Everything in philosophy is belief or opinion?

[A_Seagull]

I encountered this in another thread "It's a completely lost mind that thinks everything is a belief or an opinion."
. (thanks Charon.) Not wanting to hijack another thread I have started a new one.

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?

[Serpent]

Everyone with a functional mind has both beliefs and opinions.
How we define the two words determines how we regard, how we inspect and evaluate other people's beliefs and opinions. Our own, of course, we tend to call by different names.

[BadgerJelly]

Some philosophy is deeply speculative, some of it is refinement of language and terminology, some is political and a menas to address opinions and beliefs of others you find strange in order to broaden general understanding, some of it is about logic and rational thought, etc.,.

So no it isn’t ALL about belief and opinion. Some view it as “belief” and “opinion” because they don’t see it as serving a purpose in their personal exploration of thier life - so for them saying so has subjective weight.

Generally I’ve referred to most of it as complete bullshit. I still think this. Most is not all though ;)

[Serpent]

Just so: it's all about your understanding of the terms.

You may think, "Aw, that's just his opinion; no more valid than mine."
Whether this is true depends on the context. If it's an opinion about a human skull that's just been dug up, Forest_Dump's opinion is more valid than mine, by a considerable margin. If it's an opinion regarding how to tell whether that skull belonged to a missing person on file, mine could be more useful. If it's about the best way to improve a strain of orange trees, we're probably about equal.
So, rate "opinion" as somewhere along the line of clueless-to-expert.

You may think of "belief" as faith or superstition. Or you may have formed convictions on the basis of sound observation, information and experience: believe what you have learned. You may rate the reasons for believing something along the line of inspired-through-received-through-critical-to-informed.

[PaulN]

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

I would suggest that philosophy, as an analytic discipline, is that which applies logic and reasoning (induction, deduction, abduction) to beliefs in order to determine their soundness and congruence with reality. Certainly the entire branch of philosophy known as epistemology is about the degree to which we can validate any type of knowledge about the world (and ourselves).

[A_Seagull]

Philosophy is no more of an analytic discipline than, say, science is.

IMO philosophy is all about paradigms. One sets up a particular paradigm - set of beliefs - and then seeks to expand and elaborate on that paradigm. Opinions from others that fit in with one's paradigm might be considered to be 'expert' opinions, while those that do not might be considered to be worthless or fantasies.

[edy420]

How do you define lost?

I think if you know exactly what your beliefs are, then your not lost. It’s when you don’t understand your own beliefs, that is when your are lost.

It seems your using it in another context, perhaps as a generalisation of the human species?

[PaulN]

Sea,

Your definition of philosophy, and its methodology, is incorrect and clarifies that you are posting on a topic you have not studied.

Thanks for saving me some time.

[Serpent]

Opinions from others that fit in with one's paradigm might be considered to be 'expert' opinions, while those that do not might be considered to be worthless or fantasies.

But on what basis do you "consider" which? Gut feeling or factual data?
You can check a person's credentials: expertise has specific prerequisites.
Or you can refuse to take their qualifications into consideration.

[BadgerJelly]

How do you define lost?

I think if you know exactly what your beliefs are, then your not lost. It’s when you don’t understand your own beliefs, that is when your are lost.

It seems your using it in another context, perhaps as a generalisation of the human species?

Contrary as it seems at first I’d say it’s the opposite of what you’ve presented here because to “know exactly” is more or less dogma. Not knowing stuff and being comfortable exploring the opinions of others as if known is what bares the most fruit in my experience.

Generally I live by the rough method of approaching what seems complex as if it’s simple at its heart and what seems simple as if what lies at the heart is really complex.

Understanding is essentially understanding how easily you can err.

[hyksos]

I encountered this in another thread "It's a completely lost mind that thinks everything is a belief or an opinion."
. (thanks Charon.) Not wanting to hijack another thread I have started a new one.

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

Wittgenstein took this question very seriously. He came from a strong tradition known as Analytic Philosophy. This was an attempt to reduce natural language (like what I am using right now) to the rigor of mathematical syntax. For example, they would attempt to find the exact mathematical claim for the natural sentence "The cat is on the mat." The historical anecdote was Wittgenstein's Poker (there are books and documentaries about it.)


