I don't know. What do you believe it is? It's funny because you understand the question, and you're effectively asking us the same thing.

Belief

I get that dude, I really do. Thanks. It's pretty cool. Hopefully my non pissy bitchy response helps ur day. I don't see how it expands on my queries tho. It's all ultimately so vague, which is fine, but unsatisfying as far as a sciency mindset goes lol..

Belief is a form of knowledge, albeit one that is intellectual as apposed to experiential. Beliefs, whether justified or unjustified, will always remain uncertain. True knowledge can only be attained either by direct experience, or as a result of having followed a valid chain of deductive reasoning to its logical conclusion. Beliefs can only dislodged through the attainment of true knowledge by one of these two paths.

Belief is what you choose to hold to be true without requiring objective evidence. This can be for the sake of convenience; I am willing to accept that Canberra is the capital of Australia without having to go there and check. However, the most significant of our beliefs are those things that we want to be true. Life after death. Good and bad. My remarkable intellect etc.

Belief is what you choose to hold to be true without requiring objective evidence. — Txastopher

Here we go. That's a philosophical position called doxastic voluntarism. You are talking as though it is established fact, when it isn't.

Belief = simply some degree of acceptance (there's a continuum) that such and such is the case.

To believe something is to be convinced of it. I originally got that from a dictionary definition, and I think that it works very well. I can't think of any counterexamples to it. It also doesn't suggest doxastic voluntarism like the wording of "choice", and "acceptance".

It’s both an epistemic and semantic problem. In some contexts “belief” can mean “based on reasonable evidence” and in others it can be used to mean “religious convinction”.

This certainly is a VERY open topic!

Kant used “belief” as one of his terms in COPR and it was used along the lines of delineating differences according to subjectivity and evidence.

I make the understanding clear in my book (On Being and Consciousness) that "belief" should be substituted for "assent and dissent" (as the Stoics agreed) or simply "acceptance and rejection." It provides a lot more inner clarity.

That's a philosophical position called doxastic voluntarism. You are talking as though it is established fact, when it isn't. — S

Are you saying that it's an established fact that it's not?

Are you saying that it's an established fact that it's not? — Txastopher

That doesn't really matter, though, does it? This isn't about me. If you're going to play that game, then I can easily retract what I said and rephrase it to avoid a burden. Are you going to do likewise, or do you stand by your original claim?

Separate out the text of the OP having to do with anthropology and empirical psychology, then the question of the OP can be answered with speculative philosophy.

The two don’t get along well in the same playground.

Why don't you try to state what's wrong with my definition (the full one, not your cherry-picked version) without an appeal to definition (especially one that doesn't even contradict my position)?

Why don't you try to state what's wrong with my definition (the full one, not your cherry-picked version) without an appeal to definition (especially one that doesn't contradict my position)? — Txastopher

I told you what's wrong with what you did: you made a bare assertion relating to a controversial position in philosophy as though it was an established fact.

And you aren't using the term "cherry-picked" correctly. What you mean is quoting out of context, but it's ignorant of you to accuse me of doing that, because the rest of the context isn't relevant to my criticism, which is only about the part that I quoted. It's about the choice part. The rest of it is irrelevant. It's silly to expect me to quote it in full when the rest of what you said is irrelevant. Quoting out of context is only a fallacy when it makes a relevant difference, it's not a fallacy to simply quote part of a larger text. I wish more people would actually take the time to learn about this stuff.

you made a bare assertion relating to a controversial position in philosophy as though it was an established fact. — S

I see, so you'd like for me to have prefaced it with a qualifying expression?

