Everything in philosophy is belief or opinion?

[A_Seagull]

Seagull -

You’ve still not told me what “opinion” and “belief” are. I given up.

I did!!

Belief is something one believes. It is stored in ones memory.

An opinion is something that is stated or communicated.

Or do you want examples?

Belief: I believe the sun is shining, (but I am not telling anyone.)

Opinion: I state that "the sun is shining".

[Brent696]

Everything in science is belief or opinion.

Belief and opinion are basically synonyms of one another, belief merely holding a slightly better weight as it infers conviction.

Religion is often faulted as being mere beliefs, yet what is the speed of light constant if one does not belief in it.

If one answers "Well the constant is true whether one believes or not", then the same logic holds for God existing whether one believes or not.

"Belief" or "opinion", both refer to subjective experience not reality, but what is reality, is it solid, real, or is it a trick of consciousness, the universe merely a hologram. Is light real, is it a wave or a particle, both or neither, yet we can so easily be blinded.

Yet even as "belief" and "opinions" are mere words, some tricky minds seek to attach "Values" to them beyond their definitions, the statement "I know the facts and that outweighs your beliefs" is utterly meaningless. Is philosophy, that seeks to ply the trade of logic, inferior to science, but where is science without logic.

Philosophy seeks to measure that which science possesses no instruments to measure, then science is limited and thus inferior.

Like Schrodinger's cat, nothing is either alive or dead until consciousness says so,

REALITY is something we try to know through the senses, but the sense are so easily deceived, each perceiving merely a slice of reality, the eyes are deaf, the ears blind, are you truly tasting the salt or merely the neurological impulses of only one of four different taste buds.

Perhaps everyone who claims to know reality better than another will find himself a fool,

The only reality I can know without a doubt is that I AM, and sometimes I am not even sure about that.

[A_Seagull]

Everything in science is belief or opinion.

Belief and opinion are basically synonyms of one another, belief merely holding a slightly better weight as it infers conviction.

Religion is often faulted as being mere beliefs, yet what is the speed of light constant if one does not belief in it.

If one answers "Well the constant is true whether one believes or not", then the same logic holds for God existing whether one believes or not.

"Belief" or "opinion", both refer to subjective experience not reality, but what is reality, is it solid, real, or is it a trick of consciousness, the universe merely a hologram. Is light real, is it a wave or a particle, both or neither, yet we can so easily be blinded.

Yet even as "belief" and "opinions" are mere words, some tricky minds seek to attach "Values" to them beyond their definitions, the statement "I know the facts and that outweighs your beliefs" is utterly meaningless. Is philosophy, that seeks to ply the trade of logic, inferior to science, but where is science without logic.

Philosophy seeks to measure that which science possesses no instruments to measure, then science is limited and thus inferior.

Like Schrodinger's cat, nothing is either alive or dead until consciousness says so,

REALITY is something we try to know through the senses, but the sense are so easily deceived, each perceiving merely a slice of reality, the eyes are deaf, the ears blind, are you truly tasting the salt or merely the neurological impulses of only one of four different taste buds.

Perhaps everyone who claims to know reality better than another will find himself a fool,

The only reality I can know without a doubt is that I AM, and sometimes I am not even sure about that.

Your final statement is one that I would not even consider contesting. As for the rest I can accept that it is your opinion, but that is all.

Science does have the advantage that, in general, its source data is reproducible. And hence that its theories can, in general, also be reproducible.

[Brent696]

A_Seagull » February 14th, 2019, 9:42 pm

As for the rest I can accept that it is your opinion, but that is all.

Science does have the advantage that, in general, its source data is reproducible. And hence that its theories can, in general, also be reproducible.

And I can accept that as your opinion.

The problem though is that reality is connected with consciousness, you have taken a thin slice of reality, that which deals with sense data and the ability to replicate a cause and effect scenario, and then attached a "Value" to that, a "value" which you have created in your own mind, and used that value to elevate one aspect of reality over another.

For example, I am cooking a meal for my family, my conscious reality includes not only the chemistry involved in cooking, but my desire to feed and nourish my loved ones. The chemistry can be tested, even replicated, but it is only a means to an end, it serves my desire to do good to others.

