Not sure how accurate these reports are from the media. But we keep seeing the similar reports more often recently than any other time in the past.

I do agree with your point. All the information I read or hear about other countries are totally via media reports. But why should I trust them? There is no foundation to say that what they report are 100% true. I don't even trust what they report about where I am.

But these are some recent reports on Australia from the media. I am not sure if it is true or not. My belief are formed vaguely with the reports but my reason says, where is the evidence?

When I hear or see something without concrete evidence for knowledge, beliefs are formed in the mind by intuitions.  Therefore the origin of beliefs is perception aided by autonomous intuition. I don't need anything else such as claims / acceptance in between the process in most cases.

For the country USA,  it is an impossible place to understand from outside of the country.  I wonder if I lived in the USA, maybe I could understand and form a more accurate belief about the country.

  One minute I hear something about the USA, and my belief is formed about it.  But then I also hear about something totally different or see something opposite to what I heard or seen in the media.  Maybe it is such a large area with many states having all sorts of different people, environments and situations?

For example, I hear / read about the negative and desperate situation in the USA with various issues with detailed explanations,  photos and even videos.  But then when I go to Twitter, and some of the photos and videos and their stories from the people in the USA, they are totally different and opposite stories. 

Whatever content your post was, I feel that you were trying to offer me some advice.  I am not going to try to argue with it.  Whatever advice it was, I think it was out of care and good will, so I will say Thank you for that.

But for your comment on Trump, politics and democracy, I honestly have no knowledge at all on these matters, I am afraid.  So from your comment on these matters, I only notice that you are in the USA somewhere, and your interest in Philosophy is Politics and Democracy matters.

I have been to the USA a few times in the past about 20 year ago, and it was only for vacations to Florida state, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Key West. I liked it at the time.

But I do believe that the USA has gone through many changes since then, it is now in a totally different situation from that time.  All I can say is, that I hope all goes well, and things will get better for you and your country.

The post I was reading was not much different from the previous post to that, to me, so there was no point reading and rereading with attentive focus.   If you are a philosopher, then you not only have a rational mind of course, but also sharp intuition which you can use for fast scanning meaningless text for quick rejection, so that you are not wasting your valuable time.

I would criticise Google, if there were any point for doing so, but they are just too big to be worried about my criticism :D so I feel it wouldn't be much of a point.

I too, use Google a lot for quick search of information, and it is handy.  Who wouldn't use Google these days?  It is massive, and sure it has most of the information people are after.  But as you say, there are good and accurate information, but also poor / wrong information too. So one has to be selective for the information that comes up there.

But in Philosophical discussion, we want to debate with our own reason, knowledge and beliefs on the topics.  It is perfectly good and useful to quote Google or Wiki if they are relevant in the flow of the discussions. No problem with that.

What we don't want is, getting told that Google said this, and the dictionary said that, so there you are, the answers are there.  Accept it or you are wrong. 

Sure. I was confused why I was quoted in @athena's post yet again for something which sounds totally different from the nature of Belief.

I just tried to clarify what my post was about on the quote.

I would never criticise Google or anyone for whatever matter in public. All I was saying to @nicholasgasper was that blindly insisting others to follow Google or what is written in the dictionaries, and claiming others as wrong for not following, are not rational or logical argument, and it is not philosophical.

If you read Athena quote of my previous post, it is about my comment on "not able to see anything logical and rational" from @nickolasgaspar posts insisting on to accept Google and the dictionaries' definition on "claim/accept" in belief and knowledge.

I quite couldn't understand why @athena has quoted my post in her post. But I was replying on the quote. I hope it is clear. If not, let me know.

"You must follow as told by Google, or the dictionaries says such as such, so it must be universal law and usage. Not accepting them is wrong. You are not following, and not accepting as told by Google or written in the dictionaries, therefore you are wrong."

I don't see any rational or logical argument from those statements.

I think your problem seems that you somehow think whatever is in the Google and the commoners' dictionaries, must be abided and followed as some divine code. To me that is anti philosophical. All definitions are open to rational critique. It is a methodical principle in philosophy. Your denial on that principle is aphilosphical, and can be described as pseudo religious.

And your insistence on claim / accept must be some universal usage in belief and knowledge is very peculiar view. I tried to bring some cases that claim / accept is relevant in real life cases, but they are very unusual cases, which is not universal.

I never denied that they are possible in some cases, as you tried to portray and distort. I simply said it is unusual case that claim / accept applies in forming belief or knowledge.

Sorry, all I can see is meaningless accusations keep insisting saying "you are wrong" " you are wrong".
I doubt if you have read a single philosophical books. Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say.

I don't have to accept or deny anything you are claiming, to believe that your statements are non philosophical devoid of any reason or logic. I just know and believe that they are.

If Google and those commoners' dictionaries are your bible, so be it. I don't see a point to continue any philosophical argument against the pseudo religious chantings.

What usage of words are you talking about? Please read your own writings. It just keeps denying others points. You don't even provide any examples of words usage, if that was what you were trying to point out. There is no explanation why and how. You just say that it is not right usages of words, and therefore they are wrong.

