• Janus
    5k


    So, you reject the dictionary definition, then?

    By my lightscreativesoul

    Not so bright! Turn up the wattage; you'll gain clarity... :-}
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k
    What I'm telling you is that in order to fulfill the criterion for your notion of "belief", one must think about one's own thought. Doing that requires complex(written) language use. Thus, according to your criterion for "belief", one cannot have belief until and unless one is already fairly affluent in language use.creativesoul

    Right, that's exactly what I am arguing.

    As a matter of fact, if what you say here is true, when one first learns that that is(called) a "tree", s/he does not believe - cannot possibly believe - that that is there(whatever and wherever that may be).creativesoul

    Right, I would not call that a belief. When a child learns one's first words, "mommy" and "daddy", for example, I wouldn't say that the child believes these are things called "mommy" and "daddy". The child is just learning how to say things.

    For fuck's sake, if what you say is true, then one cannot even believe that they have things called "thought" until they've already begun thinking about their thoughts...creativesoul

    Correct. Why is this a problem for you? It's nonsense to say that a person would believe oneself to have something called "thought" unless one was already thinking about thought. Would you say that a person could believe that there's something called a "tree" without having thought about a tree?

    Seems to me that you've no idea what you're talking about. The notion of "belief" your working from is found lacking, wanting, and basically begging for truth. Everyday fact contradicts your notion, and yours isn't the only one...

    Misuse of a term is neither determined by nor equivalent to being different from your use. I've just shown some of the issues with yours. All you've done is hand wave... Gratuitous assertions won't do Meta. It does not follow from the fact that you work from a different notion of "belief" that I am misusing the term. Take the semantic quibbling elsewhere...
    creativesoul

    As I said, you describe "belief" in your way, I describe it in my way. I think mine looks toward what "belief" really is, and yours just looks at common usage of "belief', which is varied and ambiguous. That's why I think mine is better, it provides a clear indication of what a belief is, while you just insist that if something is thinking, it has beliefs.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    So...

    Back to Jack. A different turn...

    "Jack" is Jack's name.
    "Jack" is not Banno's cat.
    Jack is Banno's cat.
    "Jack" is not Jack.

    "Jack's belief" is... or is not... Jack's belief?
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    if what you say here is true, when one first learns that that is(called) a "tree", s/he does not believe - cannot possibly believe - that that is there(whatever and wherever that may be).
    — creativesoul

    Right...
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Let the record show that Meta is assenting to the belief that one can learn the names of things without believing that things are there. One can evidently, according to Meta, point towards a tree without believing that 1.)they are pointing to a tree, or that 2.)they see a tree, or that 3.)someone else is pointing to a tree, or that they are doing stuff with someone else, namely the teacher who's pointing to a tree whilst teaching the child how to use language in a meaningful way. Again, according to Meta, the student cannot possibly believe any of that.

    And they can still yet learn how to use language?

    I'd like to see the criterion that clearly sets out what language acquisition is existentially dependent upon.


    When a child learns one's first words, "mommy" and "daddy", for example, I wouldn't say that the child believes these are things called "mommy" and "daddy". The child is just learning how to say things.

    Let the record show that this has no bearing upon what I've been arguing. In a more sarcastic tone, it could be said that Meta is arguing with his own imagination. Straw men.

    The child, if asked where mommy and daddy are, will show you. According to Meta, the child does not believe that those are mommy and daddy.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    while you just insist that if something is thinking, it has beliefs.Metaphysician Undercover

    An impoverished recollection of this thread.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    ↪creativesoul

    So, you reject the dictionary definition, then?

    By my lights
    — creativesoul

    Not so bright! Turn up the wattage; you'll gain clarity... :-}
    33 minutes ago ReplyShareFlag
    Janus

    Sigh...

    No I do not reject the dictionary definition. I'm telling you that you cannot validly criticize another's argument by virtue of not granting what is an otherwise perfectly acceptable sense of a term. I'm telling you that your being a twit by thinking that you can.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    Got an argument or valid criticism?
  • Janus
    5k


    I was criticizing your argument by pointing out more and subtler distinctions you could make if your terms were more rigorously used, not being pedantic about your use of terms.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    Thinking about Knowledge and Belief.

