0
   

beliefs

 
 
Maximos1984
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 12:40 pm
heyy thanks for making things clear!
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:22 pm
Re: beliefs
yitwail wrote:
perhaps this topic belongs in the Spirituality & Religion forum, but i thought it might generate more discussion in this forum. since i'm of the persuasion that no belief is preferable to a possibly false one, i'm especially interested in reading other viewpoints. this being the first thread i've created entirely of my own volition, i hope many of you will indulge me.

no less a thinker than Socrates seems to have shared my position on the question--i extrapolate this from his famous anecdote about the Oracle of Delphi pronouncing him the wisest of all men, which prompted him to seek out & question anyone with the reputation of wisdom, only to find that none actually possessed any wisdom, and reluctantly conclude that he was indeed wiser in the sense that he, Socrates, at least did not suffer from the delusion of possessing wisdom.

i have a theory about the origin of my own skepticism. i was a conscientious student, and the schools of my day emphasized the value of knowing the correct answer, so i became conditioned to remain silent rather than guess when i was unsure of an answer to a question. i also happen to be agnostic in matters of religion, but i feel that's as much a result of careful reflection as of ingrained skepticism.

[Edited postscript: i should have expanded choice 'no' to read 'no, uncertain belief is preferable to no belief' but alas, once a poll's been created there seems to be no way to edit it.]


It is easier to respond to people who show some respect for their readers by using their typewriter as it is normally meant to be used.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:46 pm
my apologies to anyone offended by a general lack of capitalization. i do capitalize proper nouns, for the most part. i certainly do not intend to show disrespect for readers with this idiosyncrasy of mine. after all, there are far more explicit methods of showing disrespect, which i do not engage in, such as profanity and personal attacks. since dropping capital letters seems to be generally accepted in email, i have carried over the practice to posting on forums and discussion groups. i do not believe i'm alone in this practice, either, so until i read more posts objecting to this, i intend to continue not capitalizing. at a2k i have over 2500 posts, for example, and only once has anyone mentioned capitalization.

and finally, no capitals was good enough for ee cummings. i'm not comparing myself to him; i just mention this in jest.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:10 pm
I believe that everyone has his own style of writing, J.J. Some of us actually are funky here.

No apologies necessary, Yit.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:24 pm
thank you, Letty. some may interpret this as rationalization, but i went to no-caps at least in part because it felt a bit elitist to be strictly observant of all the conventions of standard English in a setting as informal as the internet. i tend to be a bit pedantic, anyway, so my "deliberate typos" might compensate for that defect. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:25 pm
Well, Yit. I believe that we should welcome Jack Jones to A2K, 'cause I like his style and voice.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:42 pm
he did have a memorable hit, Wives & Lovers, containing some of the most chauvinist lyrics ever. for me it's a toss-up between that one & Under My Thumb by the Rolling Stones for most chauvinist lyric. i could provide either of them for a2k, but that might *really* offend people. btw, i happen to think they're great tunes, with ludicrous lyrics. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:50 pm
Razz
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 05:36 pm
yitwail wrote:
my apologies to anyone offended by a general lack of capitalization. i do capitalize proper nouns, for the most part. i certainly do not intend to show disrespect for readers with this idiosyncrasy of mine. after all, there are far more explicit methods of showing disrespect, which i do not engage in, such as profanity and personal attacks. since dropping capital letters seems to be generally accepted in email, i have carried over the practice to posting on forums and discussion groups. i do not believe i'm alone in this practice, either, so until i read more posts objecting to this, i intend to continue not capitalizing. at a2k i have over 2500 posts, for example, and only once has anyone mentioned capitalization.

and finally, no capitals was good enough for ee cummings. i'm not comparing myself to him; i just mention this in jest.


If you adopt this style it less likely to be read. A disconcern for presentation might appear to be a disconcern for subject-matter, or betray an impulsive writer. In my case, this interpretation would apply and I rarely read texts like these.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 05:53 pm
well, some of what i write may indeed reflect impulsiveness or disconcern for subject matter, but on the other hand, scrupulously correct punctuation does not guarantee coherence of content. for instance, "green ideas dream furiously" is incoherent regardless of punctuation. in any event, i seem to have been absolved of the charge of showing no respect for readers, for which i am grateful.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 06:01 pm
"it less likely to be read", Yit.

