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.



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.

[INDENT]-verb (used without object)[/INDENT]

1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
   
   -verb (used with object)
   
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
   
   
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
   
   
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation:The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
   
   
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
   
   -Verb phrase
   
6. believe in,
   
   1. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
      
   2. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
      
   
   
   -Idiom
   
7. make believe. make (def. 46).
   

I think your task would be easiest if one first looks up the word in an ordinary dictionary:

Funny that you mention this. Take a look at my blog.

Clear Language, Clear Mind Blog Archive Translating "x believe(s) in y" into "x believes that z"

Haha, that's interesting we were pondering about the same thing. And perhaps I need to do a table like that. I am very unclear as to what some of these "believe in"'s are claiming to be believed. For instance, what is "I believe in my country"? Surely the person saying this is not saying they believe the country exists. Perhaps they are saying they believe in some ideal? Perhaps that ideal is patriotism? But this isn't too clear. Maybe you can help me out.

It just seems to me some of these "believe in"'s may be meaningless (like a lot of mystical language), and if so, I'd like to find out which ones are.

I don't think the matter is worth pursuing. People who say these things probably hardly know what they mean themselves or don't really mean anything by it. However as you can see, I noted that the meaning is often unclear with abstract objects though I can find counter-examples too. ("I believe in abstract objects." means "I believe that abstract objects exist."). Maybe existence is generally meant when there is sufficient disagreement about whether the object of belief exists or not. I believe in (biological) evolution also means that I believe that evolution exists (though we use the word happens instead). Evolution is not the kind of thing that can be true/false, but evolutionary theory can be true/false.

In any case, any serious thinker will probably not write such unclear sentences and people that do write (or say) them are either not aware of their unclarity or were being careless with their language use or were trying to be unclear or something similar.

Haha, that's interesting we were pondering about the same thing. And perhaps I need to do a table like that. I am very unclear as to what some of these "believe in"'s mean (what beliefs they imply). For instance, what does "I believe in my country" translate to? Surely the person in question isn't saying they believe the country exists. Perhaps they are saying they believe in some ideal? Perhaps that ideal is patriotism? But this isn't too clear. Maybe you can help me out.

It just seems to me some of these "believe in"'s may be meaningless (like a lot of mystical language), and if so, I'd like to find out which ones are. Well, not specific examples, but maybe categories. You know, to try to flesh this out.

Alright.Now explain why.

If I already know what "believe" means, how does this help?

(Do not interpret this as me dismissing what you are saying. I am not. I am sincerely asking to explain why.)

The relationship between "believes" and "believes in" is pretty clear from a comparison of the various definitions. If we look at definition 1 of "believe", we can see that it involves the ambiguity of "believe in", as it says "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something". So that it could be about existence, or about something else, like reliability. "I believe Tom" is likely to be used to mean that I have confidence in the reliability of what Tom says, or what Tom does (or, if we wish to make it without an object, "I believe", said to Tom or about Tom, will have much the same meaning). This makes it very much like 6b, which deals with "believe in". Of course, "believe", by definition 1, may be about existence, which makes it very much like 6a, which deals with "believe in". In other words, there is not anything terribly special or unique that is added to the concept of "believe" by adding "in" after it. Definitions 2-5 add further support to this idea. Or to say the same thing in different words, "believe in" does not fundamentally alter the meaning of "believe".

The relationship between "believes" and "believes in" is pretty clear from a comparison of the various definitions. If we look at definition 1 of "believe", we can see that it involves the ambiguity of "believe in", as it says "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something". So that it could be about existence, or about something else, like reliability. "I believe Tom" is likely to be used to mean that I have confidence in the reliability of what Tom says, or what Tom does (or, if we wish to make it without an object, "I believe", said to Tom or about Tom, will have much the same meaning). This makes it very much like 6b, which deals with "believe in". Of course, "believe", by definition 1, may be about existence, which makes it very much like 6a, which deals with "believe in". In other words, there is not anything terribly special or unique that is added to the concept of "believe" by adding "in" after it. Definitions 2-5 add further support to this idea. Or to say the same thing in different words, "believe in" does not fundamentally alter the meaning of "believe".

People do know exactly what they are saying when they use I believe in versus I believe. If they did not know the difference they would not use them correctly. By correctly I mean in a lingusitically unmarked fashion that does not strike the average listener as awkward. ...

