Exercise

What is more common-sensical? To exercise or not to exercise?

Guest Blog Post: T. Pain(e)

T. Pain(e), one of our favorite thinkers at Common Sense Writings, joins us today and shares a few words of demotic wisdom.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence.

Take your shirt off! Take your shirt off! Take your shirt off! Twist 'em in the air like a mothafucking helicopter!
Take your shirt off! Take your shirt off! Brush 'em off, brush 'em off; brush 'em off. Do the damn thing. Twist 'em in the air like a motha fucking helicopter.

It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from the former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is was a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep." She turned around and gave that big booty a smack. She hit the floor. Next thing you know, Shawty got low, low, low, low...

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each Other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe- America to itself.

I'm leaving quickly, before she come an try to get me, and I'm taking everything with me.

So we went our separate ways. It's been a couple of days. Now I'm doing what I want to. Ain't nobody telling me what I'm gon' do; and I'm felling so free, with nobody but me. Now, I can handle all my business. All my fellows, can I get a witness!

Quitting Tobacco

Smoking tobacco is pleasant. Once addicted, not smoking it is not pleasant. Is quitting smoking tobacco the common-sensical course of action for an addict?

The short and obvious answer is 'yes.' "Based on data collected in the late 1990s, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that adult male smokers lost an average of 13.2 years of life and female smokers lost 14.5 years of life because of smoking," says the American Cancer Society Web site. "And given the diseases that smoking can cause, it can steal your quality of life long before you die."

Now, that answer is too easy. So easy, my addicted mind will not accept it. Not because the conclusion is wrong, but because the path does not include the distress one goes through as a smoker who is not smoking anymore.

Now, let us examine the original question and answer it taking the new factor into account: Is quitting smoking the common-sensical course of action for an addict?

First, we must establish what it means for a person to be an addict:

-addict: noun: a person who is addicted to a particular substance, typically an illegal drug. (Dictionary.com)
-addicted: adjective: physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects. (Dictionary.com)

Second, we must do a cost-benefit analysis of the adverse effects due to not smoking versus the extended life span and other perks that increase pleasure and therefore the quality of life and continuity of one's genes.

Some of the costs of not smoking are:
-Unfulfilled desire to smoke causes anxiety, thus clouding judgment (decreased chances of survival when reasoning is required)
-Discontinued membership in the smoker's alliance (decreased chances of building relations with others based on a shared interest, and therefore decreased chances of survival when interpersonal effort is required)
-Melancholy for one of the few constants in an ever-changing world (increased chances for depression, and therefore further decreased chances of survival when reasoning is required)
-Not having a valid reason to excuse oneself from uncomfortable situations ("I'm going out for a smoke," is no longer an option)

Some of the benefits of not smoking are:
-Lesser risk of heart or lung disease/medical conditions (increased chances of survival)
-Not being out of breath when jogging for two blocks (increased chance of survival when in physical danger)
-Not making a bad first impression on non-smoking girls (increased chances for reproduction)
-Not spending over $10 per pack (increased chances of survival, as more money usually means better chances of survival)
-If successful, a feeling of accomplishment (which can result in increased chances of survival in instances in which a positive self-image is required)

Now, let us analyze these costs and benefits of not smoking.

1) The anxiety caused by not smoking is real, but if compared with the anxiety of going through a painful heart of lung condition, it is smaller. (I will not factor in the duration of the feelings of anxiety, just the severity, because one can die at any moment of any cause).
2) A conditional membership in the smoker's club can be retained through telling the other members one is trying to quit, and smoking again should this membership be revoked and the particular cost-benefit analysis dictates membership is most beneficial.
3) The constant of "smoking" can be replaced by the constant of "not smoking." After nicotine is removed and the brain chemistry changes, one's mindset should be able to grasp this. If not, nicotine from cigarettes can be replaced by nicotine from patches or chewing gum at a cost similar to that of cigarettes.
4) "I need a cigarette" can be replaced by "I need some fresh air." Failing that, a smoker gained about 14 years of awkward social interactions.
5) All benefits are self-explanatory.