If you are genuine philosophical poster, you don't say the other poster is wrong. You just explain in rational way with real life examples. It itself often tells who is right and who is wrong tacitly with the power of reason. Physically saying the other poster is "wrong", is not philosophical argument.

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning.

I would only accept claims of others, if I was looking for some confirmation on something. I would also consider accepting the claims only after considerable debates and discussions, and if the claim based on the conclusion of the debates or discussions were reasonable to accept.

So, it is a very special case, when claims and acceptances are relevant to beliefs, faiths or knowledge.

Differences between faiths and beliefs, it is mainly a semantic difference. When you say your faith to a religion, that means that you are following the religion. It has nothing to do with belief. You are a faithful religious man. Your faith to your religion, faith here means simply you are a follower of the religion. It doesn't tell us if you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, it doesn't tell us if you believed in the creation of the world in 7 days. It doesn't say anything in details of what you believe or not.

But when you say, you have faith in God's benevolence to humans. The faith here is similar to belief. You believe in God that he is benevolent to humans.
If you say, I have faith in the UN for their good work. You believe that the UN still is doing a good job for world peace.

So, you see, faith in some contexts has nothing to do with belief, but in some other contexts it is very similar to belief. They are not simply all the same thing, or totally different things.

hmmm....you didn't acknowledge the common usage of the term "accept" I quoted....that is suspicious behavior. — Nickolasgaspar

"Accept" is not a relevant concept in this topic, and that is my point.

-Again My statement was that Faith is a type of Belief (that which is not based on good reason)
Since you replied to my posts why don't you address my position ? — Nickolasgaspar

Please read my earlier posts. I said that there are different types of beliefs and knowledge, and faith too.

-Why are you explaining the obvious differences between a faith based belief and a knowledge based belief???????
How do you think that the distinction renders faith not a belief? — Nickolasgaspar

Faith and belief are closely related. Some textbooks define faith as a type of belief. Read my reply to @Jack Cummins.

-Do you accept my claim that there is a god named Osiris? If you don't accept it then you don't believe in this god, if you do accept my claim as true than you believe in that god.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.
In Philosophical discussions we constantly ask our interlocutors on whether they accept our presumptions or principles before we proceed to the next premise. Have you ever had a philosophical discussion before? — Nickolasgaspar

I think you must learn how to quote someone's posts properly before anything. It is difficult to read your posts physically, because you are not quoting posts properly.

For accepting your God Osiris, no, why should I accept or consider your claims about it? I don't know who you are, and you are not even quoting posts properly, therefore it is difficult to read what your writings are about in most times. I wouldn't certainly take seriously whatever your claims were about Osiris. I have my own beliefs on my own things, and that is it.

Have you ever had a philosophical discussion before? — Nickolasgaspar

Have you ever written an English sentence in an intelligible and coherent way, so others can understand you?

I think that your concept of faith as the emotional aspect of belief is important because human beings are not guided by reason alone, but by a complex mixture of the two. It may be a problem if people develop 'faith' on the basis of emotional needs entirely, but, probably most people develop 'faith' based on aspects of emotional bias, and it may be that they remain unaware of this, as an aspect of bias which may be almost unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I wouldn't say that faith is entirely emotion based. No that was not what I meant. Some textbooks define faith as type of belief, especially in context with religious faith. Religious faith is belief in the revealed truths.

Faith definitely has epistemic basis, but also supported by emotional ground. That was what I meant.

I think your point on unconsciousness with faith also is very meaningful idea. Yes, I think it can have unconsciousness origin as well.

Now you will need a second qualifier for a belief that is unverified...that is faith. The term "belief" IS the umbrella term and the qualifier changes with its status of verification.
Do we agree on that? — Nickolasgaspar

Faith is different in that it is supported by the emotional side of mental state. When one has faith in something, someone or in God, one does not need rational evidence for verifying his faith. Faith is also on the whole system, entity, act or body of something, which is wider scope, such as I have faith in her for her ability or my faith in the system, I can rely on it etc. It is abstract and non conditional.

Belief is supported by at least some sort of inductive evidence, and it is also specific. It has a clear and narrow scope or concrete object, such as I believe that it will rain tomorrow too, because it was raining heavily today. I believe that there is a dog next door, because I hear the dog barking etc.

-A belief is by definition something that we agree and accept without force. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure. You simply believe something or don't. You don't get forced to believe in something. That is why I couldn't understand what you were talking about, when you were talking about claim and accept.

When you have to accept something, you are forced. The analogy from the court system, and having to accept the judgments, making decisions on false alibis which caused false beliefs ... is all about accepting claims, which has nothing to do with beliefs, and also contingent matter which has possibility of falsities from all sorts of different situations and outcomes.

You simply believe or know something or don't. You don't accept some claims from someone's belief or knowledge. It is not a matter of acceptance. Acceptance is either forced or you are doing some favour to someone. Or when someone is offering you something. Knowledge or belief offered? - sorry never heard of that. You yourself know or believe something someone or not.

No, I never said knowledge has to be absolute. I don't think anyone here said that. Knowledge is just verified belief, and belief is just unverified knowledge. The difference can be fuzzy and transitory between the two in many cases.