Your assumption is incorrect. Many years ago, I studied German in college. On a test, one of the parts required taking a German paragraph, and paraphrasing it in German. I was able to do this perfectly, as marked by the teacher. However, there were a few key words in it that I did not understand, but I knew that they were nouns or verbs or whatever, and so I was able to put them together in proper sentences, and was able to say some things about those words, because I understood the other words that were written about them. But I had no idea what the paragraph was about, and I never knew what it was about.

Rather interestingly, I regard the lesson I learned from that to be more important than learning the German words (though learning them would have been a good thing).

Likewise, someone may form sentences that are grammatically correct in their native language, but without any clear understanding of what it is that they are saying. Or they may, as it used to be said, simply parrot sentences that they have heard before, without any understanding at all.

The ability to put together proper sentences is not the same as understanding them, and it is a mistake to confuse these two ideas. In practice, one can find out that someone does not understand what they are saying if questioned about it and they are not able to explain what they mean. And if one does that, one can find that it is far from rare for someone to be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence that they themselves fail to understand.

Pyrrho;132066 wrote:

The relationship between "believes" and "believes in" is pretty clear from a comparison of the various definitions. If we look at definition 1 of "believe", we can see that it involves the ambiguity of "believe in", as it says "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something". So that it could be about existence, or about something else, like reliability. "I believe Tom" is likely to be used to mean that I have confidence in the reliability of what Tom says, or what Tom does (or, if we wish to make it without an object, "I believe", said to Tom or about Tom, will have much the same meaning). This makes it very much like 6b, which deals with "believe in". Of course, "believe", by definition 1, may be about existence, which makes it very much like 6a, which deals with "believe in". In other words, there is not anything terribly special or unique that is added to the concept of "believe" by adding "in" after it. Definitions 2-5 add further support to this idea. Or to say the same thing in different words, "believe in" does not fundamentally alter the meaning of "believe".

I think this is correct. I convoluted the matter. I think I should stop now before I attract a shitshow.

Sorry everyone.

Your assumption is incorrect. Many years ago, I studied German in college. On a test, one of the parts required taking a German paragraph, and paraphrasing it in German. I was able to do this perfectly, as marked by the teacher. However, there were a few key words in it that I did not understand, but I knew that they were nouns or verbs or whatever, and so I was able to put them together in proper sentences, and was able to say some things about those words, because I understood the other words that were written about them. But I had no idea what the paragraph was about, and I never knew what it was about.

Rather interestingly, I regard the lesson I learned from that to be more important than learning the German words (though learning them would have been a good thing).

Likewise, someone may form sentences that are grammatically correct in their native language, but without any clear understanding of what it is that they are saying. Or they may, as it used to be said, simply parrot sentences that they have heard before, without any understanding at all.

The ability to put together proper sentences is not the same as understanding them, and it is a mistake to confuse these two ideas. In practice, one can find out that someone does not understand what they are saying if questioned about it and they are not able to explain what they mean. And if one does that, one can find that it is far from rare for someone to be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence that they themselves fail to understand.

Pyrrho;132073 wrote:

Your assumption is incorrect. Many years ago, I studied German in college. On a test, one of the parts required taking a German paragraph, and paraphrasing it in German. I was able to do this perfectly, as marked by the teacher. However, there were a few key words in it that I did not understand, but I knew that they were nouns or verbs or whatever, and so I was able to put them together in proper sentences, and was able to say some things about those words, because I understood the other words that were written about them. But I had no idea what the paragraph was about, and I never knew what it was about.

Rather interestingly, I regard the lesson I learned from that to be more important than learning the German words (though learning them would have been a good thing).

Likewise, someone may form sentences that are grammatically correct in their native language, but without any clear understanding of what it is that they are saying. Or they may, as it used to be said, simply parrot sentences that they have heard before, without any understanding at all.

The ability to put together proper sentences is not the same as understanding them, and it is a mistake to confuse these two ideas. In practice, one can find out that someone does not understand what they are saying if questioned about it and they are not able to explain what they mean. And if one does that, one can find that it is far from rare for someone to be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence that they themselves fail to understand.

Chinese Room Argument [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

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.

As "money" is uncountable, you've sneaked in a plural, so there isn't a genuine comparison here.