Which is greater, the philosophical belief my duty is to love and care for my family, or the chemistry I use to do that. REALITY is bigger than science, philosophy does not discount science, replication, and matter, but it does consider and seek to measure a broader range of reality.

A religious man might value his beliefs over those of others, thus supporting his own ego, how can I be sure that those who claim science as superior are not doing the same thing.

[A_Seagull]

A_Seagull » February 14th, 2019, 9:42 pm

As for the rest I can accept that it is your opinion, but that is all.

Science does have the advantage that, in general, its source data is reproducible. And hence that its theories can, in general, also be reproducible.

And I can accept that as your opinion.

The problem though is that reality is connected with consciousness, you have taken a thin slice of reality, that which deals with sense data and the ability to replicate a cause and effect scenario, and then attached a "Value" to that, a "value" which you have created in your own mind, and used that value to elevate one aspect of reality over another.

For example, I am cooking a meal for my family, my conscious reality includes not only the chemistry involved in cooking, but my desire to feed and nourish my loved ones. The chemistry can be tested, even replicated, but it is only a means to an end, it serves my desire to do good to others.

Which is greater, the philosophical belief my duty is to love and care for my family, or the chemistry I use to do that. REALITY is bigger than science, philosophy does not discount science, replication, and matter, but it does consider and seek to measure a broader range of reality.

A religious man might value his beliefs over those of others, thus supporting his own ego, how can I be sure that those who claim science as superior are not doing the same thing.

While I can accept most of what you say as your opinion, your description of what I am doping or what I have done is pure fantasy.

[BadgerJelly]

Seagull -

You’ve still not told me what “opinion” and “belief” are. I given up.

I did!!

Belief is something one believes. It is stored in ones memory.

An opinion is something that is stated or communicated.

Or do you want examples?

Belief: I believe the sun is shining, (but I am not telling anyone.)

Opinion: I state that "the sun is shining".

Insufficient and confusing.

The OP you wrote:

If what is written in philosophy is not belief or opinion, what is it?

Perhaps it could be claimed that there is an illusion of certainty, which when one 'forgets' that it is an illusion becomes a plain and simple certainty?

But does it follow that if one only has beliefs and opinions that one is necessarily 'lost'? Or does it mean that all the human race is lost?

To start with we’d have to establish that philosophy isn’t “belief or opinion” by stating what that means. To say “belief is believing” is not exactly the kind of thoroughness I was hoping for.

The next question has a lot in common with psychological “fixatedness” - biases in place based on established “knowledge” (this is why I was addressing the need for that term). I’m also not sure “illusion” is the best way to phrase what you mean. Another embedded semantic issue is the idea of “certainty”/“absolute”. Any “certainty” is a delusion unless set within strictly defined parameters; yet it may still be incorrect - hence the application of logic to determine/probe for chinks in the proof.

The last sentence is a nebulous thought. If you want better responses you should perhaps consider what you mean alongside what the reader takes from your words - up to now, not a lot from my point of view (not having a dig at you just saying I don’t see anything productive coming from this if you cannot explicate the terms you’re using with pedantic vigor.

[A_Seagull]

Seagull -

You’ve still not told me what “opinion” and “belief” are. I given up.

I did!!

Belief is something one believes. It is stored in ones memory.

An opinion is something that is stated or communicated.

Or do you want examples?

Belief: I believe the sun is shining, (but I am not telling anyone.)

Opinion: I state that "the sun is shining".

Insufficient and confusing.

The OP you wrote:

If what is written in philosophy is not belief or opinion, what is it?

Perhaps it could be claimed that there is an illusion of certainty, which when one 'forgets' that it is an illusion becomes a plain and simple certainty?

But does it follow that if one only has beliefs and opinions that one is necessarily 'lost'? Or does it mean that all the human race is lost?

To start with we’d have to establish that philosophy isn’t “belief or opinion” by stating what that means. To say “belief is believing” is not exactly the kind of thoroughness I was hoping for.

The next question has a lot in common with psychological “fixatedness” - biases in place based on established “knowledge” (this is why I was addressing the need for that term). I’m also not sure “illusion” is the best way to phrase what you mean. Another embedded semantic issue is the idea of “certainty”/“absolute”. Any “certainty” is a delusion unless set within strictly defined parameters; yet it may still be incorrect - hence the application of logic to determine/probe for chinks in the proof.