The dream of Analytic Philosophy was that if we could identify the precise meaning of every utterance, then we would be well on our way to establishing their truth and falsity with the same precision that mathematics seems to have with theorems. In particular, we could end-around this problem about all philosophy being mere opinions and beliefs.


I believe we have been mostly successful at doing this with computer programs. Of course, you could find programmers who totally disagree with this.

Code: Select all

int n=0;
int k=3;
n = fxn( ++k , k++ );

The above is lines of code written in C. The function call to "fxn()" is difficult. Its behavior is actually not defined. It will compile and run, but god knows what it will do. The C99 standard doesn't even dictate what it should do. It depends on how the compiler decides to interpret it. Some compilers will actually throw a warning on code like the above. (Some won't). There are academic languages that attempt to avoid this (e.g. functional programming).

We can have this problem of what a sentence means depends on how you decide to interpret it. Semantics is determined by no rules we can identify. Many years into his career, Wittgenstein eventually concluded that the ultimate goal of Analytic Philosophy was doomed to failure. Natural Language between people talking is more like a social game, where "rules" are made up on-the-fly to suit the context. Wittgenstein then coined the phrase "Language game".

To some degree, the system of scientific writing, with abstract, claim, exposition, and citations is an attempt to embed rules in our communication that reduce the caustic effects of opinion and belief. Academic philosophy knows about this type of writing, and tries to stick to it in spirit. In many cases at the academic level, a person is responsible for acting in "good faith" with their debating style. They have to identify those portions of the beliefs of your opponent which you agree with. They also should clearly state the claim they are making. Without both of these techniques, you are not acting in good faith and you are likely turning your communication into a powerplay rather than a conversation.

[A_Seagull]

The dream of Analytic Philosophy was that if we could identify the precise meaning of every utterance, then we would be well on our way to establishing their truth and falsity with the same precision that mathematics seems to have with theorems. In particular, we could end-around this problem about all philosophy being mere opinions and beliefs.

The main problem with this approach is finding a link between the logical symbols of the utterances and the real world.

Mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, operates in an entirely logical and abstract world, there are no direct links to the physical world. Theorems can be proven based entirely on the rules and the symbols. In order to apply maths to the real world (applied maths) there needs to be a mapping between elements of the mathematical system and elements (eg measurements) of the real world.

When it comes to utterances and language a similar mapping is required. In order to link the logical symbols of 'c' 'a' 't' with the phenomena of a 'cat'. (Let us leave out any concern with a noumenal cat at this stage.) a mapping is required, yet all too often the mapping is ignored and the symbols 'c' 'a' and 't' are conflated with the concept of a cat.

In order to make progress with the relationship between language and the phenomena of the real world, there needs to be a model for the logical processes that allow the phenomena of a 'cat' to be created.

[Serpent]

In order to make progress with the relationship between language and the phenomena of the real world, there needs to be a model for the logical processes that allow the phenomena of a 'cat' to be created.

Why? The real things - phenomena, language and concepts - already exist. The relationship was drawn when creatures began communicating with one another. Two long, loud shrieks stand for "approaching snake"; a long, quieter shriek stands for "snake departing".
From time to time it's necessary to update the dictionary and clarify the more esoteric concepts, but the link between words and the physical world, and the link between vocalization and written symbol, are solid.

[A_Seagull]

In order to make progress with the relationship between language and the phenomena of the real world, there needs to be a model for the logical processes that allow the phenomena of a 'cat' to be created.

Why? The real things - phenomena, language and concepts - already exist. The relationship was drawn when creatures began communicating with one another. Two long, loud shrieks stand for "approaching snake"; a long, quieter shriek stands for "snake departing".
From time to time it's necessary to update the dictionary and clarify the more esoteric concepts, but the link between words and the physical world, and the link between vocalization and written symbol, are solid.

Like so many aspects of philosophy, it depends upon what one wants from philosophy. If this is not an area of philosophy that interests you... that is fine.

[Serpent]

Like so many aspects of philosophy, it depends upon what one wants from philosophy. If this is not an area of philosophy that interests you... that is fine.

I don't know what you want. What it is you want language to do more or differently than it already does? You can't have any branch of philosophy without a language that's precisely understood, at least by the philosopher. Language was here first: philosophy may describe its functions, possibly (at a stretch) expand its function, but can't rationalize its function without recourse to the very thing it's examining.
The message is a product of the medium.

