The second issue is about saying that John believed something...
What does "John believed something" say that "John has belief" does not? — creativesoul
What more is there to this 'something' aside from John's belief?
Of course it doesn't make sense to say that John believed his belief. — creativesoul
What do you propose to substitute for 'something' if not John's belief?
John believed X. X replaces 'something'. Is X not John's belief? — creativesoul
The second issue is about saying that John believed something...
What does "John believed something" say that "John has belief" does not?
— creativesoul
Okay, now I know that you've avoided my example of the triangle, given that I brought it to your attention.
What does, "A triangle is a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles", tell us that, "A triangle is a triangle", does not? — Sapientia
False analogy. "John believed something" is not equivalent to a definition. Nor is "John has belief" equivalent to A=A.
You'll have to do better than that. — creativesoul
However, saying that John believed something is nothing more than saying that John had belief. — creativesoul
Saying that if John had belief, he believed something is nothing more than saying the same thing differently. — creativesoul
What do you want, Sapientia? — creativesoul
Evidently, I'm better at tracking what you say than you are: — Sapientia
I prefer you answer that very simple question. — creativesoul
Honestly, I do not follow your analogy... — creativesoul
First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief? — creativesoul
Just did. — creativesoul
First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief?
— creativesoul
Yes. — Sapientia
I don't need to say what it is to say what it's not. — Sapientia
John believes X. X is not John's belief.
That is self-contradictory. Nonsense. Do you see it otherwise? If so, the burden is yours. Please reconcile. — creativesoul
John believes X. X is not John's belief.
That is self-contradictory. Nonsense. Do you see it otherwise? If so, the burden is yours. Please reconcile.
— creativesoul
Sure, that's easy. It's equivocation: equivocation between what's believed and the belief itself. Or, put differently, the object of belief and the belief itself. Or, put differently, the aboutness with the belief.
It's a basic error on your part. What I'm saying is not nonsense. What you're saying is nonsense, or at best unclear and misleading. — Sapientia
I think you mean conflation... Equivocation is when different senses of the same term is being used by the same author. That's not happening. — creativesoul
This is good though. We're getting back to the notion of the object of belief. I plead guilty to not drawing and maintaining the distinction between "belief" and "object of belief". It's not that I do not realize that there is one. It's that I reject it for reasons that will be explained soon enough.
So, I conflate between "belief" and "object of belief"...
Set me straight. Set out the difference(s). — creativesoul
John believes that the cat is on the mat. But that the cat is on the mat is not John's belief. How can you not see the distinction? That the cat is on the mat is a state of affairs. John's belief that the cat is on the mat is John's belief that the cat is on the mat. It's a belief about that state of affairs.
Simples. — Sapientia
...that the cat is on the mat is not John's belief...
John's belief that the cat is on the mat is John's belief that the cat is on the mat.(emphasis mine) — Sapientia
So, let me see if I have this account of yours right. There are a few incomplete sentences, and I'm trying to be charitable. — creativesoul
On the one hand you say that John believes that the cat is on the mat, but on the other you say that the cat is on the mat is not John's belief. — creativesoul
"That the cat is on the mat" is being called John's belief, not John's belief, and a state of affairs. — creativesoul
Which part is John's belief? Which part is the object of John's belief? — creativesoul
(emphasis mine) — creativesoul
"That the cat is on the mat" is being called John's belief, not John's belief, and a state of affairs.
— creativesoul
No. You can't just ignore essential parts of what I'm saying. John's belief that the cat is on the mat is not equivalent to the cat on the mat or the fact that the cat is on the mat. — Sapientia
Which part is John's belief? Which part is the object of John's belief?
— creativesoul
Why, John's belief is John's belief, of course! His belief that the cat is on the mat is his belief. And the object of his belief is what his belief is about: the fact or state of affairs that the cat is on the mat.
His belief that the cat is on the mat is his belief.
...that the cat is on the mat is not John's belief. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.