Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Do you believe in?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Do you believe *in*?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

To believe in. A very peculiar combination of words that convey a different meaning depending on the thing believed in.

Let's start with a few examples of believing in:

A.) I believe in God.
B.) I believe in Santa.
C.) I believe in my country.
D.) I believe in Tim.
E.) I believe in love.
F.) I believe in evolution.
G.) I believe in string theory.
H.) I believe in good handwriting.
I.) I believe in having turkey on Thanksgiving.

Generally, if someone says (A), they mean, "I believe God exists". But if someone says (C) or (D), existence is already implied. No one would mean, "I believe Tim exists" by "I believe in Tim". That is because when we say things like "I believe in Tim" or "I believe in my country" we are commenting on feelings or thought (sometimes wishful) we have for things already in existence. We would probably mean that we think Tim will succeed in something, or that we have pride in our country. And, it should be noted that these particular instances of I believe in would make no sense if the things in question didn't already exist.

With (E) we approach a mix. I think if someone says (E), they may not only mean that they believe love exists, but that love is something worth seeking. The romantic may even mean that love is "all that is worth living for"!

With examples like (F), we mean that we believe X is true. And we commonly see this with all sorts of "isms". (G) seems to be a tad different, as things of this nature aren't as conclusive and sometimes are not conclusive at all. The person may mean that they think string theory is headed in the right direction, or that they have faith that string theory will be the next great vehicle for scientific advancement. This seems oddly similar to (D).

(H) seems to be about right thinking. I could imagine a parent saying this, and then demonstrating the correct way to write in cursive to a child. It seems similar to things like (I), involving tradition. It may be the accepted way to do things in that particular household, and/or something that may have been passed down generations. It probably is customary.

Now, one of the points I'd like to bring up is that when we say most of these things, it is often unclear what we are actually purporting we believe. I think it's possible, in some of these cases, that we may not mean that we actually believe anything when we say we believe in. We may just be voicing a feeling that we have for something.

I also find it interesting those things we never use "I believe in" with, constrasted with those things we would use "I believe in" with. We would never say things like, "I believe in car", or "I believe in sun", or "I believe in computer". But we would say, "I believe in money". Most strange.

@Zetherin,

Some of these cases you present are actually just bad grammar. Where belief is usually used in a context of stating a true or false claim. So the word gets reduced a bit when used just as a positive affirmation instead. Perhaps this started as a way to add additional weight to the statement. Like saying you believe in love, is not to conclude it as a true thing but instead that it's existence implies something even more positive or true. You could have easily seen what I mean, by using the inverse of "I believe in love." What if I said, "I don't believe in love." Would a person focus on the part of belief being a true or false claim or would they immediately focus on the negative affirmation of the statement?

Long explanation short, belief is often used where a better word would probably be better suited. What would be a better word? Depends on the context and meaning behind the statement. In some cases there might not be a better word and that is why belief is used instead.

I have never heard anyone say, "I believe in good handwriting." That one kind of threw me for a loop since it is such a bad sentence.

@Krumple,

First of all when speaking of practical usage, claiming something is ungrammatical is pointless. Prescriptive grammar is not in the slightest bit useful when discussing practical usage because it imposes an artificial structure onto a system for which it is not built.

In all of these cases, believe are mitigated by the position morpheme (in). Positions are not simply physical references or even metaphors to physical references. They serve the grammatical purpose of positioning in time, space, definiteness, or even function within an abstract system. This is especially so when they are used as pariticles forming phrasal verbs. When a position is used systemically with a verb it no longer functions as a real position it is actually part of the verb and in the case of (believe in) it serves the sense defenition (believe in the function of/worth of).

When talking about beliving in god or santa, its is really not so much talking about the existence of but the function of there being an extant god or santa. Normally if someone is actually refering to existence of either of these two personages they refer directly to the existence as in I believe god exists. Or I believe santa lives at the north pole. All the rest of the examples given fall more firmly in (I belive in the function of). Note also that one never hears I believe in X.... followed by other subordinate clauses unlike the phrase I believe that ..... which requires them. This is because phrasal verbs are their own grammatical phrases and are necessarily encapsuled by the full thought of (I believe in the functional worth of god) The phrasal verb often implies a whole description socioculturally. Such as the example (I believe in Turky for Thanksgiving). the socio cultural connotation for this is (I believe in the functional worth that having Turkey for Thanksgiving gives a family), often with ovetones of nostalgia,tradition, and patriotism.

I should stop because I'm rambling.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;131845 wrote:

I also find it interesting those things we never use "I believe in" with, constrasted with those things we would use "I believe in" with. We would never say things like, "I believe in car", or "I believe in sun", or "I believe in computer". But we would say, "I believe in money". Most strange.

