The doctrine, as I understand it, consists in maintaining that the language of daily life, with words used in their ordinary meanings, suffices for philosophy, which has no need of technical terms or of changes in the significance of common terms. I find myself totally unable to accept this view. I object to it: 1.Because it is insincere; 2.Because it is capable of excusing ignorance of mathematics, physics and neurology in those who have had only a classical education; 3.Because it is advanced by some in a tone of unctuous rectitude, as if opposition to it were a sin against democracy; 4.Because it makes philosophy trivial; 5.Because it makes almost inevitable the perpetuation amongst philosophers of the muddle-headedness they have taken over from common sense.
Source: Portraits from Memory, Russell
Contributed by: Zaady