[A_Seagull]

Like so many aspects of philosophy, it depends upon what one wants from philosophy. If this is not an area of philosophy that interests you... that is fine.

I don't know what you want. What it is you want language to do more or differently than it already does? You can't have any branch of philosophy without a language that's precisely understood, at least by the philosopher. Language was here first: philosophy may describe its functions, possibly (at a stretch) expand its function, but can't rationalize its function without recourse to the very thing it's examining.
The message is a product of the medium.

From my perspective language is for communication, nothing more. (That can include communication from oneself at one time to oneself at a later time.)

[Serpent]

From my perspective language is for communication, nothing more. (That can include communication from oneself at one time to oneself at a later time.)

Nothing more? Like what more?
Communication is the transmission of information between living entities. If you add the later-devised languages, like musical notation and mathematics, language conveys all the meaning there is.
Show me a philosophy without a language.

[A_Seagull]

From my perspective language is for communication, nothing more. (That can include communication from oneself at one time to oneself at a later time.)

Nothing more? Like what more?
Communication is the transmission of information between living entities. If you add the later-devised languages, like musical notation and mathematics, language conveys all the meaning there is.
Show me a philosophy without a language.

Philosophy is all about language, language is the medium of philosophy. Without language there is no philosophy.

Or one could say that philosophy is all about communication, without communication there is no philosophy.

Or to put it another way, language is for communication.

If there was no communication you would just think what you think and I would think what I think and there would be no philosophy. But with communication the possibility arises that we might learn something from each other.

[charon]

Seagull -

I wish I'd seen this earlier! Never mind.

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

It depends on the writer.

Perhaps it could be claimed that there is an illusion of certainty

There's definitely the illusion of certainty, like the man who thinks he's Napoleon. He's quite, quite sure of it and he'll argue with you!

does it follow that if one only has beliefs and opinions that one is necessarily 'lost'?

No, because there are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. I believe, when I go to the doctor, that he's not going to poison me. Or that the train I get on will actually take me to the right place. Those are fairly rational beliefs.

Put it the other way: what is a fact? A fact is something real, actual, like this forum, the sun or moon, etc. They exist, they're real.

But an opinion about a fact is not a fact. I can believe the moon is made of cheese. There's no evidence for it, I just happen to believe it. I'm afraid a lot of religious beliefs come into that category.

The point is to distinguish between the two. Whether one is 'lost' or not depends on the importance and value one gives one's beliefs. Beliefs are not fact or reality, they're something the mind has constructed. The actual fact isn't affected one way or the other by any belief. The moon remains exactly what it is whatever I happen to believe about it.

So belief is non-reality. When reality is left behind and beliefs take over then one becomes lost. That's a good definition of insanity, the mind which has escaped from reality into a world of non-realities, with all the trauma that creates.

Philosophically, it's the same. We can think realistically and logically about issues of life. Nothing wrong with that (we're doing that now) but when non-realities take over then we've gone awry.

It's a question of distinguishing intelligently between the two. Does that answer it?

[Brent696]

It seems that everyone here possesses some philosophy about philosophy, even when they are of the philosophical opinion that philosophy is an exercise in futility.

Obviously my personal philosophy is that if you possess a frontal lobe, and you actually use it rather than being driven solely by your primitive reactive brain, then you are practicing philosophy.

As for the institutionalized/academic disciplines of philosophy, they, as noted, come in many shades and colors.

As one might place more "value" upon one than another, so they are deep in the practice of philosophy themselves.

One person might feel "right" as they refer to a demonstrable event or phenomenon, another might feel "right" as they hug another who is in need. At the core of philosophy is our ability to place "values" of differing degrees on the aspects of the world around us, and likewise ourselves as we value into it.

Many might like like this thought, but science is merely one discipline of philosophy,

At least that is my evaluation as my opinion

[A_Seagull]

Seagull -

I wish I'd seen this earlier! Never mind.

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

It depends on the writer.

Perhaps it could be claimed that there is an illusion of certainty

There's definitely the illusion of certainty, like the man who thinks he's Napoleon. He's quite, quite sure of it and he'll argue with you!

does it follow that if one only has beliefs and opinions that one is necessarily 'lost'?

No, because there are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. I believe, when I go to the doctor, that he's not going to poison me. Or that the train I get on will actually take me to the right place. Those are fairly rational beliefs.