I suppose the difference is that money is purely symbolic. A dollar is really just a piece of paper with special ink on it after all. For me, to say "I believe in money", is to say I think the symbolism is meaningful or practical. Some would rather cut out the middle man and go back to bartering or a gold standard, where the thing in possession is what holds value.

Then you still run into an issue because value is much more symbolic than it used to be. If you are trading for food, water, shelter, etc... then it is directly correlated to a need. Trading money for an internet connection is so much more symbolic. It would be interesting if there was ever a world without money... Star Trek daydream anyone?... sigh...

@Zetherin,

Krumple wrote:

What if I said, "I don't believe in love." Would a person focus on the part of belief being a true or false claim or would they immediately focus on the negative affirmation of the statement?

It would have to be clarified just what about love they believe, wouldn't it? That's a point I brought up - discerning which beliefs are actually being purported when we say we believe in.

Quote:

have never heard anyone say, "I believe in good handwriting." That one kind of threw me for a loop since it is such a bad sentence.

Oh, my mother actually said it to me once. She just meant that she believed that people should value good handwriting.

Goshisdead wrote:

In all of these cases, believe are mitigated by the position morpheme (in

Do you mean "beliefs are mitigated"? What do you mean by that? Which beliefs are mitigated? If you could, give me an example of a "Believe in X", and which beliefs related to that example are being mitigated. Thanks.

Quote:

When talking about beliving in god or santa, its is really not so much talking about the existence of but the function of there being an extant god or santa. Normally if someone is actually refering to existence of either of these two personages they refer directly to the existence as in I believe god exists.

Hm. I always thought that people said, "I believe in God" to mean "I believe God exists".

Quote:

This is because phrasal verbs are their own grammatical phrases and are necessarily encapsuled by the full thought of (I believe in the functional worth of god)

This sounds interesting. Can you expound on this please?

Scottydamion wrote:

I suppose the difference is that money is purely symbolic. A dollar is really just a piece of paper with special ink on it after all. For me, to say "I believe in money", is to say I think the symbolism is meaningful or practical. Some would rather cut out the middle man and go back to bartering or a gold standard, where the thing in possession is what holds value.

Right, people would be using "money" figuratively there, as a symbol for something else. Someone may mean by "I believe in money", that they advocate good work ethic, for instance. We really would have to go through each particular example. Interesting stuff.

@Zetherin,

Zeth:
I just didn't write clearly that the word believe in your examples are mitigated by the particle (position) in. It modifies the verb to believe into the verb to bekieve int he functional worth of.

Phrasal verbs are in general necessarily definite which limites its grammatical ability to recursive sentence structure. So (I believe in God) is different than (I believe in a god). I believe in God, does not lend itself naturally to a modifying recursive phrase about God or God's functional worth. So you can't really say (I believe in God, that helps his people) but you can say either (I believe in a god that is up above) or (I believe in God, which makes me feel special.)

By making the object (God) indefinite one breaks the necessary notional encapsulation by allowing for the possibility of several gods, a choice of gods, or implying a direct attribute of God. By using (which) as a recusive clause marker one is adding a clause that is not directly modifying the previous clause, one is stating that the previous clause is the cause of the current clause.

Also when saying (I believe in God) it implies an encapsulated notion of a specific god either personally or socioculturally pre-defined. This pre-defenition places the concept of god in that sentence within the parameters of location in a system or functional worth within a system/ideology. To say I believe in God or I do not believe in God is actually saying I believe in the fnctional worth of the God which is common to my ideology within the system I subscribe to. It must be so because of its definiteness. The actual debate about existence of will either directly refer to existence or use an indefinite to show that there is no personal or sociocultural bias towards that which is being debated.

Granted the question (do you believe in God) is a question of existence, but its is further a question of ideals, ideology, sociocultural class etc... which is actually asking about the functional worht of the belief in (X) God within the sociocultural system.

@Zetherin,

Quote:

-Verb phrase
6. believe in,

to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.

to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

Believe | Define Believe at Dictionary.com

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;131963 wrote:

-Verb phrase
6. believe in,

to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.

to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

cheater

Go take your dictionary to English class! This is philosophy damnit!

@Scottydamion,

Scotty:
I've written dictionaries and grammars for languages that have never before been documented, ground up sort of stuff. Believe me dictionaries are of very limited use when it comes to comprehending proper usage within the language as it is actually spoken.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;131968 wrote:

Scotty:
I've written dictionaries and grammars for languages that have never before been documented, ground up sort of stuff. Believe me dictionaries are of very limited use when it comes to comprehending proper usage within the language as it is actually spoken.

1. It was a joke
2. I've been around long enough to know that
3. Lighten up, sometimes a joke means more than an explicit statement Razz

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;131966 wrote:

cheater Go take your dictionary to English class! This is philosophy damnit!