The last sentence is a nebulous thought. If you want better responses you should perhaps consider what you mean alongside what the reader takes from your words - up to now, not a lot from my point of view (not having a dig at you just saying I don’t see anything productive coming from this if you cannot explicate the terms you’re using with pedantic vigor.

The question in the OP is not so complicated, it is simply expressed. Either you have something interesting tyo say on the subject or you haven't. Either way is fine with me.

[BadgerJelly]

The question is facile to the point of of neing almost completely meaningless.

I gave a simplistic answer in my first response. I was hoping for a little more though :(

[charon]

Good lord, you're on page 4 and apparently the difference between opinion and belief isn't clear yet.

Try this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

One good way of discerning the difference is by looking at the synonyms. Belief is more about credence and faith whereas opinion is more to do with judgement and verdict, and all that.

There is a bit of crossover so it certainly depends on context. Saying 'I believe in pink elephants' isn't the same as 'I think pink elephants exist'.

A lot of it is context and usage, which in turn depends on grasping the subtleties of language.

"Opinion and belief mean a judgment that someone thinks is true. Opinion is used when the judgment is not yet final or certain but is founded on some facts. 'I soon changed my opinion of the plan'.

Belief is used if the judgment is certain and firm in a person's own mind without regard to the amount or kind of evidence. 'It's my belief we'll win the election'."

[BadgerJelly]

Charon -

Philosophy doesn’t live in a dictionary. Pretty much everyone answered on the first page. I assumed Seagull was trying to look deeper ... apparently not. No big deal, it’s not for everyone.

[TheVat]

Folks who care to dig deeper might enjoy looking up Kripke's Puzzle.

[charon]

Philosophy doesn’t live in a dictionary.

I should think not! Although I believe there are philosophical dictionaries...

I just use the dictionary to clarify the meanings of words. After all, then you have some clear basis in using them, especially if others want to argue about meanings.

What the philosophical mind then does with it is different. And quite often doesn't bear thinking about :-)

[charon]

Kripke's Puzzle

From Wiki:

Kripke invites us to imagine a French, monolingual boy, Pierre, who believes that "Londres est joli" ("London is beautiful"). Pierre moves to London without realizing that London = Londres. He then learns English the same way a child would learn the language, that is, not by translating words from French to English. Pierre learns the name "London" from the unattractive part of the city where he lives, and so comes to believe that London is not beautiful. If Kripke's account is correct, Pierre now believes both that Londres is joli and that London is not beautiful.

Pretty thick, this Pierre...

He's got the learned phrase in his head that somewhere called 'Londres' is a lovely place. Then he goes to London and finds, independently of what else he knows, that it's a dump. At least, some of it is.

But in his head 'Londres' and 'London' are two entirely different things. So I don't see how any connection can be made.

He believes (he's probably forgotten ages ago) 'Londres' is supposed to be nice but he knows London is unattractive (in parts) because he's living there. One is a belief, the other is factual.

Pierre now believes both that Londres is joli and that London is not beautiful

You could put it that way but it's not the right way to put it. You could say he believed London was not very nice if he'd never gone outside of the area he was unfortunately living in and assumed it was all like that. But that would be ridiculous so I suppose we have to assume he's not very bright.

If the proposition is that he can hold two conflicting beliefs/opinions at the same time that would be true because, to him, there are two completely different places.

Things would only change if one day (at last) he realises that Londres and London are the same place. Enfin!

But, since he is actually in London/Londres his beliefs would no longer apply. The real thing is there. Dirty, noisy London is real... except maybe on Hampstead Heath. In the summer.



It's not a very good puzzle really, is it? Nothing personal, Vat :-)

[charon]

It's a bit like that Indian story of the three blind men who each touch a different part of an elephant. When asked to describe an elephant naturally they all have a completely idea of what an elephant feels like and therefore is. So the word 'elephant' means different things to different people depending on their experience.

Which is why a good dictionary (with photos) is a jolly good idea.

Not that the blind men can see it, of course :-)

[TheVat]

Its a nuanced point about reference and meaning, not meant as a puzzle in the ordinary sense.

Hesperus and Phosphorus.

Kripke takes time, and background reading. AFN.

