Belief is accrued.

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?

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

Wat? You're not making any sense to me, and seem to be contradicting yourself. You'll have to explain yourself better if you want me to understand. How can you sensibly ask me, "Is X not John's belief?", given what you've said before that?

Anyway, the answer is obviously, "No". The object of belief is not belief. That makes zero sense. (We could discuss what it is, but that's not an option. You're not even wrong).

God, you're difficult. Forget it, chappy.

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.

What more is there to 'something' aside from John's belief? I agree that it doesn't make sense to say that John believed his belief. However, what I'm pointing out here is that our normal speech patterns do not always work from an adequate understanding. That is particularly true in this case. We often say "John believes something". I claim that that something is nothing more than John's belief. frank claimed that if John has belief then John believed something.

The both of you seem to want to say that there is more to this 'something' than John's belief. I say that that is just not the case. You could show me otherwise by virtue of substitution. Substitute the term "something" with what it is that you claim John believes.

It will be John's belief, or you'll be talking nonsense by saying John believes something that is not John's belief.

I love you too Sapientia...

:heart:

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

Once again, you're a funny guy. Evidently, I'm better at keeping track of what you say than you are:

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

Let's take it from here, and bear in mind my example of the triangle. I'm not letting you slip away from this one.

If John had belief, then John believed something...

That is the claim in question...

What more is there to 'something' aside from John's belief? I agree that it doesn't make sense to say that John believed his belief. However, what I'm pointing out here is that our normal speech patterns do not always work from an adequate understanding. That is particularly true in this case. We often say "John believes something". I claim that that something is nothing more than John's belief. frank claimed that if John has belief then John believed something.

The both of you seem to want to say that there is more to this 'something' than John's belief. I say that that is just not the case. You could show me otherwise by virtue of substitution. Substitute the term "something" with what it is that you claim John believes.

It will be John's belief, or you'll be talking nonsense by saying John believes something that is not John's belief.

:roll:

Okay, let's go around in circles!

Anyway, the answer is obviously, "No". The object of belief is not belief. That makes zero sense. (We could discuss what it is, but that's not an option. You're not even wrong). — Sapientia

Your turn!

What do you want Sapientia?

I say that "John believes something" says nothing more than "John has belief". You say otherwise, but fail to provide any answer at all...

What more is there to this 'something' that John believes aside from John's belief?

What do you want, Sapientia? — creativesoul

A pony. But, in the context of this discussion, I would like you to repeat yourself less, and instead put your energy into actually addressing what I'm saying. But I'm on the verge of giving up now. I don't need to say what it is to say what it's not.

I prefer you answer that very simple question.

Honestly, I do not follow your analogy...

You ask me to explain myself. I do. Then you complain about it and imply that I'm not addressing what you're saying???

Answer the question.

Evidently, I'm better at tracking what you say than you are: — Sapientia

I quoted you... who quoted me... I figured that because your analogy immediately followed, that that is what it was supposed to apply to...

I prefer you answer that very simple question. — creativesoul

But I don't need to say what it is to say what it's not. Maybe I don't have a committed stance on what it is. Maybe it's a proposition. But it's not a belief.

Honestly, I do not follow your analogy... — creativesoul

Why not? You said that saying "A" is nothing more than saying "B". That it's saying the same thing differently. You also denied that it's definitional or A=A.

What other options are there? What's it like? I don't see any other option. I think that you're violating one or more of the fundamental laws of logic.

Given what you've said, either it's like:

A) A triangle is a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.

or

B) A triangle is a triangle.

Other options could be that you don't mean what you say or maybe you'll retract what you've said. But you probably won't accept either of those options because you're stubborn, and you don't like admitting that you're wrong. I bet you'll say something different, and then claim it as the same point rephrased, like you've done before. It's your get-out-of-jail-free card.

Okay Sapientia...

I want to clear this up, and it looks promising form here.

You down?

Again, there are two separate issues at hand...

First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief?

Go for it and we'll see.

Just did.

First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief? — creativesoul

Yes.

Just did. — creativesoul

:party:

First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief?
— creativesoul

Yes. — 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.

I don't need to say what it is to say what it's not. — Sapientia

I agree. One can say whatever one wishes to say. However...

In order to know what we're talking about when we say that belief is not X, we must know what belief is, for that is the only measure by which we can know what it is not.

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.

John believes that the cows will come home. That the cows will come home is not Johns belief. But John's belief is John's belief. John's belief that the cows will come home is John's belief that the cows will come home.

Nothing contradictory or nonsensical there. You're just confused, I think.

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 are being used by the same author in the same argument/account. That's not happening on my part.

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 "what's believed", or between "belief" and an "object of belief".

I want to be crystal clear here though... It's not that I do not realize that there is one such language game. It's that I reject it for reasons that will be explained soon enough.

So, I conflate between "belief" and "what's believed" or the "object of belief"...

Set me straight. Set out the difference(s).

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

Whatever. You're wrong either way, so it's no biggie.

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 fact or state of affairs. John's belief that the cat is on the mat is John's belief. It's a belief about that fact or state of affairs. One is a fact or state of affairs, the other his belief.

Simples.

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

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.

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.

"That the cat is on the mat" is being called John's belief, not John's belief, and a state of affairs.

Which part is John's belief? Which part is the object of John's belief?

...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

:yikes:

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

No, there's only one incomplete sentence: the last one. And I think that it's fairly clear that the, "It", at the beginning of that sentence refers to John's belief.

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

Yes.

"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.

That there's a resemblance is not that they're equivalent. Get your thinking straight, sonny Jim.

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.

What? Would you have it any other way? That A) a fact is a belief, and B) a belief is not a belief?

You're just misinterpreting it, I suspect. Why else would you react like that: as though I'd contradicted myself?

(emphasis mine) — creativesoul

You can emphasise and deemphasise all you like. You're still wrong. Resemblance is not equivalence. You're making a category error.

"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

Speaking of equivocation...

Those seven terms have been called "John's belief", "not John's belief", "what John believes", "the object of belief", "the fact", and "a state of affairs". I'm just pointing that out. Anyone can go look for themselves...

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.

"John's belief is John's belief" is equal to A=A. It is utterly meaningless.

Here you do it yet again. You claim that...

His belief that the cat is on the mat is his belief.

That claim negates the other you keep making...

...that the cat is on the mat is not John's belief. — Sapientia

Either his belief is that the cat is on the mat, or that the cat is on the mat is not his belief.