Thesis: The sensus communis is unreflectively conventional, morally mechanical, ethically irresponsible and intellectually unjust — but this is just how life is, so like it or not one ought to accept it and work according to it.

Antithesis: The sensus communis is unreflectively conventional, morally mechanical, ethically irresponsible and intellectually unjust — and therefore the sensus communis ought to be disregarded, renounced, or even explicitly critiqued or  combated by those who see through it. One should ignore the sensus communis and “think for himself.”

*

As always, an unconscious commonality underlies this thesis and antithesis. What they share is the conceit that when we embrace or reject the sensus communis, that we’re somehow doing so from a perspective outside the sphere of the sensus communis.

Fact is, it is just as uncritically conventional to “drop out” and zen yourself into some sort of beatific indifference to the rest of the world as it is to conform. To stop participating because you do not love it is to succumb to the love-it-or-leave-it false dilemma that sustains it and keeps it on its brainless course.

Romantic asceticism is a mechanism of our culture’s immune system. We self-exile, self-quarantine and prevent ourselves from corrupting our culture with alien meanings.

*

Synthesis: The sensus communis is currently outlived and needs to be changed and made habitable through philosophical activism. We need to stay inside the system, preserving our own radical otherness, and seek opportunities to effect deep changes. The ideal: Be a committed and responsible subversive.