Conclusion: The common-sensical course of action for a smoker/addict is to stop smoking. It is important to have in mind, however, that there is no need to make it unnecessarily tough on oneself, as there is chemical help in the form of patches and chewing gum. Not smoking makes more [common] sense than smoking.

"Mind-altering substances," by Altered-Mind

Is consuming mind-altering substances common-sensical? Let's break it down.

I have already established what it means for something to be considered "common-sensical," so let's see what "mind-altering" is referring to:

Mind: "The element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.:

[aside: it's hard to focus].

[to] Alter: "To make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like."

To consume mind-altering substances would mean to change the thing that reasons, thinks, feels, etc.

But would that be common-sensical? Would that increase or be perceived to increase the chances of survival?

In some cases yes, in some not. For example, a person's chance of survival might be increased when his reasoning skills improve, or his feelings are enhanced, so consuming mind-enhancing substances would be commonsensical. But not mind-altering substances enhance the mind, but quite the opposite. And some might alter different parts of the mind in different ways, the combination of which might result in an overall increase in the chances of survival, or a net decrease in the chances of survival.

The result, therefore, must be that depending on the substance and the circumstances of the individual that consumes it, it may be common-sensical to consume, and at other times it might not be.

Conclusion: a deep understanding of the concepts and workings of the mind and of the substances and its effects on it might result in an overall increase in the chances of survival, so a very knowledgeable person could consume them or distribute them and it would be common-sensical.

So, iIf you're going to smoke up, be smart about it: stay home and write on a blog about it. C'mon: use your common sense.

(Profanity used: No Shit, Sherlock) Uncommonsensical? Fuck The Troops

(Profanity used, sexist and crude language, anti-redneck bias)

I was watching a re-run of yesterday's The Colbert Report today, and I saw a head-shaven Stephen Colbert look like an enema rimjobbing the armed forces, along with Obama, Bush and Sen. Webb. No jokes were made at the expense of the soldiers. It was like satirizing satire.
I then started thinking about the troops and the whole yellow ribbons people all over the country were sticking to their SUV bumpers. And it dawned to me. Eureka! There's a much better slogan these people could use: Fuck The Troops.
Yes, you read me right: Fuck The Troops. Now, let me explain what I mean by that. A young man graduates from high school and, after working a couple years in dead end jobs, he decides to be all he can be and join the armed forces. After studying by himself at night (he works during the day), he manages to learn all the skills required to ace the aptitude test and join boot camp.
At boot camp, he gets yelled at every day. He doesn't sleep enough. He doesn't eat enough. There isn't any heat at the barracks, and he has to march miles under a blizzard. Just when he starts to get used with the Colorado winter training, he's shipped to the hottest desert on earth, where the barracks aren't any better and where he's constantly walking on landmined roads, at plain sight for dozens of insurgents to unleash their rage via AK-47s.
When he returns to the barracks, he is placed in a room full of men as grumpy as him. He can't drink, he's got to be alert at all times. He can't jack off, there's too many men around, and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy might be used as grounds for dismissal. The ladies sleep on a different barrack. The occasional Virginia cigarette is the only rest he gets from this quagmire called Occupation, but the army doesn't want to encourage smoking among its troops so the cancer-sticks are few.
Occasionally, a soldier like this one will come back home. So, ladies, next time you see him, fuck him. Fuck The Troops. Make creamed cherry pop with him. Fuck him 'til his balls get sore, 'til the last drop of protein shake is out of his sandy dick. Show him the gratitude civilians have for soldiers through your tongue and throat multi-tasking skills. Just for one second (or as long as it takes), go against your reflexes and don't gag. Make them forget the desert; make them drink from the endless fountain that is your VJJ. They deserve it.
This is only commonsensical. We previously established that survival (or doing things that will likely work towards it) is the only commonsensical thing on earth. They fight for your survival, ergo you fuck them. As simple as ABC, and as American as apfelkuchen.
It's simple: Fuck The Troops.

"Use Your Common Sense"

I've heard it thousands of times. People use it like a prayer, hoping to ward off stupidity, as if repeating it would bring about enlightenment: "Use your common sense." But what does this really mean? Let's take a look.