[charon]

Is that 'as any fool knows'?

I don't doubt it!

[PaulN]

All for now. Used on the Net to indicate person will be off elsewhere the rest of the day.

Hope that helps.

[charon]

Away from the keyboard, usually. But I quite like my version too :-)

[A_Seagull]

Folks who care to dig deeper might enjoy looking up Kripke's Puzzle.

Not really. It is all to do with words. If you really want to go deeper you would go beyond words to the logic beneath, For after all, words are merely labels.

[charon]

I wish someone really clever would explain it to me. As far as I can see it's only about believing one place is nice and another one isn't. Then you discover they're the same place so you're now apparently holding two opposite views about the same thing.

Which is nonsense in real terms, of course, so I don 't get it. Sorry to be stupid!

[BadgerJelly]

I’ve not gotten round to Naming and Necessity yet (had it on my shelf for a while, but not likely to get around to reading it anytime soon!).

This should outline his position a little:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saul-Kripke

It is the use of language (which I’ve tried to steer the discussion toward from the outset - without much success).

If words are just “labels” then it doesn’t really tell me what “labels” are. To which the reply would likely lead to “they are words”. I then give up; as I did when asking about “belief,” “opinion,” etc.,.

[charon]

Thanks for that, Badger. I'm sure he's a clever guy but, you know, why can't they be simple and just talk ordinary English? Maybe I'm getting old but, god, it gives me a headache.

Actually, it's worse than that, it may as well be in Chinese. With apologies to the Chinese, of course :-)

[A_Seagull]

I’ve not gotten round to Naming and Necessity yet (had it on my shelf for a while, but not likely to get around to reading it anytime soon!).

This should outline his position a little:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saul-Kripke

It is the use of language (which I’ve tried to steer the discussion toward from the outset - without much success).

If words are just “labels” then it doesn’t really tell me what “labels” are. To which the reply would likely lead to “they are words”. I then give up; as I did when asking about “belief,” “opinion,” etc.,.

Perhaps it might help to clarify things if you were to define 'define'....

[BadgerJelly]

Seagull -

I think maybe you’re being sarcastic, even so ... to “define” can be defined in numerous ways. For starters it’s a verb, so it means to act. In regards to the OP we’re talking, essentially, about “knowledge” and what “knowledge” means - which can easily get messy because of everyday colloquial use of English with it’s complexities and ephemeral fashions and trends.

Anyway, to “define” is to hold something up as “known as X” and by doing so bring it into the realm of being questioned. It is way of how the “definition” taken on measures up. We all know the problems of context when using English. Different situations and technical jargon can lead to people talking about completely different ideas without realising it until the discussion hits a wall. To “define” is to capture and delineate an intersubjective experience. In philosophy there is certainly a great deal of questioning involved and generally speaking it is the job of the philosopher to question the obvious, to hold up a “definition” and ask “How is it so?” and how it is that something referred to as “known” and “defined” can be questioned at all? Most of it is simply about play and open-ended exploration.

The kind of “certainty” you mention in the OP is what I’ve heard called “apodictic knowledge” - which is not something we’re aware of consciously (like breathing or walking) yet once we do we know what it is to “breath” and “walk,” the poont being we’re able to question what it is we do all the time without either dismissing it along some true/false dichotomy, we simply experience it first hand and this “know” it in the now. When merely going about our daily lives we don’t “know” we’re breathing or walking, we may “forget” about it (as you put it) and this makes it “apodictic” because it isn’t questioned.

In the context of this thread I am talking about “define” as I see fit. To “define” is to question something by holding up something previously out of direct awareness and bringing into direct awareness. In a strange sense what is “known” is that which we are able to doubt. What cannot be doubted cannot be an item of awareness - as I would phrase it.

Along the way it becomes more and more difficult to appreciate how any terms can be questioned. They are refined over time and then eventually fragment by way of poetic licence through puns, metaphors and analogies. Hence why I chose “refine”; which means to break down into its smallest parts (atomization and the issue of endless inference). All the words we use are malleable, some far less so. It’s so because the universe of words exists individually as well as collectively (for instance one person’s understanding of the etymology of this or that word will necessarily give some weight for/against how others understand it - it may be applied subtley or openly, the later furthering where the meaning is taken by the group and how the future of the word may shift.)

