Suppose you believe Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but everyone else in the room disagrees with you. You try to persuade them of your view, but they still disagree, although they provide no contrary evidence. You see no reason to change your view. So you cannot build a consensus. At the end, do you:

(a) believe Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

(b) believe it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

Is it possible to believe (a) without believing (b)?

Since Quito is in fact the capital of Ecuador, you know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. You also know that everyone else in the room is wrong.

Only in the philosophical mode does one "believe" that it is true that Quito, etc..

Suppose you believe Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but everyone else in the room disagrees with you. You try to persuade them of your view, but they still disagree, although they provide no contrary evidence. You see no reason to change your view. So you cannot build a consensus. At the end, do you:

(a) believe Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

(b) believe it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

Is it possible to believe (a) without believing (b)?

Indeed. To believe that p is equivalent to believing that p is true. If you did not believe that p was true, you would not believe that p in the first place. Of course, that is different from believing that p, and also believing that you may be mistaken. If I did not think I might be mistaken when I believed that p, I would not have used the term "believe", I would have used the term, "know".

And then some people move from "know" to "believe". The first time it happened to me was when I was bloodied by the stock market, 35 years ago. As I grew older, I became less sure about things, and this has been very helpful to me throughout my life. Actually, I made much more money being a skeptic than being sure. Interesting, isn't it?

Rich

I think it is a good policy to claim to know, only when you know, and to believe, only when you believe.

So, yes, there are such things as general consensus, which may or may not change over time. However, immutable Truths (which is generally what philosophers like to debate about) - I think not.

You say that there are no "Truths", but only context-bound, historically determined consensuses.

This is an ahistorical, immutable claim.

In other words, your stance in internally incoherent.

My policy is to believe, and when I am sure about something, to remember all the times I was wrong when I was **** sure I was right (mostly when I was younger, and wasn't bloodied enough to learn this lesson) - and then be satisfied with believing. Hey, we have different approaches to life!

Rich

I suppose so. But that doesn't have much to do with epistemology, does it? We know things, and we believe things, and we can very often tell which is which.

Yes, I understand your perspective. Do you understand mine?

Rich

Understanding is one thing. But agreeing is another thing. And the first does not imply the second.

Great. As long as you understand my point of view, I am happy. And I understand yours. I am not looking for agreement. I am fine with disagreement.

Rich

What you call Truth, I call consensus building.

2=2=4, only so long as we agree on the number system we are using. If I disagree, then 2=2=?.

Quito is the capital of Equador as proclaimed by the government. And we agree to accept the government's representation. However, if someone in Equador, or elsewhere, does not accept the government as legitimate (e.g., an Inca of deep roots), who am I to say no. You want to force that person into accepting your Truth, go right ahead and try. That is how wars begin.

What is the shape of the Earth? What is the Truth?

Rich

In other words, I can think it true this church was built by "God" and this alone will create no problems. However, if I were to castrate you because of this truth, we'd have another story on our hands.

Don't attempt to redefine the word "truth" in order to save yourself from your imagined persecution.

We call 2+2=4, true.
We call Quito is the capital of Equador, true.

Yes, it requires intersubjective consensus, and agreement upon things is imperative to have a functioning society. I don't know why you've come to attach this stigma to the word "truth", but you must be confused - it's the actions in the name of the truth you're referring to.

In other words, I can think it true this church was built by "God" and this alone will create no problems. However, if I were to castrate you because of this truth, we'd have another story on our hands.

Hi there,



I agree. You can think and believe anything you want. You can believe it is True or Not True. You can know it is True or Not True. These, I believe, are examples of Free Will in action. However, if you try to impose your Truths upon me, by force or otherwise (maybe threaten some poor student with a D grade), then you are imposing upon my Free Will, and we have conflict. Are you trying to create conflict or are you simply stating your point of view? I am OK with either, since I believe consensus is what we seek, but conflict is inevitable in evolution. Note, this is what I believe, and is subject to change as I grow older and gain more awareness.

Rich

If I am a teacher, and I give a test on South American capitals, and if I ask a question like "What is the capital of Ecuador" and I get the wrong answer, then, of course, I am going to take points off for the wrong answer. And, if the student answers a lot of the questions wrongly, then guess what? I will give him a D, or even an F. What would you expect? How is that imposing on his free will? It was his free will to take the exam, and take the course.

What, on Earth, are you talking about? I hope you are not serious. No wonder people disrespect philosophy.

Shaping consensus, is one of the things people do. For me, it has nothing to do whether it is true or not.

I've had this happen to many, many times in school. Sometimes I decide to go along with the teacher and sometimes I stand by what I think and get a reduced grade. Once, I even showed a teacher, from his own textbook, that his answer was contradicted, and he still reduced my grade. Life is like that. BTW, I remember such an incident in philosophy. I do have things that I believe in, and sometimes it is worthwhile for me to state them and sometimes not. However, unlike others, I don't necessarily believe they are true (many times in my life I have been surprised by new knowledge), nor do I insist that others believe that what I say is True. Just my own way of living, which is what philosophy is all about for me.

I think philosophy gets a bad rep from philosophers and teachers who say that they are encouraging thoughts about Life, while insisting that others accept their truths. Seems strange, but again that is life.

Rich

Once, I even showed a teacher, from his own textbook, that his answer was contradicted, and he still reduced my grade.

So, apparently you do think there are truths, and you know them. For you thought your answer (and the book's) was true, and your teacher's not true. (You weren't trying to impose "your" truth on that poor teacher, were you?)

Don't attempt to redefine the word "truth" in order to save yourself from your imagined persecution.

We call 2+2=4, true.
We call Quito is the capital of Equador, true.

Yes, it requires intersubjective consensus, and agreement upon things is imperative to have a functioning society. I don't know why you've come to attach this stigma to the word "truth", but you must be confused - it's the actions in the name of the truth you're referring to.

In other words, I can think it true this church was built by "God" and this alone will create no problems. However, if I were to castrate you because of this truth, we'd have another story on our hands.

Yep, I wanted my A. But at other times, I didn't care about my A, I just wanted to write what I thought. Both of these things happen to me all the time in Life. For me, Life is not just one way. I experiment with different ways.

Rich

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------