How is this definition of "belief"?

You good folk are using the words “believe” and “belief” in all sorts of ways and in all sorts of situations…and all you are doing is to confuse the ESSENTIAL problem with the words.

When used in conversations about the true nature of REALITY…the words are disguises for a guess.

You can make a decent case that you should “believe” a tiger is gonna eat your ass…but just get the hell out of the way of the tiger and forget about using the word “believe” when telling about it, because the cost is to give a vitality and significance to “believe” when used to talk about BLIND GUESSES about REALITY.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yep. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

FBM believes his body is separated from his mind, but also that his body can think by itself without involving the mind. It's a bit of a strange mythology indeed, one that may lead to schyzophrenia, but it allows him to entertain the illusion that he doesn't need beliefs: whenever he acts based on a belief, it's his body doing it..... not his mind. Another artificial segmentation he uses to maintain the illusion, is between his normal & daily self, who acts just like everybody else based on all sorts of assumptions and beliefs -- e.g. in the existence of the universe, in the love of his dog, or in fiat currency (paper money) -- and his philosophical self, when he sits in his armchair at night to pounder what if the universe did not exist.

IOW, his 'pyrrhonism' has not application whatsoever in real life. It's just a funny way to pass time off.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

My initial, thoughtless reaction was to freeze where I stood, directly in the path of the car.

That's actually a documented reflex. Many preys freeze almost automatically when they senses a predator.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I've seen a documentary about this, is quite normal 70% of the population freezes and only 30% reacts and starts helping others when in the face of grave danger or imminent disaster...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

These are precisely the sort of conceptual frames that can be identified for what they truly are through the use of the proposed definition. They are ideas we have made manifest and important in our lives, and we have done so precisely because we believe in them.

On what evidence are you claiming that evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins, Alexander Hamilton, and John-Maynard Smith believe in the selfish gene, when they themselves would swear an oath in court that they don't? Words have meaning. If you want to invent your own meaning for the word "belief", be my guest. Just don't pretend that this reflects an insight on your part. All it really does reflect is you inventing a language of your own.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I suspect that eventually the proponents of the "we can't exist without beliefs" hypothesis are going to slap the 'belief' label on all mental activity whatsoever, conscious or subconscious. Just a guess, of course, but that seems to be the direction it's headed.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I suspect that eventually the proponents of the "we can't exist without beliefs" hypothesis are going to slap the 'belief' label on all mental activity whatsoever, conscious or subconscious. Just a guess, of course, but that seems to be the direction it's headed.

That certainly seems to be the game some are playing here.

In any case, as regards "beliefs" in the context to which I keep returning....they are guesses...and the use of "beliefs" really does seem to be a disguise. It does not seem an accident...because people making these kinds of guesses truly want their guesses to be given special consideration and respect.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You can make a decent case that you should “believe” a tiger is gonna eat your ass…but just get the hell out of the way of the tiger and forget about using the word “believe” when telling about it, because the cost is to give a vitality and significance to “believe” when used to talk about BLIND GUESSES about REALITY.

Assuming the tiger is REAL, it is part of REALITY... :-)

How about this: we let you call your unproven certitudes as you want call them, and you allow us to call them beliefs.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

On what evidence are you claiming that evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins, Alexander Hamilton, and John-Maynard Smith believe in the selfish gene, when they themselves would swear an oath in court that they don't?

So your point would be that beliefs may well be paradigmatic, big-picture conceptual frameworks, but that not all conceptual frameworks are believed in by everybody who uses them? Like for some people they are just working hypothesis, and for others they are more than that?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You can make a decent case that you should “believe” a tiger is gonna eat your ass…but just get the hell out of the way of the tiger and forget about using the word “believe” when telling about it, because the cost is to give a vitality and significance to “believe” when used to talk about BLIND GUESSES about REALITY.

Assuming the tiger is REAL, it is part of REALITY... :-)

How about this: we let you call your unproven certitudes as you want call them, and you allow us to call them beliefs.

I've never said otherwise. Call them whatever you want. I have called attention to the cost...but if that is not important to you, by all means, call them banana splits if you want.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And what cost is that? That "their guesses are thus given special consideration and respect"? Maybe in your culture, not in mine. That connotation of the word may exist in America, not in France, and that's not something I load it up with, personally. In other words, that's your problem, not mine.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

And what cost is that? That "their guesses are thus given special consideration and respect"? Maybe in your culture, not in mine. That connotation of the word may exist in America, not in France, and that's not something I load it up with, personally. In other words, that's your problem, not mine.

Please!

There are special considerations for "beliefs" of that sort everywhere. There are in France, whether you recognize it or not.

In any case, it is a call for special recognition...and I prefer to see that not be. So, I make the case I am making. If you don't buy it...no problem. Do you own thing. I will continue to make the case.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There are special considerations for "beliefs" of that sort everywhere. There are in France, whether you recognize it or not.

Could you give an example of what you mean?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
There are special considerations for "beliefs" of that sort everywhere. There are in France, whether you recognize it or not.

Could you give an example of what you mean?

Yes.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

LOL. Searching hard?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

LOL. Searching hard?

No. But you gotta have some fun here...or it really is not worth all the trouble.

Look...whether the "belief" is that there are no gods; there is a GOD; there is no afterlife; there is afterlife; or any of the many manifestations of what the various gods expect of humans...

...there are consequences and costs.

If you do truly do not see the consequences and costs of those things from where you are sitting...it must be in a very special place indeed.

There has been a heavy price paid by everyone, everywhere since history first started being recorded...and there is today. Look around...read the newspapers. You will see that there is a cost being paid in France as well as where I am.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

So your point would be that beliefs may well be paradigmatic, big-picture conceptual frameworks, but that not all conceptual frameworks are believed in by everybody who uses them? Like for some people they are just working hypothesis, and for others they are more than that?

Basically yes, minus the "and for others . . ." part. As far as I know, practically noone believes that the selfish gene in biology, homo oeconomicus in economics, or "transistor man" in electronics are anything more than useful metaphors.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Basically yes, minus the "and for others . . ." part. As far as I know, practically noone believes that the selfish gene in biology, homo oeconomicus in economics, or "transistor man" in electronics are anything more than useful metaphors.

Well, maybe for these specific examples but not for the belief in God. That's more than a working hypothesis.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There has been a heavy price paid by everyone, everywhere since history first started being recorded...and there is today. Look around...read the newspapers. You will see that there is a cost being paid in France as well as where I am.

Like what? Could you be more specific? Political Islam? Anti-abortionists? Wars?

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know