Maybe, I’m getting sidetracked here a little ... to “opinion” and “belief”. What ae these to each other and to the forms of “knowledge” I outlined? It seems that we wouldn’t speak from day-to-day of “knowing” and “defining” as being bsed ln doubt because in colloquial use “knowing” is cast as in firm oppositon to “doubt” - I think I’ve shown this is not actually the case when we break things down further without completely misusing/abusing the terms. In general circles we take “opinion” to be more about “informed opinion” and “belief” to be opinion without evidence. I don’t think this is either accurate or fair given what I’ve said already about “doubt” and “knowledge”! Belief has more in common with “apodictic knowledge” because it is something not held within awareness - the major point being it is experiencing what was “apodictic knowledge,” experiencing “doubt” and knowing we hold items of experience out of our immediate attention as a given here and now experience. This makes “opinion” seem even less admirable too you may say? But not to me. Opinion, in the sense I’m outlining, is the uniting force between “apodictic knowledge” and “belief,” it’s the awareness we have - the negative space - between experience of now (note: this “experience of now” is recogntion of “apodictic knowledge not engagement with it; impossible!) and the doubt brought to it through this apodictic knowledge.

I’ve tried to cram in a lot in a short space. You could choose to look at this as me flipping the questioning on its head if it helps? That is, “If everything in philosophy is ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ what does that mean?”

When it comes to doubt there is literally nothing in human awareness we cannot doubt in some respect. The only thing we can hold up at “knowledge” is a rule set within specific bounds - Wittgenstein’s game of chess is the best example; where if you ae not following the rules of chess you’re not actually playing chess in the first place. In that context there is no “doubt” about the rules if they’e rigidly set out and unmoving ... exception being that bringing this statement about immediately allows us to say “really? No doubt whatsoever? No one in some unumaganly large number’s chance? It seems we have at least a rational limitation of some kind holding such thoughts at bay (maybe less so for me than others given how hard I’ve trying to bring this to someone’s attention - likely with little success!)

[BadgerJelly]

Charon -

In reference to Chess and Kripke perhaps it helps to look at it this way to see the “puzzle”.

Perhaps your grandfather taught you to play chess, yet due to some blip in his memory/attention he forgot to tell you about how to Castle and he also never taught your siblings this either. You play thoughout yoru childhood knowing nothing of Castling; perhaps you and your siblings also teach yoru friends to play, and so on.

Then one day you play with a newly made friend and they Castle ... you tell them they cannot do that and call them a cheat becasue for you Castling is not playing chess. Eventually you realise that Castling is actually a valid move kn chess.

In the broader context given that you never knew about this before, and so never applied it to your play, were you really playing “Chess”?

It is, as most things are, related to some old Greek question (in this case Theseus’ Ship). And the problem of endless inference (the What? question).

[Brent696]

BadgerJelly » February 18th, 2019, 11:16 am

When it comes to doubt there is literally nothing in human awareness we cannot doubt in some respect. The only thing we can hold up at “knowledge” is a rule set within specific bounds

I did not want this comment to be lost as it comes at the end of a long post.

It is only as we narrow our vision, define certain parameters, that we can claim knowing in the midst of it.

If one divides the world between those who know Allah and those who do not, then one can claim knowledge for themselves as they believe in Allah, their own minds having defined the parameters. Those who believe in science can just as well create parameters where they juxtapose it against religion so that they too might claim knowledge for themselves, thus elevating themselves in their own eyes. But we also know that many of the great scientists, genius' of the past believed in God as strongly as they believed in science, inasmuch as such belief in God was knowledge to them. Knowledge drawn not from experiments which could be replicated but measured in other ways that the instruments of science cannot ascertain.

Philosophy is meant to cover all of life, not merely the narrow vision of matter itself. It covers love, children, relationships, it often covers the Why of life whereas science might merely be struggling with the How.

In science one claims to know a "Fact", yet the knowledge of that fact only exists within a predefined context. But what is such a fact, is the grass green, or every color but green, you look through an electron microscope and do you see the object itself, or merely an EFFECT of the electrons bouncing off what is now destroyed. We found atomic particles, then subatomic particles, then they disappeared into quantum waves where only potential resides. The context changes and what we thought were facts, were merely effects within the previous context.

