5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:11 am
@igm,
I never insulted you. I did say you have been dumbed down by your philosophy and I maintain it. Not all philosophy add to our knowledge. Yours is evidently subtracting.

Quote:
Truly existent is a term widely used e.g.


Yes but what it TRULY means, and how "truly exist" is different from just "exist" will remain a mystery forever... Smile

Is there something that can "exist", but not "truly exist"? This is loads of fun...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:16 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Truly existent is a term widely used e.g.


Yes but what it TRULY means, and how "truly exist" is different from just "exist" will remain a mystery forever... Smile


It doesn't mean non-existent when used in the negative as you have wrongly claimed. The term is explained in that New Scientist article in my last post above... I'm beginning to think you're just an idiot or a fool. You're not worth the time it takes to type 'go away' but I've done it now Laughing
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:29 am
@igm,
I think you don't truly exist, so why bother? Wink
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:46 am
@igm,
Quote:
So, on truth and falsity at least I stand by what I said in my last post - beliefs are a form of delusion not an alternative to it i.e.


I don't see it that way. Unknown is not the same as false.
It is possible to believe something and have it turn out to be right. In that case, the belief wasn't a delusion.
If it turns out to be wrong, you simply stop believing it. Or you keep on believing it, in which case you are delusional.

Quote:
A belief that it is 'always' correct not to steal is wrong there must be examples of times when it would be the best course of action.


I make no judgement on whether that belief is right or wrong. I just used that belief as an example of beliefs that aren't necessarily delusions.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:56 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
So, on truth and falsity at least I stand by what I said in my last post - beliefs are a form of delusion not an alternative to it i.e.


I don't see it that way. Unknown is not the same as false.
It is possible to believe something and have it turn out to be right. In that case, the belief wasn't a delusion.
If it turns out to be wrong, you simply stop believing it. Or you keep on believing it, in which case you are delusional.

Quote:
A belief that it is 'always' correct not to steal is wrong there must be examples of times when it would be the best course of action.


I make no judgement on whether that belief is right or wrong. I just used that belief as an example of beliefs that aren't necessarily delusions.


But if it's unknown but turns out to be true it was never a belief it was a fact - unknown but nevertheless a fact that was waiting to be discovered. If it was false then it was always a delusion but an unknown delusion i.e. a belief that was identical with a delusion.

Therefore a belief is 'always' a delusion and the alternative is an unknown fact... waiting to be discovered.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 12:04 pm
@igm,
Slight amendment... added four words at the end of the post above.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 12:29 pm
@igm,
You wrote,
Quote:
belief is 'always' a delusion and the alternative is an unknown fact.


If that is so, how can it be "discovered?"
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 02:32 pm
@igm,
Fil?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 05:04 pm
@mikeymojo,
Mikeymojo, I know what you mean. The illusion of ego is both a basis for great fear and psychospiritual alienation as well as the joys of the art/literature that give life so much meaning. Most often, it seems, we take great pleasure in ego when it is fed the rewards of success/fame and we suffer our greatest fears--especially from the threat of death--when we fear that we are going to lose our self through death.
I once heard a claim that when Rinzai zen monks who are on the verge of spiritiual self-realization--Satori or Kensho--which is to say a realization of their original ego-less nature, often suffer a great fear of their regularly scheduled meetings (Dokusan) with their meditation masters. But after they undergo satori due to the prodding of their masters and their own efforts, they no longer fear death. This, I was told, liberated them from the fear of death which was in actuality a fear of the death of "ego" (the event of satori-enlightenment) rather than the fear of their own physical mortality. Here we see a suggestion of more than one kind of "self": little self/mind denotes the individiual's alienation from everything that is not him or her. Large Self/Mind is the individual's true nature. His original nature, what he was before birth and what she will be after death (and is at present). The Freudian ego, the administrative capacity for dealing with reality is another matter; it must be fully functional for the healthy functioning of the person.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 05:07 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
which is to say a realization of their original ego-less nature,


No chance whatever that this could be delusional, is there?

I know that some Christians who talk with their GOD are certain it could not be delusion...so I was wondering.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 10:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I don't think so, but I cannot prove it to you. But that doesn't matter. If it is so, it is so even if you don't think so. This is pretty consistent with what you have been arguing about Reality. Isn't it?
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 11:26 pm
@JLNobody,
I wouldn't call it delusion. I would call it belief. That would mean that there is a chance that it is delusion. But I agree with you that it doesn't matter.

Another thing I've sometimes thought about is that if our "normal" is defined from a deluded perspective, can we really say anything about reality?
I find it rather likely that our perspective, our collective human understanding, is quite delusional.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 01:12 am
@Cyracuz,
Beyond naive realism we should note that "delusion" and "belief" can only be defined and distiguished functionally. (Respectively negative versus neutral aspects of "mental states" which inform interactions with the perceived world.) The atheist may call a theist "deluded" because he judges the latter as indulging in aberrent social behavior, like unsolicited preaching. The word "fact" is merely shorthand for social consensus on "what is the case", whereas delusions and beliefs simply lack such consensus. But history shows that "fact's" themselves are ephemeral. Todays "fact" becomes tomorrow's "historical belief".( And that observation is itself a demolation agent of naive realism) .
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 01:17 am
@Cyracuz,
A high degree of probability IMHO.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 01:40 am
correction of typos last para above
But history shows that "facts" themselves are ephemeral. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "historical belief".( And that observation is itself a demolition agent of naive realism) .
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 01:42 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Todays "fact" becomes tomorrow's "historical belief".


That was what I had in mind when saying that our perspective might be called delusional. What is functional isn't always easy to agree on, and even though our working assumptions yield results, if we are asking the wrong questions that could lead us to strange places.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 02:02 am
@Cyracuz,
Not so much "delusional" because it was functional at the time. (E.g "the humours of the body").
I am reminded of an excellent BBC radio play on the subject of why the Pope put Gallileo under house arrest. The Pope was no fool, and correctly judged Gallileo's potential "facts" to be socially disruptive and dangerous to his divine authority over the fate of "souls". The irony is that naive realists of today think the heliocentic model is "correct" and the geocentric one "incorrect", rather than more functional for astronomical purposes....but try explaining that to the Franks of this world !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 04:45 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I don't think so, but I cannot prove it to you. But that doesn't matter. If it is so, it is so even if you don't think so. This is pretty consistent with what you have been arguing about Reality. Isn't it?


That is my point, JL. If it can be delusion...and if it happens that it is...it is whether one thinks so or not.

So your statement (to which I had applied the commen), "...which is to say a realization of their original ego-less nature"...

...seems logically inappropriate. What they MAY be returning to is a delusion.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 04:46 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Not so much "delusional" because it was functional at the time. (E.g "the humours of the body").
I am reminded of an excellent BBC radio play on the subject of why the Pope put Gallileo under house arrest. The Pope was no fool, and correctly judged Gallileo's potential "facts" to be socially disruptive and dangerous to his divine authority over the fate of "souls". The irony is that naive realists of today think the heliocentic model is "correct" and the geocentric one "incorrect", rather than more functional for astronomical purposes....but try explaining that to the Franks of this world !


Try explaining to yourself that you try to define your way out of the lack of logic in your comments.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 07:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
Oh dear. Are you trying to project your recent "logical trouncing" by igm onto me ? Whether or not, you merely look ridiculous with such a vacuous rejoinder. And you have probably forgotten that I have explained why "logic" is a variety of "mind set" beloved of naive realists.
Quote:
No, no you are not thinking, you are just being logical. Niels Bohr


...and that comment was to a slightly "sharper pencil" in the pack than you !
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 03:00:58