Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 12:42 , tomhchappell wrote:

[snip]

>> Greek, for a start.
>> _pistis_ (noun) = trust [in another person], good faith,
> trustworthiness,
>> assurance, confidence.
>> _pisteuein_ = to trust, rely on, put faith in, believe.
>
> Thanks, Ray.
> I had heard that "Hagia Pistia" (="Holy Faith") is/was supposed to be
> the name of the Angel who was assigned the task of placing the
> Serpent in the Garden of Eden.  But I didn't know about the "trust"
> angle in Greek.
I have not heard of Hagia Pistia before. Personally, I doubt that it is an
official part of Greek Orthodox belief - but I leave that to Orthodox
members of the list to comment on if they so wish.

The Classical Greek noun is _pistis_ (gen. _pisteo:s) = trust, faith;
credit [in commercial sense]; assurance, guarantee. etc.

*pistia is not attested in the ancient language, tho we do find:
1. Pistios Zeus = Iuppiter Fidius
2. (to) pistion (neit.) = (the) certified copy

The Latin 'Fidius' is found only as an epithet of Jupiter and of Hercules.
  It is not a normal adjective.

> Other contributors also had variations of "believe"'s "semantic
> spread" (I'm not sure what the technical term really is) in other
> languages, not all related to the "trust/faith" pair.  I thank them
> as well.
Yes, as someone said, the word which corresponds most closely to English
'believe' is not likely to map exactly to that word in a different
language. For example, the French word for 'believe' is _croire_ (<-- cre:
dere); but even my limited knowledge of French knows that _croire_ is used
in certain contexts where in English we just say 'think'. It is fairly
obvious that _penser_ and _croire_ do not map one-to-one to English 'think'
  and 'believe' respectively.

>> [snip]
>
>> I can see the color of the screen. That is not a matter of belief -
> it is
>> a matter of knowledge.
>
> What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
Quite a bit IMO. I _know_ the roses in my garden are flowering because I
can see them & touch them. I have direct experience of them. If I said "I
believe the roses in my garden are flowering" it would imply some degree
of uncertainty: I don't know for sure, but the evidence points that way.

Belief to me means I _trust_ other sources of evidence, because I do not
have direct, uncontrovertible evidence.

> In particular;  If Person A thinks Person B "believes" statement S,
In other words, Person A believes Person B believes statement S - Person A
does not know this for sure.

> but Person B thinks Person B "knows" statement S,
Like I think I know the roses in my garden are in bloom? That only really
makes sense if you consider that my experience of my garden is - or may be
- illusory.

> does it make sense
> for Person A to "command" Person B to believe statement "not S"?
You mean, does it make sense for a neighbor to command me to believe my
roses are not in bloom? Of course not. I would consider my neighbor was
mentally unhinged.

>> [snip]
>
>> decide [act of will]
>
> Here you bring up a facet of what I have been trying to get at,
> although perhaps I have not been as clear as I, or maybe you, could
> wish.
> In "deciding", to what degree, and at what "points" along the "path"
> to decision, is the "will" involved?
I understand by 'will' basically the definition given by my dictionary:
"the power or faculty of choosing or determining."

Does not 'to decide' mean much the same as 'to determine'? I fail to see
how I can make a decision without recourse to my power or faculty of
choosing or determining. Even if, in a given circumstance, I may leave it
to a toss of a coin to 'make the decision', I have surely used my power or
faculty of choosing or determining to decide that:
(a) the evidence either way is evenly balanced;
(b) the outcome is not so serious that it cannot be left to chance;
(b) I will to leave the 'decision' to chance.


> *******************************************
> *******************************************
> **   Herewith follow the                 **
> **   possibly Off-Topic                  **
> **   parts of our conversation:          **
> *******************************************
> *******************************************
You guys have been warned  ;)

BTW some of the following infringes our "no cross, no crown" convention. I
apologize, but as Tom has posted this to the list, I would like to make my
own position clear.

> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
[snip]
>> And any such ban
>> on teaching about an afterlife would be dictatorial &
>> contrary to freedom
>> of speech.
>
> Cases before the U.S. Supreme Court often involve balancing (that is,
> choosing between) rights guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, the
> first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  These cases
> frequently involve conflicts in which one such right can be upheld
> only if another is withheld (in that particular case).
Of course - that presumably is one reason for having a Supreme Court. But
it is difficult to see how a ban on teaching about the after-life is a
right guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights. Such bans have been
characteristic of regimes that officially espouse and dictatorally promote
dialectic materialism.