We we design the game of chess, and the facts, the rules are known, but life is not a game of chess. Philosophy, beyond merely the academic practice of such, is the attempt of man, the mind of man, to understand something of ALL of life.

But many miss the first step, just as a scientist must tune his instrument, and understand what it does, so a philosopher must first explore his own mind, understand the instrument he is using to divine the universe around him. One of the things he might learn is that it is possible to know and not know simultaneously, he sees but he also understands he is not truly seeing. We can study a mountain, but can we ever really know a mountain, to know it, if possible, demand more than any of the instruments or measurements science can provide. How much more God, who by nature would transcend all.

[charon]

BadgerJelly -

In reference to Chess and Kripke perhaps it helps to look at it this way to see the “puzzle”.

But I might not even want to understand it!

In the broader context given that you never knew about this before, and so never applied it to your play, were you really playing “Chess”?

Sure, I was just playing it wrong due to previous misinformation.

You know me, Badger, I don't leave practical reality. Perhaps because anything else is belief or opinion :-)

Guy goes to the doctor. He's got beans in his hair, omelette on his shirt, and a banana stuck up his nose. The doctor says 'You know your problem? You're not eating properly'.

[PaulN]

Folks who care to dig deeper might enjoy looking up Kripke's Puzzle.

Not really. It is all to do with words. If you really want to go deeper you would go beyond words to the logic beneath, For after all, words are merely labels.

I think that's exactly the point of what Kripke is doing. It is truly beneficial to read on a topic before dismissing it. Also, it seems that some words aren't labels. That's fortunate, since you and everyone here use them to represent actions and logical relationships and causal connections.

[Brent696]

Kripke's Puzzle is not about words but context, using an example from one of the sites, "Hillary is a liar"

This denotes that in public life, in that sphere, she openly lies as in the use of deception to those who are listening.

Yet in the context of Hillary as an individual, she is telling the truth, BECAUSE, she she wholeheartedly being true to her nature, even when she in lying.

"Trust" can be a big deal for some, or rather not trusting, but this is only because they refuse to accept people for who they are, holding to expectations that the other person should be something or someone different. If you have a family member who is always lying, then it is perfectly fine to TRUST that person to always act according to their nature.

By accepting who they are, and not imposing some false expectation you have created in your own mind, you can trust that person and not trust them simultaneously. This is not a trick of words or labels, it is simply a matter of over lapping contexts.

[A_Seagull]

Charon -

In reference to Chess and Kripke perhaps it helps to look at it this way to see the “puzzle”.

Perhaps your grandfather taught you to play chess, yet due to some blip in his memory/attention he forgot to tell you about how to Castle and he also never taught your siblings this either. You play thoughout yoru childhood knowing nothing of Castling; perhaps you and your siblings also teach yoru friends to play, and so on.

Then one day you play with a newly made friend and they Castle ... you tell them they cannot do that and call them a cheat becasue for you Castling is not playing chess. Eventually you realise that Castling is actually a valid move kn chess.

In the broader context given that you never knew about this before, and so never applied it to your play, were you really playing “Chess”? the case of the Ship of Theseus

It is, as most things are, related to some old Greek question (in this case Theseus’ Ship). And the problem of endless inference (the What? question).

This is not a problem nor a puzzle - at least not a philosophical one.

It is more of an irrelevance ..(and as you say, very similar to the case of the Ship of Theseus). it is simply a matter of labelling .. you can call it chess or not .. or The same ship of Theseus or not.. it really doesn't matter. Or you could label it both or neither for that matter.

The more interesting question is : Why do people consider it to be a problem? And I think this highlights some of the differences of approach that have become apparent in this thread.

It seems that some people consider that there is a direct and unambiguous link between words and noumenal objects. In this case it IS important whether the game is Chess or the ship is Theseus'. Because the words define the actual nomenal world.

However I do not hold to this viewpoint. I consider that the links between words and noumenal objects is quite convoluted.

In this perspective words are labels for concepts that are constructed from sense-data and the relationship between sense data and any noumenal world that might exist is tenuous at best. While thjis approach is more complex than the other one, I contend that it is far more logically rigorous..(it does not require any hand-waving arguments)

So in this context the game can be labelled 'chess' or not, it really does not matter.