No problem:

I believe that belief is what you choose to hold to be true without requiring objective evidence. This can be for the sake of convenience; I am willing to accept that Canberra is the capital of Australia without having to go there and check. However, the most significant of our beliefs are those things that we want to be true. Life after death. Good and bad. My remarkable intellect etc.

yea so what are the other positions beyond doxastic voluntarism, the status quo(?).
I mean honestly the dichotomy between belief and knowledge to me seems to be breaking down, especially when I see it psychologically... it's all beliefs, we all have to believe in our own thoughts to have some degree of awareness but as different horizontal locations on the spectrum of truth and knowledge.. I tend towards minimizing the emphasis of beliefs in my spiritual practices personally for this reason, they are counterproductive towards any form of (logical or not) truth.
and as far as this being an open topic, when I studied logic it seemed to resolve down to this question.....topic whatever. it was … annoying. I couldn't see why my beliefs matter at all in the intellectual sense.

and I just want to bring this up yo, so I am also more interested because this question is practical-ish:
in trying to deal with the subconscious, and thoughts, and so beliefs and whatnot which is where the above sprang from.. I've found that the topic of free will comes up. what argumentation surrounds the empirical and subjective (neurological) thing that we are influenced by the past in a regress as to our ability to deal with our thoughts stoically or balanced-ly? do I say the past is a chain of cause beyond my control and now the present is working itself out, or do I say that the past I may have had choice and now my karmic/impressions or whatever are having to be dealt with with choice. I assume we'd have to introduce many more terms and terminologies, of course, but the key point is that when dealing with these things in meditation they seem to come forth as beyond conscious control - and for a while my thoughts and behaviors' influence from the past made me think that it was all beyond my control (fate).
but now I see that is reasoning, and a flawed one. perhaps we cant say more?

non belief seems to come up several times in meditation/etc. also.. if I believe I am in control or not it always has negative effects. what is going on? who am I? all these sub questions also. non-belief comes to mind as the answer to stave them off, and facilitate meditation through a skeptical-but-not-skeptical awareness..

and how does this problem with belief relate to ontology...…..where are we left between proposing realities and whatnot.
I mean like how can I say I "kind of" believe in some theory...….(a separate question). there are so many facts and whatnot, the basic discussion of beliefs seems to cut through them and show us what really matters, which is why it's my favorite topic in phil. One guy told me it has nothing to do with free will topics. I highly disagree..this is what I said to him:
"how do you see the topic of how we come to beliefs?
do you think it is a matter of choice, acceptance, fate or what?
this is how I relate those two topics, because when I deal with my beliefs about myself vs the world, or what I want vs what is, or seeing my thoughts in the moment (rooted in beliefs) and trying to work with them in meditation or philosophy, I find that the aspect of everybody believing in their own thoughts at a basic level is structured mostly by forces beyond their control (their experiences)..that's why I relate the two topics. eg when I meditate my thoughts just arise as if from a vacuum; I don't will them to come because i'd rather they not and I felt calmer, but they do; with time maybe it will become different, but that's when the aspect of will and whatnot comes into play. it makes me see that the whole question of what belief contributes to knowledge is in total confusion for everybody. all that I would say it has informed me into saying is that the subjective and the objective are not clearly demarcated"

But as far as faith and belief goes
A) often the evidence is subjective, so irrelevant to logic
B) deductions start with some vague assumption as to something about causality and origination. Eg there must be an original cause or some order which is beyond logic. The truth they propose seems to fit in with the blending of subjective and objective to me, but I don't see how one would claim to know it in experience or logic, ever, though it seems to be "there." As far as Pure deductions go, can we really infer ontological things from epistemic things? Eg at the root I guess - all things have a cause. I would not say they believe without evidence, but at times that it is on a spectrum based on what you count as evidence, experience or deductive rules..I personally don't think you can indirectly prove a truth by its effects (life) in logic. Experience is different.

yea so what are the other positions beyond doxastic voluntarism, the status quo(?). — Nasir Shuja

Doxastic involuntarism. I went through some of the results, and there's an academic paper which basically says that this position is the standard epistemic position in philosophy, and that it is more widely accepted in more educated places, and that the other position has a big correlation with Christian thought. There's also a link in the results which says that Hume thought that doxastic involuntarism was obvious.

Well.. damn. Very cool

It also doesn't suggest doxastic voluntarism like the wording of "choice", and "acceptance". — S

I didn't intend to suggest voluntarism in my definition.

I didn't intend to suggest voluntarism in my definition. — Terrapin Station

Okay.