Sheeeze, J.J. For a newbie, you certainly are demanding.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 06:06 pm
true, Letty, but i can be obliging at times, as you might be aware. ;-) perhaps JJ can persuade me to capitalize, and i don't mind objective criticism, since i engage in it myself from time to time.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 09:23 pm
Without doubt this philosophy forum makes for the best reading and I'm intriuged by what's being said here. I'm interested in politics, but sometimes feel that I may as well be playing tennis as talking politics.

Something did occur to me, and at risk of asking an idiot question:

Is belief a kind of hope?
Instead of belief in life after death, do we simply hope for an afterlife?
Rather than believing in a god - do we only hope (to christ) there is one?
If I say I believe that mankind will find peace one day, am I just hoping it will?

I only ask because I noticed reading through a lot of the posts that belief could easily be substituted by hope.

I'm new to philosophy - and hope (secretly believe) my question isn't a stupid one.

Just hoping to figure out what belief is. :wink:

Peace,
E
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 11:34 pm
good question, endymion. are you a Keats admirer, perchance? i am. anyway, i'd say hope & belief are not the same. belief to me implies expectation, whereas hope is a kind of wish. for instance, most people probably hope for life after death, but not all of them believe in it.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 05:38 am
Who is 'Keats'?

Just joking.


I think you are right, yitwail but I can't leave it alone.
If someone loses their belief, do they also loose hope?

I find it hard to understand the indulgence of believing in something 'being' with out any evidence of that thing (gods).

But I can understand people having hope that there is a reason to exist.

Anyway thanks, I've already learned something here about philosophy - it makes my head ache... and worse, it's compelling.

Peace,
E
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:28 am
e, there's at least one more factor to consider in the equation, faith. i think it's what can change hope into belief.

another distinction between hope & belief is degree of certainty, something i was trying to get at with my poll question. for example, i might hope to win the lottery, but believe that company XYZ's stock price will go up.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 01:43 pm
yitwail wrote:
e, there's at least one more factor to consider in the equation, faith. i think it's what can change hope into belief.


Only the proof is missing. Are faith OR proof needed in order to believe?

hope->faith or proof->belief

Hmmmm
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 12:41 pm
ENDYMION wrote:
yitwail wrote:
e, there's at least one more factor to consider in the equation, faith. i think it's what can change hope into belief.


Only the proof is missing. Are faith OR proof needed in order to believe?

hope->faith or proof->belief

Hmmmm


Proof is not applicable to belief. It is a question of grammar. Belief, by definition, concerns unprovable propositions.
Faith is the support on which your decision for choosing one or more unprovable propositions is built. There will be other unprovable alternative propositions to choose from, either explicit or implicit in the proposition you actually choose.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 04:56 pm
John Jones wrote:

Proof is not applicable to belief. It is a question of grammar. Belief, by definition, concerns unprovable propositions.
Faith is the support on which your decision for choosing one or more unprovable propositions is built. There will be other unprovable alternative propositions to choose from, either explicit or implicit in the proposition you actually choose.


I had to read this through 3 times before coming to the conclusion that I agree with you. If there was proof - you would know something was real and therefor belief would become unneccesery, redundant.
(smacks forehead)

So I'm learning - give me more!
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 04:32 am
John Jones wrote:
ENDYMION wrote:
yitwail wrote:
e, there's at least one more factor to consider in the equation, faith. i think it's what can change hope into belief.


Only the proof is missing. Are faith OR proof needed in order to believe?

hope->faith or proof->belief

Hmmmm


Proof is not applicable to belief. It is a question of grammar. Belief, by definition, concerns unprovable propositions.
Faith is the support on which your decision for choosing one or more unprovable propositions is built. There will be other unprovable alternative propositions to choose from, either explicit or implicit in the proposition you actually choose.


I'd argue that science is itself another form of belief system. Religion is another. They use different methods and criteria. That which we do not know, or can ever know, has limitations, whether science or religion.

Those who maintain unbelief are themselves holding on to a form of belief, the belief of not believing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » beliefs
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 08:53:41