[snip]
> I just thought that one reasonable response to the hijackings of
> September 11, 2001, and the kami-kaze attacks on buildings with
> thousands of occupants using airliners with dozens of unwilling
> passengers, would be, "Well, this is just the natural result of any
> philosophy that teaches that there is a heaven!"
Sorry - I see nothing reasonable in such an illogical response. If it were
the 'natural' result of a belief in heaven, then the population of the
earth would long ago have been much reduced and there would be no tall
buildings anywhere.

My own belief system teaches that there is a heaven; it also teaches that
murder (deliberate killing of innocent people) does not merit heaven, nor
does intentional suicide.  A more enlightened reaction might be to enforce
teachings that murder and suicide are sinful.

If these people had held my beliefs about the afterlife, they simply would
not and indeed could not have carried out such wicked acts.

> The OTL U.S. of America is the most religious nation in the modern
> West *here*.
Is it? To many outside of the US, the USA appears grossly materialistic
and hedonistic. Such religion as does exist appears to many as a shallow,
sentimental veneer.

I hasten to add that I think such views suffer the same deficiencies as
all generalizations. I know that some US members of this list do hold deep
& sincerely held religious beliefs, which I respect.

But in any case it is IMO irrelevant. Human beings have been persuaded to
commit mass-murder without any belief in heaven or an afterlife. One just
has to recall the mass-murder of Jews, Gypsies and others in the Nazi
gas-chambers; the mass killings under Stalin (who caused far more to be
murdered than Hitler did) and Pol-Pot inter_alia.

And throughout the millennia charismatic leaders have been able to
persuade the gullible to give their lives for them. It's called fanaticism.
  If religion can be added to the fanaticizing cocktail, it certainly helps
- but it ain't necessary. One has only to recall the fanaticism of those
young defenders of Berlin in its last days before its capture by the Red
Army. Any normal person knew the city was doomed. People wanted to quit
fighting and move out - but those fanatics were prepared to shoot their
own countrymen who would not stay and fight to the death with them. Heaven
had *nothing* to do with it!

[snip]
> all agree that it was O.K. to limit the freedom of some aliens who
> weren't in the country yet, to limit their freedom to recruit more
> people to such a philosophy as might make them willing to commit such
> acts as those of September 11 2001.
But that is very different matter - tho one would expect the limitation in
freedom to apply not just to aliens but to _anyone_ preaching a philosophy
that both justified & encouraged mass murder. Certainly this side of the
Pond proselytizing to recruit people to commit acts of mass-murder is
contrary to the law.

For goodness sake - forget religion or political ideology - by far the
easiest way to stir up people to massacre another group of humans is to
play the race card, especially if you add a good mixture of "fear of the
other" to it.

"Fear of the other" is IMO the main cause of 9/11. Some fanatics have
managed to convince others that the capitalist & materialist west, and
especially the US, is out to destroy their civilization and way of life.
That in this case the fanatics have been able to add religion to the mix
is a bonus for them.

A rather more enlightened response to 9/11 would surely be an effort by
the US to do its utmost to remove the causes for the "fear of the other" -
to make it clear that it does not have world conquest in mind.

I taught for fourteen years in a very multi-cultural environment and I can
assure you that in several parts of the world there is a real perception
that the US wants to rule the world. What has been done since 9/11 to
reassure such people that the US does not have this ambition?

Let me make it clear, that I have visited the US several times & have
friends there. I support the ideals of its Founding Fathers and believe
the western world has much to thank the US for in its support during and
after WWII. Basically, I am pro-American - but I do get dismayed at the
actions its leaders at times.

[snip]
> Do you remember a story, set before World War I in German-speaking
> Central Europe, in which the angel Hagia Pistia rescued a young boy
> named Adi, who had wandered off into the woods while ill?
Never heard the story before.

> The boy
> recognized the angel's name, and knew that Hagia Pistia had been the
> one who placed the Serpent in the Garden.
I am also rather surprised that a young Austrian lad would know the Greek
name.

> "Yes, I did", said the
> angel, "but I was only following orders."
Umm - the craven excuse given millions upon millions of times over the
millennia by those who will not accept responsibility for their own
actions.

