G.E. Moore took the extraordinary step, philosophically speaking, of arguing for what everyone probably believes to be true anyway, what he calls "the common-sense view of the world." His view is a departure from a long philosophical tradition, going back to the Pre-Socratics, which holds that philosophy somehow reveals the true or underlying nature of the world by rejecting the ordinary beliefs we have about the way things are.

According to Moore, our everyday, commonsensical beliefs are more or less right: there's an Earth which has been around for a while, and other people, and lots of objects, and I know all of this, and other people know all of this, too. He famously offers a "proof" of the existence of external objects. He does this by holding up a hand and saying, as he makes a certain gesture, "Here is my hand," and holding up his other hand and saying, with an accompanying gesture, "Here's another."

Therefore the external world exists. It's a perfectly good proof, he argues, because the premises entail the conclusion and, further, the premises are different from the conclusion. Nothing is better known, he thought, than commonsense truths such as the existence of the external world.

According to Moore, common sense beats skepticism hands down.

Maybe something deceptively deep is going on in Moore's defense of common sense. He's not merely marshaling premises in support of a conclusion. Perhaps he's pointing to a distinction between philosophically proving that a statement is true, and having grounds for commonsense knowledge. He knows he has hands (look here they are), but maybe the skeptics are right, and he can't provide an argument for it. So what? It's our commonsense knowledge that matters most.

What say you?

But what constitutes commonsense knowledge.

For some people it's commonsense that we are all individuals that are 'disconnected' from the universe. Little sacks of discrete atoms with our own private thoughts, etc.

For other people it's commonsense that we are all connected and that the seemingly 'commonsense' boundaries between us don't actually exist because in truth, we can't pin them down.

We all breath the same air, a element that we cannot survive without. Is not the Earth's atmosphere ultimately our shared lung?

We all drink the waters of the earth and pee it back out onto her to be filtered and recycled. We ultimately drink the recycled pee of our ancient ancesters. Is not the Earth utltimately the shared chalice which quenches our thirst?

We all depend on the warm and energy from the sun, whether directly or indirectly. Without our star Sol we would all quickly die. Is not the sun the shared cauldron that bathes us with energy?

And from whence did our very atoms come? Are we not a direct manifestation of planet Earth herself?

Where are these commonsense boundaries?

What is the boundray of commonsense?

Is there an 'out there' out there? Or are we nothing more than a facet of what appears to be 'out there'?

Where does commonsense reside? Out there? Or in here?

Where is 'in here' if not 'out there'?

If my 'in here' is your 'out there', then your 'our there' must be 'in here'.

Absolutely...common sense. There will always be arguements for both sides..."common truth" and "common sense", BUT, common truth for the masses may not be as easily acceptable or adaptable for you personally. You can support and be guided by truth and fact for the most part, but I believe we, as individuals have to do what is right for ourselves, and our own life and situations. As they say, everyone and every situation is different, we have to go with our best judgement.