Put it the other way: what is a fact? A fact is something real, actual, like this forum, the sun or moon, etc. They exist, they're real.

But an opinion about a fact is not a fact. I can believe the moon is made of cheese. There's no evidence for it, I just happen to believe it. I'm afraid a lot of religious beliefs come into that category.

The point is to distinguish between the two. Whether one is 'lost' or not depends on the importance and value one gives one's beliefs. Beliefs are not fact or reality, they're something the mind has constructed. The actual fact isn't affected one way or the other by any belief. The moon remains exactly what it is whatever I happen to believe about it.

So belief is non-reality. When reality is left behind and beliefs take over then one becomes lost. That's a good definition of insanity, the mind which has escaped from reality into a world of non-realities, with all the trauma that creates.

Philosophically, it's the same. We can think realistically and logically about issues of life. Nothing wrong with that (we're doing that now) but when non-realities take over then we've gone awry.

It's a question of distinguishing intelligently between the two. Does that answer it?

Not entirely.

How can you distinguish 'intelligently' from 'non-intelligently'?

The difficulty arises as our Napoleonic friend might well consider that he (I think we can assume it would be a 'he') has intelligently and rationally come to the conclusion that he is indeed Napoleon.

What is required to break the impasse and distinguish between the real and the fantasy is a method or process by which what is considered to be 'real' can be inferred.

It is unlikely that such a process would arrive at a definitive separation between fantasy and reality but is more likely to arrive at a statistical likelihood of one and not the other.

Then one might label those things that have a strong likelihood of being real as 'truths' For example one might consider that the world around us is 'real' and not some virtual reality, and label this as 'true. This would provide stability to ones beliefs and avoid the distress of feeling lost.

[charon]

Seagull -

Not entirely.

Good! I'd amazed if one post had sorted it.

How can you distinguish 'intelligently' from 'non-intelligently'?

Ah, well, that's the big question. All right, forget intelligent. But there must be distinction between fact and non-fact. I don't think that's so difficult (but with people you never know).

The difficulty arises as our Napoleonic friend might well consider that he (I think we can assume it would be a 'he') has intelligently and rationally come to the conclusion that he is indeed Napoleon.

That's up to him, but it's not the point. The point is that here's a person in 2019 who believes he's Napoleon who died in 1821... in other words he's not exactly sane.

What is required to break the impasse and distinguish between the real and the fantasy is a method or process by which what is considered to be 'real' can be inferred.

Is that difficult? Aren't you complicating it? This forum is real. It exists, we're posting on it. Do you need any help in seeing that?

Then we have Father Christmas and Humpty Dumpty. Do you think they're real? A very young child might but surely you and I don't have a problem with it. I hope not anyway!

It is unlikely that such a process would arrive at a definitive separation between fantasy and reality but is more likely to arrive at a statistical likelihood of one and not the other.

Now, do you see how you're thinking? You've left the simple, daily act of just seeing an obvious thing and gone off into complicated methods, processes, statistics, and all that. Why? Haven't you already created a problem?

Then one might label those things that have a strong likelihood of being real as 'truths' For example one might consider that the world around us is 'real' and not some virtual reality, and label this as 'true. This would provide stability to ones beliefs and avoid the distress of feeling lost.

Now you've got lost in some kind of imagination game! Why? Surely you see the distinction between the actual - the world around us - and what your thinking is doing?

Again, the fact is one thing but what we think about it is another. And whatever belief or opinion we might have, be it crazy or sane, doesn't change the fact one little bit. So why not stay with the fact? If it's raining, it's raining. That's all, leave it alone, you can't change it. It's exactly the same with some inner problem.

Say I'm lonely. Will I complicate it by running off into something escapist or just stay with it? Like the rain, leave it alone and you'll see what happens.

This would provide stability to ones beliefs and avoid the distress of feeling lost.

Would it? One is already lost because life is confusing and complex. That feeling doesn't exist because one lacks a belief. On the contrary, adding a belief only confuses things more because the belief is a refuge, an escape from feeling lost. And because it's an escape it can never give stability, it's always insecure, open to question, doubt, and so on.

So stay with the feeling of being lost. Like the rain, leave it alone and you'll see what happens. Same answer :-)

[A_Seagull]

One of the essential processes of philosophy is to examine and investigate normative assumptions, to see if they can stand up to scrutiny and to see whether they can be improved. For example the early presumption that the Earth is flat.

