Sensus De Communis
In philosophy, there are are open questions about substance, functions, purpose, axioms, process. They are deemed relevant because these topics are crucial for discussing morality, reason, justice, etc.
For example, it is possible that there is no such thing as free will or even a will that exists in relevancy whereas other things exist without relevancy. “Existing in relevancy” is an essence of existence defined by necessarily being relevant.
For example, if you’re reading this, there is a persistent relevant awareness in you that equates “you” to the “you” that existed 5 and 10 years ago. This persistent relevancy somehow influences and defines who we are.
From the outside looking in, we say that we are conditioned by our experiences. Equally persistent inside some of us is the claim that we are not just what we are conditioned to be, but we are something else entirely (or at least as well).
If we ask existential questions, we look at persistent relevancy as paradoxical. What if we ignored what we learned or thought we knew? What if we experiment? What does it mean to experiment?
We now look at reason and philosophy. Reason cannot be talked about without discussing what is reason. Is reason a sub-process inside our biological mainframe? Is reason a feature of the universe or just of our biological conditioning? Do atoms reasons or do atoms function on a principle of reasoning that totally disregard our own process of reason?
That is to say. We use reason as a navigating tool for existence. We act on conclusions from reason. Where do the conclusions come from? Reason. Where does reason come from? We can speculate.
Reason can lead to genius conclusions but it can equally end up begging the question. Conclusions from reason are not infallible. That is, these conclusions are not perfect. So the use of reason is blurry but its fruit is our ambrosia.
Politicians are usually pieces of shits but our current government as such is the epitome of a community’s common knowledge. Even if the knowledge is not common, it is theoretically available to all citizens based on the actual function of government.
For example, you use reason to go to a government office to get a license, a permit, or pay your taxes. You talk to a representative, they give you directions, you follow the directions, you get awarded with the recognition you sought. Now you have a conclusion (a license, permit, etc) that no one regarding government function can question. There is legitimacy in your claim.
The example highlights the nonperson that you are. The example above applies to any citizen of the country. There are exceptions. The citizen would have to be age appropriate, of sound mind, and in good standing with their aspirations to be recognized as valid. But other than that, the example is a use of reason by any responsible citizen and with full backing of the government. The government being a collective consciousness of the community.
What if a citizen was discriminated against? The attention of the collective consciousness would need to be called. The cries cannot fall on deaf ears. The attention of the collective consciousness should then right the wrong.
If the cries fall on deaf ears, then a second class of citizens are created. That have to use reason without the backing or support of a government.
Here, reason is more barbaric, less formal. Without government intervention, epistemology is politicized, becomes granulated like a cancerous mass, and mob mentality creeps up. Reason is reinforced with the petty, personal bias. The noncitizen is replaced with rank and order. Relationships are defined by power structures. The thought of a free will or at least an unconditioned will is replaced with loyalty and discipline.
The sense of community changes its chemical makeup. From an atomic base of noncitizen, each citizen is an atomic element within individual political spheres.
Existentially, to practice reason, we need pretense that assumes substances, axioms, etc. Are we noncitizens in a justice-for-all government or are we diplomatic representative of our individual mobs? Is the epistemic makeup of our reason based on abstract ideals or measurable near-immediate consequences of our actions?
If we’re timid of the future and prefer to reason based on mob-security, then our existential self is defined using epistemic elements validated and realized by brute force. If we’re faithful and not afraid of what may come, we are existentially defined by our unconditioned will whose motivation is ideals that can only be conditioned by the self-will willing.
Criticism may be made that the self-will willing is obscure. If made sense of, it’s just saying that intention matters more than results. And here is where the mob security comes from.
Intention without expected results is like existential’s proclamation that unrequited love is holy as long as our intentions are true. The capitalist proclamation counters by saying good intentions don’t pay bills. The capitalist exchanges love for capital, the political sphere is economical, the profits inflames the love all over again.
The existential noncitizen copes as expense is made without reward. Creativity, expression, romantic idealization take the lead towards nothing but a self-will willing.
Sense of community requires a self-will willing the community’s grace. A community needs to be receptive to good qualities to encourage self-will’s that will goodness. The identity of a noncitizen compared and of an affiliate becomes blurry. Affiliates don’t care about the dignity of the noncitizen and are susceptible to greed. Noncitzens tolerate affiliates for the greater good.