    It seems to me that Knowledge without Belief is impossible and maybe at a certain level their distinction vanishes, but it is clearly not the other way round, Belief without Knowledge happens all the time.
    Belief has an emotive quality, an intensity, perhaps this how we bring value to the epistemic. If belief is traceable back to feeling then language may not necessary for belief, but still some sort of semiotic connection.
    Cavacava

    Hey Cava...

    Yup.

    Belief is traceable back to emotional states. To attribute/recognize that touching fire hurts is to attribute the pain to the behaviour.

    Learning that fire hurts doesn't require language, but most certainly requires believing that touching fire causes pain. All that takes is a capable agent making the connection between touching fire and the pain that follows...

    Making the connection is thinking. The connection itself is a thought.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    I was criticizing your argument by pointing out more and subtler distinctions you could make if your terms were more rigorously used, not being pedantic about your use of terms.Janus

    Funny. Point there again, I missed em. Where are those subtler distinctions?
  • Janus
    5k


    Go read the recent posts. It always ends like this with you. :-}
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k
    Let the record show that Meta is assenting to the belief that one can learn the names of things without believing that something is there.creativesoul

    Correct, the certitude "that something is there" does not qualify as belief. As I explained earlier, this certitude exists in dreams, and in the subconscious levels, plants might even possess this certitude. That certitude "that something is there" does not qualify as "belief" because "belief" is restricted to being the property of a conscious mind. Therefore I do not consider the certitude "that something is there" to be belief. This is why the skeptic's doubt of "existence" is justified.

    I'd like to see the criterion that clearly sets out what language acquisition is existentially dependent upon.creativesoul

    Language acquisition is dependent on the will and desire of the human being to learn language.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    It always ends like this with youJanus

    Sigh...

    And Meta...

    Does he still beat his wife?
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    So, there's a boy named Josh who is almost 4. He has just begun schooling. His parents are teaching him to be an organized person by showing him how to put all his legos away. He's talking to me the day before yesterday and telling me that he may have too many legos.

    According to Meta, Josh does not believe that he has legos, nor does he believe that he goes to school, or that it's time to go to school, or that school is almost over and it's almost time to go home when clean up time begins...

    And yet he talks about this stuff all the time, but he doesn't ponder their truth. He presupposes it. All belief does. It is only after one becomes aware that some belief or other they have is false(after suffering the consequences) that one's attention can begin to consider whether or not something else they believe is true.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    The will and desire to learn language...

    X-)

    ...before being able to conceive of language.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k

    At four years old, your friend Josh is well versed in language use, and clearly capable of holding beliefs.
    The will and desire to learn language...

    X-)

    ...before being able to conceive of "language".
    creativesoul

    Obviously. "Language" is not the first word learned, so the individual learns how to use language before conceiving of what "language" is.

    Have you read any Plato? Socrates' most prominent enterprise was to demonstrate that people know how to do things without knowing what they are doing. This is what Socrates did. He went to all sorts of different people who claimed to have knowledge, and demonstrated that all they had was technique, method, without understanding what they were doing. They knew how to do things without knowing what they were doing. So he demonstrated that they really didn't have the knowledge they claimed to have. This is very evident with language use, children learn how to use language without knowing what they are doing.
  • Janus
    5k


    WTH???

    It's all sighs and irrelevancies with you! I wonder what rich trove of hard won/obsessively cobbled together insights/realisations you are desperately trying to protect/ hide behind. :P
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    Saying that one has the will and desire to learn language when s/he doesn't have a clue what language is is prima facie evidence of idiot speak.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    Now Josh... who cannot write yet... is capable of belief when belief requires thinking about one's own thought...

    Another example of idiot speak...

    Thinking about one's own thought first requires a means to isolate and further contemplate one's own thought...

    We use the term "thought" amongst many other terms...

    Josh does not have that ability... yet.

    You're boring me Meta.
  • creativesoul
    2.4k
    People can make statements long before they can contemplate their own thought.

    Statements are statements of belief. Truth is presupposed. That's how "is true" becomes redundant.

    Josh makes all kinds of statements. He cannot yet write them. He believes them all.

    Meta is lost.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.