Use: it's a command. It commands somebody to execute an action, in this case, to make use of common sense.
Your: refers to the common sense that belongs to the person the speaker is talking to ("you").
Common: refers to something that is shared, not-noble, not special, that happens regularly.
Sense: refers to the ability to perceive something, physically or mentally, or what is mentally perceived using such ability.

Having these words in mind, let's re-construct (or deconstruct) the meaning of the phrase. It seems the speaker is commanding the hearer to make use of an ability they both share, that is not special, belongs to commoners or that happens regularly.

It can be inferred that the action (use) does not happen regularly, because it has not happened. It could also be said that it is probably special, since the speaker has it and the hearer doesn't. The speaker probably doesn't refer to an ability commoners have because it seems as if this ability was a good thing, and seldom does one refer to oneself as a commoner---unless one is running for political office in the United States. And it is obviously not shared, since what the speaker seems to understand clearly is beyond the grasp of the hearer at that point in time. We must accept, then, that this sense, called "common sense," is not really common.

The use of the word "your" along with "common" does not make sense. If it were common, it would be ours, not yours.

Gramatically, the sentence seems to be flawed, but language doesn't necessarily depend on grammar. It depends on people, the context and the way people use it.

When the speaker commands the recipient to make use of his sense, he is really telling him to make use of a sense that belongs to the speaker---probably some sort of specific Weltanschaung (world-view). By adding the word "your" to the sentence, the speaker implies that this Weltanschaung is already part of the hearer, or that it should be. Moreover, because this sentence is generally used in exasperation, it implies that whoever is listening should see the world the way the speaker sees it.

Conclusion: when someone tells you to "use your common sense," they are telling you to see the world the way they do, and that if you don't you're lacking sense.

Thinking about Common Sense

I always get confused when people say “common sense.” What is common sense? Is it common? Is it a sense? Confused by the blithe use of the phrase, I decided to use what people might call “a common-sensical approach” to the meaning of “common sense.”

First, I decided to establish what it is that people think when they talk of common sense. It seems to me people think of “sound judgment,” “logic” and “reason” as a synonyms for common sense. Using reason/logic, I decided I would analyze the two words that make the phrase up and see what would I find.

Common: shared, not-noble, not special, happening regularly.
Sense: the ability to perceive something, physically or mentally, or what is mentally perceived using such ability.

According to these descriptions, the phrase “common sense” should mean something along the lines of “a regular, shared and not-special way commoners have to perceive mentally or physically.” In other words, the way common people perceive--and thus react to--the world around them.

Is it logical? It might be, but not necessarily so. By definition, common sense needs only be “common,” not follow reason. In practice, however, logic and common sense do seem to overlap. It is logical to not stab yourself in the eye, because that would damage the eye, resulting in physical pain and possible loss of sight, thus causing avoidable damage to yourself. Common sense would dictate pretty much the same thing.

But what Joe and his friends might consider to be sound judgment might not be to Jack and his buddies across the bridge. Joe and his friends might root for the Yankees, and might think it a good idea to donate money for a new statium for them to play in. Jack and his buddies might be Mets fans, and donate money for a Mets stadium. Logic dictates that being a fan is stupid, because it’s uncorresponded, unconditional love (illustrated by the current management of the new stadiums).

This way of thinking of common sense, then, seems to cease to be common across peoples in the case of baseball. There are cases, however, in which this understanding of common sense is common across different types of people. Although different cultural contexts provide different starting points for people to think about the world and perceive it, there are human instincts that exist independent of those. Some of these are avoiding pain, seeking pleasure, fear of death. When we act instinctively, we act through common sense.

Is acting instinctively, then, logic? It depends. Instinct keeps us alive. But is living logic? Probably not, though nobody knows for sure. Not even a purpose for life has been established that is common to all people.

But obviously "common sense" is just a phrase that can mean whatever we want it to mean, just like we arbitrarily say Zs mean sleep and HAs mean laughter.

Conclusion: although we think of common sense as meaning 'sound in judgment' (which probably is arrived to by logic or reason), common sense really means proceeding in a way consistent with our instincts, and this may or may not be logic.