The enemy of ‘common sense’ is ‘ideology’. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says ‘ideology’ means ‘beliefs and values held by an individual or group for other than epistemic reasons’. And that (perhaps unfamiliar) word ‘epistemic’ just means ‘knowledge’. In other words, ‘ideology’ is not based on testable knowledge, it is just adopted in the absence of knowledge. In fact, people seem to hold to an ‘ideology’ out of interest, not evidence. Here’s the key: common sense means trying to conform thinking to reality (how things are); ‘ideology’ means trying make reality (how things are) conform to ideas. The communist ideology employed by the old Soviet Union failed – communist politics enslaved people and communist economics impoverished people – because it was an ‘ideology’ that was at odds with reality (with how things are). Today we see ‘climate ideology’ based on just two propositions: (a) climate change will be catastrophic for the human race, and (b) climate change can be stopped by politicians.

Both those propositions are highly dubious. But those who believe in that ideology try to make the world conform to it by spending massive amounts of money in pursuit of their (highly doubtful) dream. The Albanese government is based on a socialist ideology which sees government as responsible for every as aspect of human life – hence, the economy, the nation, and the lives of individuals should submit to bureaucratic control from Canberra. Absurdity on the same scale can be seen when you thoughtfully examine any ideology. That is why there is a simple ethical proposition that says: common sense good, ideology bad. Knowing that can save us from a world of confusion and nonsense. And if our politicians understood that it would save us all from a world of pain.

Do you think common sense is in short supply these days? Does common sense look remarkably uncommon these days? There is an aggressive lobby that insists males can become females. Common sense says that can’t happen. Governments claim they can control the global climate. Common sense says politicians can’t do that. You can see my concern (and perhaps even share it). So, I have long been thinking about how best to define ‘common sense’. Philosophers have thought (and argued!) about this for centuries. In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy there is an entry on ‘common sense’ – written, as it happens, by an Australian, Tony Coady.  In his essay he says: ‘It seems likely that common sense defies definition; certainly no one has succeeded in a satisfactory definition, and very few have tried.’ In the light of that, I shall be foolish enough to try. Here’s my attempt: ‘common sense means the human faculty that connects us (relates us) to reality’. Our eyes are the faculty that connect us to vision (appearances); ears connect us to sound; skin connects to touch; and our noses connect us to aromas. In just the same way, ‘common sense’ is a faculty that draws together all those five senses and makes them into one ‘common’ sense that relates us to reality. This is not a million miles away from what Aristotle thought about ‘common sense’ all those years ago. And what is ‘reality’? Simply put, reality is ‘how things are’. It is common sense that relates us to (connects us to) how things are. Which is why (for example) it is a violation of common sense to pretend that physically normal, healthy males can become females, or that politicians can control the global climate from Brazil to the South Pole. What do you think of my definition?