I am not sure if claim and acceptance of knowledge is relevant here. People must accept court decisions even if they don't agree with, sometime judges accept the claims based on false alibis by mistakes, and often panel of judges in new scientific fair are forced to accept certain scientific claims even if it lacks certainty and truths, because they are desperately in need of funding, or because the claimer is his boss or teacher in the universities or institutions, or they want their country's fame in the field etc. If one trusts the claims and acceptance in truths and knowledge on public basis, I feel that it is too naive, loose and simple a view. Maybe it will do for sociology or group psychology topics, but not for epistemological one.

We should more focus on the personal subjective case of forming knowledge and belief here.

Knowledge is just one reason why people accept a claim. — Nickolasgaspar

What claim and acceptance are you talking about here? Who is claiming what, and who is accepting which? It sounds like somebody is doing some deal to me. What is this got to do with knowledge?
Unless it is some Scientific knowledge or in the case of legal matters discussed in the courts, do you need to claim and accept knowledge? One just know something is true in many cases, and it can be unconscious state of mind that one knows that P, and one knows how to play guitar without having to claim or ask someone to accept.

IOW, knowledge can be subjective mental state or objects in most cases. I am sure that you heard about "knowing that" and "knowing how".

Btw there is one standard for identifying a claim as knowledge but many ways to produce knowledge claims — Nickolasgaspar

Can you elaborate on this with more detail and some examples? Thanks.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. — Nickolasgaspar

It is not that simple. There are different type of knowledge and belief.

You can not "Know" something and not believe/accept it! — Nickolasgaspar

I would have thought, if you know something, you don't need to believe it. You know it, and it is enough. To believe in what you know, you need perhaps some other peculiar situation or reason for that. For example, I know Paris is the capital of France, but I also believe it is so, because I am not in Paris. I am not sure if they have decided to change the capital city to Lion. I have no idea on their current social political situation in the country. This situation of mine force me to believe that Paris is the capital of France, even if I know it is.

Particle Metaphysics - A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality by Brigitte Falkenburg

What is'belief, or system of beliefs and the scope of its validity'? How does one justify belief, through scientific methodology or through other means of verification of personal belief systems? Do collective aspects of verification and validity cancel out the individual ways of thinking, as inferior to larger systems of belief? — Jack Cummins

I would have thought beliefs don't need verification. When beliefs are verified beyond doubt, they qualify as knowledge, at which case no longer beliefs, but knowledge.

Beliefs are more psychological than epistemological. Beliefs can be based on emotions rather than reasons or evidence. Not all beliefs are false, but where facts or propositions cannot be supported with evidence, logic or reason, they could still be one's mental state for believing something, because one feels like it, or just wants to, or by inference and guessing.

"What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do. — Vladimir Solovyov

Wayfarer — Wayfarer

What would you do if / after having been cured?

“I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance.” - Nietzsche

To wrap up, and the reason I'm even creating this discussion at all, is because of what ramifications there might be if there does exist such a deity. It may reopen the question of life after death, the extents of reality, our moral duties, and a grounding for consciousness. — Jerry

These questions cannot yield answers based on reason. They are out of scope for human reason to come to conclusions due to lack of evidence and verifications.

The answers are in the realm of faith of religion or conjectures of scientific hypotheses. One must choose one or the other options for their beliefs, or remain open minded or agnostic on the topic.

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? — Shawn

The prisoner doesn't know that he is shackled. He doesn't know what being free means.
Maybe he doesn't even know that he is a prisoner.

Am I wrong in believing that the grand Western tradition of metaphysics began with Parmenides, if we had to pick out a single figure? — Wayfarer

What's your ground for believing in that?

My argument is that an important part of what has been lost in the transition to modernity is the capacity to understand metaphysics. — Wayfarer

What are the causes for that loss?

I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"? — Yohan

Sure, it sounds perfect. Thank you for the great topic, inspiring OP and posts. :up:

I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.

Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.

I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals. — Yohan

Differences are the basis for each individual's existence. If there is no difference then there is no individuality.

But for essence, you need common characteristics or origins for the foundation of entities. Essence could be abstract concepts such as ones existing in the platonic idea world, if you are an idealist.

Or essence would be character or purpose or function in teleological perspectives such as will - for willing happiness, good, peace, knowledge and prosperity.  Human being is a willing animal, as compared to Aristotle's political animal.

Essence could be narrowed for certain situations and groups or parties such as the essence of a car is riding and getting A to B, essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life etc.   So, I feel there are different types of essence for the situations and objects and entities, which can be defined from different perspectives and views of the thinkers for their intentions and aims of essence establishing.

Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least. — Yohan

Yeah, it is just one of the philosophising topics that we could engage for the discussions and reflections.

But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan

Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question.

It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan

As long as they are meaningful enough.

Kind of losing me — Yohan

Each individual's and living being's DNA is different, unique and exclusive. How could it be the essence of human being?

Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes? — Yohan

It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?

For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa.

Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA. — Yohan

Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence.

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan

The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique.