A Reflection on the ideas of Bernard Lonergan on Common Sense and Bias as stated by Joseph Flanagan in his book Quest for Self-Knowledge: An Essay in Lonergan’s Philosophy.

Introduction 

I had been taking for granted the concept of common sense for a quit long time. From my childhood I have heard of this particular term very many times, but after reading the chapter on ‘common sense’ in Joseph Flanagan’s book “Quest for Self-Knowledge: An Essay in Lonergan’s Philosophy” my perspective changed dramatically. It made me to reflect a lot in a poetic way I would say that Bernard Lonergan’s concept on common sense and bias stated by Joseph Flanagan has lighted a candle in the dark place of my mind. To say the truth I have never intended to know the concept of common sense as it appeared to be a very common thing for me from my childhood. After having read the chapter on common sense I thought that writing a little reflection on this chapter will make me understand the concept better and it may also be an inspiration for the people who read this article to learn more about this concept of common sense who may be taking this concept for granted. 

Common Sense 

I had been thinking that the problem of concrete knowing is very simple but Flanagan makes it very clear in the beginning itself that it is much more complex than ordinarily we assume. The historical success of mathematical and scientific knowing that is the theoretical knowing has made the ordinary way of knowing much more complicated and complex. [1] In simple words Flanagan says: “Common sense is a way of knowing that is specialized and oriented to concrete particular tasks and it is as old as human history.”[2] This particular sentence makes me to say that the common sense is nothing but we human beings knowing something very clearly for doing a particular act, it is some thing like I must keep myself clean always. 

The Four Patterns of Knowing 

In the above paragraph while dealing with ‘common sense’ I have also mentioned about ‘theoretical knowing.’ This is one of the patterns of knowing according to Flanagan. He says that there are four patterns of knowing, they are: Theoretical knowing (Science and maths), Common-sense knowing, Symbolic knowing and Dramatic pattern of knowing. Actually speaking the symbolic and common sense or practical patterns of knowing are incorporated in the dramatic pattern of knowing.[3] Let me explain the last three patterns; for the theoretical pattern of knowing is well known to us. 

Common-sense Knowing 

Before the Greeks the scientific knowledge was used for setting up calendars and planting and reaping crops, but Greeks made it separate from the common life. Common-sense knowers want to know something for a particular purpose but the scientific knowers want to bring universal explanation for practical things. Here I could use the example that Flanagan himself gives. A common sense knower knows that fish or birds are there to catch and eat, but scientific knower wants to know why the birds and fish exist in that way. Common sense is something essential for all. For example, a doctor knows how to drive a car; he does not apply his chemical formulas to know how to drive a car. In common- sense we use common words but in science they use technical words. Common-sense makes us to know the particulars properly (cobbler knows how to mend a shoe not to navigate).[4]

Symbolic Pattern of Knowing 

Flanagan says that there is always a symbolic meaning that is behind our actions. The common-sense knowledge is elemental to theoretical knowledge, in the same way symbolic knowledge is elemental to linguistic meanings. The symbols are not mere feelings but they are meanings, for they are concrete and functional in intersubjectivity. This particular point he explains through the example of smile, when we smile at some body it is of course an expression of a feeling but at the same time there is meaning behind our smile. He also says that the symbols are most spontaneous expressions of meaning. This symbolic pattern of knowing is closely linked with common-sense knowing, that is to say that to have this symbolic pattern of knowing common-sense is very essential an inevitable factor.[5]

Dramatic Pattern of Experience 

This dramatic pattern of experience is the combination of symbolic and practical pattern of knowing. Flanagan uses the concept of drama to explain this pattern of experience. Dramas[6] are concrete tensions and struggles that emerge in human communities as different persons move towards their destinies. In traditional philosophical way we call these dramas as dialectics. There are two struggles in a single character[7]: with in and with out or internal and external or with in one character and with other characters. The struggle with in is called a struggle with the subject and the struggle outside is called as struggle with the community. He further goes on to explain about four more dialectics that are based on this dialectics. They are: the struggle between ego and self (this is the most basic), the struggle between subject and group, the struggle between different groups with in the same group and the struggle between present cultures with their past cultures.[8] This concept is simply rich, after explain this Flanagan goes on to explain the concept of bias at it remains an inseparable element in the process of knowing or communication. 

Biases 

Latter in the same chapter Flanagan speaks of four kinds of biases based on the four kinds of dialectical tensions that had been already dealt above.[9] Let me explain the four biases in gist. 

a. Dramatic Bias 

Freud and Jung both of them speak of conscious and unconscious levels of human beings. Freud speaks of a censor; that is you avoid getting insight about yourself that would reveal you to yourself in a way you fear, for example a boy having sexual desire towards his mother, here the feeling is not under his control but the way he admits these feelings into self awareness will depend on the image he engender or remember and the way he understands his self in relation to these feelings. Flanagan calls this as dramatic bias.[10]

b. Individual Bias 

This particular bias is more to do with selfishness or egoism. This bias makes us to go against the spontaneous tendency that people feel of belonging to one another, a spontaneous intersubjectivity. This arises because of the failure in the common-sense knowing.[11]

c. Group Bias 

This bias is present between the socio economic groups of the same community, that is to say between a progressive community versus reactionary community. This also arises because of the failure in the common-sense knowing. [12]

d. General Bias 

This bias is primarily the failure on the part of the practical knower to accept the fact that common sense knowing is a limited specialized form of knowing. With out accepting this practical knower pretends to be omniscient knower who tends to spurn and depreciate theoretical knowers as impractical idealists lost in their abstraction. This kind of bias is very difficult to correct.[13] Very often we are carried away by this bias and we are not able to come out of this bias. Though I have mentioned it is very difficult to correct this kind of bias I think that if we are able to accept and understand the above mentioned fact that common sense knowing is a limited specialized form of knowing then we will be able to stop this bias at least to a certain extend. 

Long Cycle of Decline 

In correcting a group bias there is a long cycle of decline that takes place. One group fights for reform. When it wins it becomes the new dominant group and creates its own rules, the defeated group is with anger and they cultivate vengeance and anger. In this process of correcting one group bias another two biases have come into existence. Here the general bias interact with group biases and bring in the long cycle of decline.[14] This above points shoes very clearly that the process of correcting a group bias ends in another group bias. 

Conclusion 

The concept of Flanagan on common sense and biases are worthy of our praise, though originally it is Lonergan’s idea the simple way Flanagan has explained it is amazing. His writing has helped me to clarify my understanding of what common sense is. I hope my explanation had further helped you to understand the ideas of common sense and biases a little more clearly. 

Bibliography 

Flanagan, Joseph. Quest for self-Knowledge: An Essay in Lonergan’s Philosophy, “Common Sense.” Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. (page 69 - 94) 

References

[1] Joseph Flanagan, quest for Self – Knowledge: An Essay in Lonergan’s Philosophy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997)69. 

[2] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 70. 

[3] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 75. 

[4] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 69-72. 

[5] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 73-75. 

[6] Here by the word drama Flanagan is meaning the struggle that is present with in and outside a person. 

[7] Here the word character (in drama) is used to mean an individual in this world. 

[8] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 75-79. 

[9] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 79. 

[10] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 80-82. 

[11] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 82-83. 

[12] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 83-84. 

[13] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 84-85. 

[14] Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self – Knowledge, 86-89.