Many of the so-called discussions of philosophy on forums would be cleared up immediately if people would take the little time and trouble to look up the relevant words in an ordinary dictionary.

What is more sad, however, are those threads in which someone has taken the trouble to explain which definition is being used, and then the respondents ignore that and then use the word differently, pretending that that somehow makes the original poster wrong. Of course, what they are doing is equivocating in such cases, and not showing that the original poster was wrong.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;131972 wrote:

Many of the so-called discussions of philosophy on forums would be cleared up immediately if people would take the little time and trouble to look up the relevant words in an ordinary dictionary.

What is more sad, however, are those threads in which someone has taken the trouble to explain which definition is being used, and then the respondents ignore that and then use the word differently, pretending that that somehow makes the original poster wrong. Of course, what they are doing is equivocating in such cases, and not showing that the original poster was wrong.

Ah, so you think the initial post is cleared up by that definition?

Did you read my question on how does believe in correspond to believe? It is often hard to know which beliefs are being purported when believe in is used. That is one thing I'm interested in.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;131977 wrote:

Ah, so you think the initial post is cleared up by that definition?

Did you read my question on how does believe in correspond to believe? It is often hard to know which beliefs are being purported when believe in is used. That is one thing I'm interested in.

Well sometimes a definition is cleared up by adding a few more words. Some words are just vaguely defined and people personalize certain meanings and assume everyone adopts their meaning. You can try to make things more clear with some additional word usage but at the same time, you can also make it more complicated or washed out.

I've seen people try to define a particular belief using definitions that contradict, as if they never checked to see if it is even possible for these two traits to be present in such a thing. They just take what they want and jumble it all together because that is what they want it to be.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;131977 wrote:

Ah, so you think the initial post is cleared up by that definition?

Did you read my question on how does believe in correspond to believe? It is often hard to know which beliefs are being purported when believe in is used. That is one thing I'm interested in.

Yes, it is often not clear which meaning the person is using when saying "believe in", but this is simply a function of the fact that the phrase has more than one legitimate meaning. And in the case of 6b, there are a variety of possibilities left open.

As for the phrases "I believe in cars", "I believe in computers", etc., (a slight modification of your sentences "I believe in car" and "I believe in computer"), one can easily imagine a possible meaning of such statements when the things were new inventions, as the first might mean that one believes that the future of transportation would involve cars, and with the second, one might believe that computers would be involved in a variety of tasks in the future (relative to the time it was uttered). We normally would not say such things now, just as we would not normally say that we expect that cars will be commonly used for transportation during the next year, as it is now too obvious for most of us to bother saying.

As for language mishaps, I have found them common with certain words in philosophy forums, like when the word "faith" occurs, as it has some similar things going on with it as "believe in", which can be easily seen by looking up the word in an ordinary dictionary. And yet people often do not take such a simple and easy way, and instead end up in garbled disputes whose main characteristic is equivocation rather than accomplishing anything. And the difficulties are then often wrongly attributed to it being some complicated philosophical idea, rather than the fact that people do not pay proper attention to the use of words.

I hope you are not mistaking my meaning in all of this, as I do not regard you as being someone who is particularly guilty of this sort of thing, at least from the posts of yours I have read. It is a common problem, though, and it degrades the level of discussion that could otherwise occur.

In fact, I can go further, and say that your opening post seems to me to be an attempt at clarification, noting that the phrase does have more than one meaning. This is definitely a step in the right direction, though I think you would have found your task easier if you had looked it up in a dictionary.

@Zetherin,

Pyrrho wrote:

In fact, I can go further, and say that your opening post seems to me to be an attempt at clarification, noting that the phrase does have more than one meaning. This is definitely a step in the right direction, though I think you would have found your task easier if you had looked it up in a dictionary.

It may be that my task is unclear. I am seeking the connection between believe in and believe. The point of the thread was not merely to note that the phrase has more than one meaning, though I do find that interesting.

Quote:

It is a common problem, though, and it degrades the level of discussion that could otherwise occur.

No, I agree. I don't think I have a clear mind, so I am not providing you clear language in regards to what my intentions were. So, I'll stop here and regroup with you a little later once I flesh some of this out.

@Zetherin,

YouTube - How to Succeed: I Believe in You

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132012 wrote:

YouTube - How to Succeed: I Believe in You

What does this have to do with anything?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;132013 wrote:

What does this have to do with anything?

Have you watched it, and listened to it?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132015 wrote:

Have you watched it, and listened to it?

As much as I could bear.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;132018 wrote:

As much as I could bear.

Sorry. It's funny, and, I think, gives another perspective on "believing in". It is a very fine musical. And entirely enjoyable. The film is available on Netflix, and is really worth watching.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Do you believe *in*?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Do you believe in?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Philosophy Forum

Do you believe *in*?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Do you believe in?