• creativesoul
    2.8k


    So, I think we were here...

    Belief requires the internal, the external, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

    I want to peruse the thread in it's entirety again and list all the agreements thus far, and see what we have to work with.
  • Banno
    3.1k
    Belief requires the internal, the external, and a creature capable of connecting the two.creativesoul

    I disagree; belief requires the dissipation of the distinction between internal and external.

    The move I was considering next was to draw some sort of closure by re-assessing each of the items in the ongrowing OP in turn.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Hmmm...

    In what way does belief require such dissipation?

    I mean, what is the term "require" doing?
  • Banno
    3.1k
    Just in terms of making a coherent grammar around "belief".

    But I want to build up to that.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k


    Ok. Here's where I'm at...

    The internal/external dichotomy - if applied in such a way that everything is one or the other - cannot properly take account of belief, for it is existentially dependent(it requires) both. To put belief in strict terms of being internal sacrifices the ability to take account of the parts of belief that are not. The same holds good for "external".

    Is that close to what you mean with regard to our grammar(how we talk about belief)? Is that agreeable enough?
  • Banno
    3.1k
    No, Creative; I think your picture of belief is far removed from my own. It seems you consider belief as a thing, a lump, a quantum, a substance. I think it more of a place holder, an amorphous region; an inferred nothing.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k


    A thing... Not the rest.

    Do we agree that belief is foundational? That is not to say linear. The web description is better, I think. But it begins simply and grows in complexity, right?
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    What is Jack's belief that his bowl is empty if not the connections he draws between what it looks and smells like when full, what it looks and smells like when not, and his own hunger pangs?
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    I think it more of a place holder, an amorphous region; an inferred nothing.Banno

    Yeah, I think these all will do a good job of describing some beliefs.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    I've abandoned the attempts to draw a distinction between 'linguistic' beliefs and non-linguistic beliefs in terms of the content. There's good reason for this. Jack can have beliefs about the bowl without knowing what "bowl" means. I struggled with how to come to acceptable terms with that for quite a while. So, the content of Jack's belief can be existentially dependent upon language. Jack need only to be able to perceive(detect, smell, taste, hear, see, etc.) the bowl in order for it to become meaningful to him.

    Amorphous... indeed.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    I think that thought, belief, truth, and meaning are inextricably entwined.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    The move I was considering next was to draw some sort of closure by re-assessing each of the items in the ongrowing OP in turn.Banno

    I'l wait for this...

    :smile:
  • Banno
    3.1k
    But they are not the same thing.

    Thinking that belief and truth are the same - or that one can replace the other - leads to all sorts of rubbish.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Didn't say that my friend. Not at all. I agree that those four things are distinct from one another.
  • Banno
    3.1k
    Didn't mean to imply you did. Just drawing attention to some other thoughts.

    It's the reason belief is important.

    Or better, that belief and truth are different is important. Without a difference between belief and truth, we can't be wrong; if we can't be wrong, we can't fix our mistakes; without being able to fix our mistakes, we can't make things better.

    Hence, Trump.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    That's only a matter of time. There's soooo much at stake. Mueller will do it right. I suspect that there will be many many currently unknown people in quite a bit trouble, along with the twit himself.
  • wellwisher
    161
    All invention and innovation as well as all new ideas begin with a belief. Belief is the gateway to innovation. Beliefs should then be subjected to investigation, to see if they pan out. There is nothing wrong with belief, unless you stop there and never investigate. If I believe the keys are in the kitchen and I investigate, then I am doing it correctly. If it pans out I am done. If it does no pan out I start with a new belief that learns from my mistake. Maybe it is in the laundry!

    If you get all your information from reading, you will be reading only the final reports, which are organized to make the original belief look rationally and/or scientifically neat and tidy. But if you create your own ideas, you realize that belief is the starting point. The stronger the belief, the further one will go to make the belief a reality, so it is neat and tidy.
  • Banno
    3.1k

    From the OP:
    Belief makes sense of error
    Austin talked of words that gain their meaning - use - mostly by being contrasted with their opposite. His example was real.

    "it's not a fake; it's real"
    "it's not a mirage, it's real!"
    It's not a mistake - it's real"

    and so on.

    Belief can be understood in a similar fashion, as gaining it's usefulness from the contrast between a true belief and a false belief. That is, an important aspect of belief is that sometimes we think that something is the case, and yet it is not.

    We bring belief into the discourse in order to make sense of such errors.
    Banno

    Having the idea of belief allows us to seperate what we think is true from what is indeed true. It allows us to be wrong.

    There are versions of relativism, post modernism and pragmatism that attempt to replace truth with belief alone. The aim is often some honourable form of equity or freedom. But the result is often an inability to discuss error in a helpful way.

    There are many examples, from Brexit and false news to climate change to dribble-down economics. If we forget that there are sometimes facts, we loose the ability to fix error.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    There are versions of relativism, post modernism and pragmatism that attempt to replace truth with belief alone. The aim is often some honourable form of equity...Banno

    Indeed! Here in the States, the aim is to 'validate' all people's thought, belief, and feelings as a first step in helping them deal with whatever it is(events in someone's life) that they are dealing with. 'Perception is reality' they like to say, simply because it's effects/affects are real. Then there's the all too common 'his truth'. 'her truth', 'your truth', and 'my truth'...

    Sigh...

    Inherently inadequate methodology(linguistic framework).
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.