| Skybird |
09-16-07 10:35 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Belief is taking the unexamined and unexaminable as reality and/or truth, no matter that nobody knows nothing for real - and you better don't even think about starting to ask for evidence. That is all what "belief" is about.
|
So, that's what you believe.
|
Cheap shot.
|
It's not intended as a cheap shot, I'm simply summarizing. Geetrue posted about something he believes. You've made several posts dismissing it, you are defining for us what belief is all about, and I simply pointed out, that's your belief.
|
Than I am wondering if we even speak the same English language, because you imply that the very meaning of terms and words are arbitrary and thus we talk about something without meaning anything, at least nothing there is consensus on what "it" means". Different cultures often use the same terms and mean very different things by them. But you and me may be of different nationalities, but still of the same culture, more or less. One should assume that more or less the same terms should have the same meaning for you and me.
So let's get this thing straight, to end the confusion over the meaning of this term "belief".
Quote:
Belief:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.
False beliefs are not knowledge, even if the individual believes them to be true; a sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Unknown facts are not knowledge, because they are not known by any individual; it is the belief element in a true belief that makes the link between a state of affairs and an individual. Unjustified true beliefs are lucky guesses, and therefore not knowledge.
A primary problem for epistemology is exactly what is needed, in addition to true belief, in order for us to have knowledge. In the dialogue Theaetetus, Plato has Socrates examine and reject the proposal that knowledge is justifiedtrue belief. More recently, this view has been challenged by the Gettier problem which suggests that justified true belief does not provide a complete picture of knowledge.
An idea is, in some forms of philosophy, accepted as the opposite of belief. Often a belief is something accepted, by the believer, as a truth, and therefore resists change. An idea is a thought that, while still being accepted by the thinker, is not held to such truth as belief, and can be changed, molded, or added onto with improvements or suggestions.
Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Philosophers have tended to be more rigorous in their analysis and much of the work examining the viability of the belief concept stems from philosophical analysis.
The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition) so like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind and whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.
Knowledge:
Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
“We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is. Now that scientific knowing is something of this sort is evident — witness both those who falsely claim it and those who actually possess it, since the former merely imagine themselves to be, while the latter are also actually, in the condition described. Consequently the proper object of unqualified scientific knowledge is something which cannot be other than it is.
”
The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers. The classical definition is found in, but not ultimately endorsed by, Plato.[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the believer's evidence is such that it logically necessitates the truth of the belief.
In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so". [2] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way "knowledge" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family resemblance.
Both entries from wikipedia.
|
All that is a bit like trying to use quantum physics when playing billiard and living your ordinary life - it makes little sense, although on sub-nuclear level newton has little to say and quantum physics are the better tool for research. I follow a bit good old Fritz Perl's slogan "Loose your mind and come to your senses!" (not to mention his anti-theologic "Stop mindf#cking!"), and separate knowledge from belief by looking at wether the subject ever was in actual touch with the object, and used logic to examine it and lead it back to a certain cause or group of possible causes, then this may go by as "knowledge". Where as the believer may believe to have been in touch with his object, but that object has been of a quality that he could not use logic on it, or he never has been in contact with that object, an so he only fantasizes. I am fully aware that this definition by me is not complete, but it serves its purpose in everyday life, like Newton still is good enough to explain everyday billiard.
I want to point out - not to missionize - don't get it wrong! - that in classical Chan buddhism, and in Zen in general, theology and recorded traditions are dealt with a great ammount of disrespect (if it is different, you should become suspicious of that given sect or school). Instead, the immediate experience of the given moment is what people are getting pushed back to, and to examine it in a logical, reasonable, empirical way. From the results of this empirical analysis is all Buddhist model of human psychology constructed - and I must say the Buddhist psychology "theory" is by far the most detailed and most comprehensive and logically concluded I ever have heared of any, and by saying that I explicitly include the Western academic branch of psychology. Traditional Chan is the most purest form of empirism I have ever learned about, and leaves no room for "believing", without dogma, but with using scepticism, logic, and reason. - Of course, Zen, like so many other traditions, did not escape the fate of having been distorted and abused for dogmatic and institutional interests. That's why I usually do not talk of "Zen", but prefer the old word "Chan", to refer back to how it all began, originally. I avoid Zen schools like the plague. where they are about traditions and rituals and records and worshipping the Zensho, they have moved away from immediate knowledge, and went into the trap of just believing something again. Doesn't lead very far.
But what said Perls as a warning to some students in training: "Während ihr zu ihm redet, verhüllt sich der Patient nur zu gern im Kokon seiner Neurose, um dort unter behaglichem Schnurren für den Rest der Therapie zu bleiben." - "While you are talking to him, your patient buries himself in the cocoon of his neurosis, to stay there with a cozy purring for the rest of the therapy." :lol: (my back-translation from the german translation). |
