved by appropriate reasons.

Second, let me state what the book is not about: it is not an attack on critical thinking. It is not an attack on experts. It does not argue that common sense is reactionary – “Automatic pilot if possible and investigative attitude if necessary” – shows thatcritical thinking is a necessary condition for common sense. It is not about a “gut feeling.”

It is an extended discussion about “the automatic pilot that we develop over the years . . . It allows us to respond quickly, almost mindlessly, yet most of the time appropriately. That is not, however, a matter of an instinctive gut feeling, but a matter of extended learning processes. Our automatic pilot ordinarily produces educated responses. But on top of that the more important bit is added by the fundamental sensitivity to respond smartly and suitably to apparent frustrations of our expectations. This sensibility motivates us, if our common sense is well-developed, to switch to the investigative attitude.”

This is a delightful book. Bransen is not only an interesting writer he also has the ability to make his points with ease and insight by telling stories from our shared repertoire of stories, or using thought experiments to tease out the main points of his extended argument. Telling stories is how we relate to the world and to others. His approach reminded me immediately of my favorite example of story as a way of doing moral teaching:

Remember the Old Testament story of King David?

After King David has seen the beautiful Bathseba bathing he is overcome by desire, and well, we all know the story. We are told “what David had done was wrong in the eyes of the Lord.” And then, as we read in the King James Version:

And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto

  him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one

  rich and the other poor.

 2. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

 3. But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb,

  which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together

  with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and

  drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a

  daughter.

 4. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he

  spared to take of his own flock and his own herd, to dress for the

  wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s

  lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

 5. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man;

  and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done

  this thing shall surely die:

 6. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did

this thing, and because he had no pity.

 7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.

David will pay for his lust; the child he conceived in sin will die and the other threats will also come to pass. The punishment will fit the crime: the child conceived in sin will die; the man who could not control his sexual appetites will be punished by having his wives taken in front of everyone. Note the layers of narrative here. Nathan tells David a parable. David is moved by the story. He sentences the fictional man to die. Nathan tells David that he is the man. 

The story is used to get the king to see himself and to judge his own acts.

Bransen writes on his website: “In my research I have always been interested in reflection, by which I mean the capacity of human beings to be related to their own thought and behaviour. I develop arguments to defend the view that reflection is intrinsically edifying. I do so in a number of areas.

Human Nature. There are interesting differences between homo sapiens and other primates that can teach us much to elucidate our human capacity to be related in an edifying way to our own thought and behaviour. I argue, however, that there is no reason to believe we are privileged as a biological species in this respect. If it is true that “nurture is our nature” we should be open to the possibility that exemplars of other species can relate in an edifying way to their own thought and behaviour. And we’d better acknowledge that many of our fellow men somehow fail to edify themselves through reflection.

Behavioural Science. Contemporary culture has created a very powerful social arrangement to take care of our edifying reflection: behavioural science. My interest here is basically to argue against the modern idea that explanatory sense-making (combined with evidence-based intervention) provides an accurate and adequate model of edifying reflection. I discuss this theme in a number of ways in Don’t be fooled. A Philosophy of Common Sense. (Routledge, 2017)”

 Bransen’s theme? Humaning. To act in a way that can only be described as human.

For example, “The basic idea of ‘humaning’ is to draw the reader’s attention to an extremely interesting human capacity, namely that of relating meaningfully to one’s own activity. People live (verb) their life (noun); they account for what they do. I explain in the book how the fact that we are talking animals, i.e. that we have language, gave rise to this intriguing self-relation. This simple but also deep idea of ‘humaning’ has three important consequences:

 (1) human beings always live their life under the guidance of an idea of what it is to live a human life;

(2) human beings can objectify their ideas about their life as much as they want but they can never fully objectify their activity of living their life; and

(3) human beings share their individual lives in their common language, which opens up a common world.”

The book has an introduction which discusses how language liberates and captivates people and an epilogue, bibliography and index. These are the bookends for ten chapters which develop the argument for humaning as language using beings in a complex world with many different cultures and a booming population of humans with different languages and many social media – who, we hope, will be able to cooperate and live in peace. The two parts of the discussion present what “common sense” actually is (Part 1); and “the second part shows you what you can gain if you use your common sense.”

Throughout Bransen asks us to use our imagination, to consider stories that he tells to provide fodder for thinking about the points of philosophy he wants to discuss. “I want you to imagine that you are living on Endoxa, together with about 100 other people.” These people come from different times and place but will have one language. What they each have is the human ability to use common sense in order to live together, to human.

Several chapters begin with short stories or thought experiments which are then analyzed to bring out the main points of the chapter. They are clever, fun to think about, and useful in teasing out the ideas. Interested in philosophy, particularly existentialism; behavioural science, personal responsibility? This book is for you.

In the epilogue Bransen tells us, “I enjoyed writing this book enormously” and I must say that I enjoyed reading this book.

 

© 2018 Bob Lane

 

Bob Lane is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Vancouver Island University.