Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

>> Many people (me often among them) disagree that belief
>> is an act of will. 
>
> Then you and I simply do not mean the same things by the
> words 'believe' and 'belief'.
From a private email from him, it seems to me that the difference
may be in how he, you & I define "will"  and "conscious". I don't
want to speak for him, but I believe he holds Feudian-clinical
seperate defs of them, whereas I hold experiential overlapping defs.
Does that make sense?

> =============================================
>> Define "disordered", please. I know the Webster's
>> def. I'd like yours, please.
>
> Quite so. I know Tom does not say specifically that he
> considers your belief and mine to be disordered, but there
> does seem to be an implication that it is so.
From his email to me, I believe that the word "disordered" does not
connote for him the negative psychological assessment that it does
for me, but is more like the word "<progam>bug" for me.

I asked him to define "disordered" because I've seen people here
more than once disagree because they are using diff defs of a key
word. IIRC, the most recent was "conservative".

> Now if I were blind, I would not know the color of the
> screen. I would have to rely on/ put my trust in some
> one else. If several people told me different colors,
> I would have to decide [act of will] which person I
> considered most trustworthy. I would believe that person.
Interesting. I have the Australian film "Proof" enqueued to view
this week. It's supposedly about a blind artist and the conflicts
with the two people who help him.

Reply