>  And then the angel led Adi back to the Schiklgruber household.
I see. I thought the family named had been changed _before_ young Adolf's
birth in 1889. I don't know where the story has come from or what it is
supposed to teach. That Hitler was the 'second serpent'??????

In any case, I don't see much relevance to "Are commands to believe
infelicitous?"

[snip]

> Is "act of will" incorporated as part of the definiens in your
> definition of "believe" and "belief"?  Or is it something you deduce
> from what is so incorporated?
To believe:
verb transitive: "to regard as true: to accept as true what is said by: to
suppose (followed by a noun clause);"
verb intransitive: "to be firmly persuaded: to have faith (with _in_, _on_)
: to judge;"
[Definitions given by Chambers English Dictionary]

[snip]
>>>> Look at this screen:  What color do you see it?  Now will it
>>>> otherwise; Does it change color?
>>
>> Why should I will the screen to change color!!!!! That is silly.
>
> This is dodging the question.
> The question is not why you should will the screen to change color;
> the question is whether willing it can make it change.
Obviously not. That's precisely the reason I asked why I should will the
screen color to change. I maintain that a command to will is, under normal
circumstances, infelicitous

[snip]
> So, the three of us, at least -- Ray Brown, Joseph Bridwell, and Tom
> Chappell -- are in a three-way disagreement here.
> Joseph B. thinks there may be good reasons to will one's perception
> of color to change, and that it is possible.
> Tom C. thinks there may not be any good reasons to will one's
> perception of color to change, and that it should not be possible
> for "healthy" persons.
> Ray B. thinks there are probably no good reasons to will one's
> perception of color to change,
Leave out the 'probably', please. I leave it Joseph to say whether you
have understood him or not.

> and that therefore it is uninteresting to ask or answer the question of
> whether or under what circumstances it is possible.
'uninteresting' is not the adjective I would use. It might from a clinical
point of view be quite interesting to investigate under what circumstances
some people can will a VDU to change color. Obviously someone under
hypnosis can be made to 'see' a blue screen as red, orange or whatever.
Also I know very well from the last few months my father's life how
powerful & seemingly real hallucination can be.

>> I can see the color of the screen. That is not a matter of belief -
> it is
>> a matter of knowledge.
>
> What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
> In particular;  If Person A thinks Person B "believes" statement S,
> but Person B thinks Person B "knows" statement S, does it make sense
> for Person A to "command" Person B to believe statement "not S"?
See the answers above regarding the roses in my garden.

> I know the partial definition of "know" that starts
> off "epistemology".  I know that "epistemology" starts out with
[etc snipped]

This reminds me - maybe it should not - of the logic-chopping of the
ancient sophists that Aristophanes mocks in his play, The Clouds.

I joined this list to discuss linguistic matters, especially regarding
constructed languages. If I wished to discuss epistemology, skepticism,
'What is knowledge' etc, I would have joined a different list.

I got drawn into thread because I replied on linguistic grounds, and quite
frankly I would rather get back to those.

[snip]
>>
>> Now if I were blind, I would not know the color of the screen.
>
>> I would have to
>
> If you "would have to", would it be a matter of your will?
"would", as I have explained to you in a private email, is _conditional_.
IF I _determimed_ [act of will] to discover the color of the screen, I
would have to ask the someone who could see te screen.

>> rely on/ put my trust in some one else. If several people told me
>> different colors,
>
>> I would have to
>
> Sim: If you "have to", how much willingness is involved?
I have a choice either to remain agnostic about the color, or I may _will_
to form an opinion of my own in which case I would have to weigh up the
evidence and _decide_ on which evidence I could place most reliance.

>
>> decide [act of will]
>
> Here you bring up a facet of what I have been trying to get at,
> although perhaps I have not been as clear as I, or maybe you, could
> wish.
> In "deciding", to what degree, and at what "points" along the "path"
> to decision, is the "will" involved?
will = the power or faculty of choosing or determining.  [see above]

>> which person I
>> considered most trustworthy. I would believe that person.
>
> I might not believe anybody.
As I said, I could choose to remain agnostic on the matter.

[snip]
> Thanks, very much, for writing, Ray, Joseph, and everybody.
OK - but I suggest any further mail in this thread between us three would
be better off-list.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply