Here the point is the ease with which we swallow an expression which violates logical rules. It has to do, secondly, with the circumstance that you don't see something, yet act as if you do. Amcons should not be used to justify self-deception in the latter sense, to rescue every superstition. It was limiting to insist on common sense here. The unspecialized medium is natural language.
Common sense is dogmatic.
By the early seventies, I was on the defensive for forcing the question of the existence of language in general. A series of academically-trained acquaintances, including one of my N.Y.U. professors, had told me that I was a fool. In the eighties, the topic came to furnish many publication credits to professional philosophers. The question of the existence of language in general may seem abstract, and my result may seem an absurd extinction . But I was confident of the uncanniness that the pursuit of this avenue could attain.