So too with the presumption of other normative presumptions including that of believing that the external world is real. Maybe something can be learnt....

[charon]

Seagull -

normative presumptions including that of believing that the external world is real

Where will you start? How will you distinguish between the real and the unreal?

I'd take something which we absolutely know is unreal, like a nightmare. We wake up sweating and begin to realise it was just a dream. While we were in the dream it was horrific but what we were dreaming about wasn't actually happening.

The moment we realise it was a dream and not real we're in touch with reality. Would you agree to that? The moment the realisation hits us that it was a dream and not real, that is reality.

You're saying we have to question things, especially things we tend to take for granted. Absolutely, but where will you start? With the external world or with oneself? We could start with this forum. You're reading this, it's on the screen in front of you.

You could start by wondering if any of this is real, if the person who wrote this is real, if you are real, if anything is real... does that go anywhere? Say you decide none of it is real. Is that real?

You see the point? Is any decision about reality real? Where does it end?

What I'm saying is that doubt and questioning is good but it must be sane, not insane. The insane can imagine anything, any crazy delusion their minds have cooked up, but it's all nonsense. The sane will see that, the insane won't.

So there IS such a thing as reality but only in the absence of delusion. But how does one discover one has delusions?

What do you say?

[A_Seagull]

Seagull -

normative presumptions including that of believing that the external world is real

Where will you start? How will you distinguish between the real and the unreal?

I'd take something which we absolutely know is unreal, like a nightmare. We wake up sweating and begin to realise it was just a dream. While we were in the dream it was horrific but what we were dreaming about wasn't actually happening.

The moment we realise it was a dream and not real we're in touch with reality. Would you agree to that? The moment the realisation hits us that it was a dream and not real, that is reality.

You're saying we have to question things, especially things we tend to take for granted. Absolutely, but where will you start? With the external world or with oneself? We could start with this forum. You're reading this, it's on the screen in front of you.

You could start by wondering if any of this is real, if the person who wrote this is real, if you are real, if anything is real... does that go anywhere? Say you decide none of it is real. Is that real?

You see the point? Is any decision about reality real? Where does it end?

What I'm saying is that doubt and questioning is good but it must be sane, not insane. The insane can imagine anything, any crazy delusion their minds have cooked up, but it's all nonsense. The sane will see that, the insane won't.

So there IS such a thing as reality but only in the absence of delusion. But how does one discover one has delusions?

What do you say?

Where will I start? Why, at the beginning of course!

The place to start is at the very beginning of the creation of an idea by the very first animal as it evolved from a plant.

Of course one can have no idea how it really started as that was so long ago.

But one can create a logical model of the situation. And I emphasise that this is a logical model.

For the model one supposes the existence of some form of logical processor. One can also presume the existence of some form of rudimentary senses which are able to translate data (perhaps from some exterior world) into symbols that can be processed by the logical processor.

The question then becomes.. What sort of algorithms can that logical processor run which can make sense of the data and ultimately form the basis for the creation of a model of the world?

[charon]

No, that's just an idea. Ideas aren't the answer.

[A_Seagull]

No, that's just an idea. Ideas aren't the answer.

Perhaps not, but as suggested in the OP: in philosophy, ideas are everything.

An atom is an idea, even reality is an idea. Without those ideas no one would have any idea (or knowledge) that they existed.

[charon]

An atom is an idea? Oh, lord.

[TheVat]

No, that's just an idea. Ideas aren't the answer.

Perhaps not, but as suggested in the OP: in philosophy, ideas are everything.

An atom is an idea, even reality is an idea. Without those ideas no one would have any idea (or knowledge) that they existed.

Isn't there a reality which exists independently of our ideas about it? A physicist at CERN isn't firing two beams of idea at each other. And science works so well (when you board a jet, or undergo medical procedure you seem to accept this) because it refines our perceptions of the regularities in that reality.
Few are interested in solipsism.

[charon]

Isn't there a reality which exists independently of our ideas about it?

That's what I've been trying to say several times now in various posts (not to you). The moon is there, it exists, but what we think about it - ideas, opinions, theories, judgements, poetry, anything we like - has nothing to do with it. The moon remains what it is and is unaffected by it.

The essential difference, of course, is that moon is actual whereas what we think is conceptual. Actually, nothing the mind creates is real, is it?