Perhaps. It would require having considered whether or not the bridge would support him at some time or other though, wouldn't it? A lizard crosses the bridge, but that crossing is not strong evidence that it believes that the bridge will support it. — creativesoul
I don't think belief requires much consideration. Hear the bell, start salivating. I'm not the lizard whisperer, but the folks that I know of, cats, for example, are sometimes unsure whether something will support them or not, and sometimes surprised when it does not. [insert cute video here] — unenlightened
But humans. Humans are largely opaque to themselves. I find I can not know someone's name, even though I know that I know it. It's on the tip of my tongue...
And certainly I believe and act upon all sorts of stuff that I never consider, and that the ground will support me, whether it is a bridge or a cutting, is a trivial example. That the nearest shop is right, left, and on the opposite corner at the crossroads... I have never really thought about it 'til now. This is how I go on when I'm not philosophising, and since I can not know things I know I know, and know things without knowing and believe things I've never considered whether or not to believe them, it becomes really rather easy to deceive myself if I have reason to want to. And one reason I might want to deceive myself that all this is not the case is that I like to consider myself a philosopher, who is much more insightful.
So, deceiving oneself is always being mistaken, but not the other way around. The difference between being mistaken and deceiving oneself is that one who is deceiving oneself takes being told that they're mistaken personally, so much so that they are incapable of correcting the mistake. This overly general parsing is good enough for now, I think. — creativesoul
I can't make much sense of this, which is unsurprising given the inherent self-contradiction. — creativesoul
Even those who hold the view that all politicians lie probably do not find it acceptable that they should do so, so the deceiving politician can still be deceitful on my account - your counterexample seems misguided.Lots of Americans hold the view that all politicians lie.
Rational process can involve putting certain kinds of logic to use. Para-consistent logic qualifies. Para-consistent logic holds that a statement can be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. This logic has the ability to render any statement either true or false.
Do you see the problem?
This might be right, but care needs to be taken to understand where the mistake lies. Deceiving yourself that some proposition P is true (or false) does not require that the mistake be about whether P is true (or false). In the example I gave John's mother believes that John did not murder Jane, and she is not mistaken about that because John really did not murder Jane, yet she is deceiving herself. If there is a role for mistake in that example it is her mistake of not taking the evidence stacked up against John seriously.So, deceiving oneself is always being mistaken, but not the other way around.
I can't make much sense of this, which is unsurprising given the inherent self-contradiction.
— creativesoul
But surely, self-contradiction is impossible? — unenlightened
So, deceiving oneself is always being mistaken, but not the other way around.
This might be right, but care needs to be taken to understand where the mistake lies. Deceiving yourself that some proposition P is true (or false) does not require that the mistake be about whether P is true (or false). In the example I gave John's mother believes that John did not murder Jane, and she is not mistaken about that because John really did not murder Jane, yet she is deceiving herself. If there is a role for mistake in that example it is her mistake of not taking the evidence stacked up against John seriously. — jkg20
What makes it go from being mistaken to self-deception? For that matter, what makes it either?
Your opinion?
I mean, she was right after-all.
However, even if my intuition about truth or falsity being a side issue in self-deception is misguided, I still insist that self-deception is not correctly modelled along the lines of one person deceiving another (although it would not be too hard to think of an example of one person deceiving another into believing a truth). John's mother is doing something wrong, she is making a mistake - ignoring evidence - that she, as a rational person, ought not to have made. Self-deception, in this sense, is as much (if not more) a moral issues as it is a metaphysical one.When we talk about deception, particularly when we talk about someone deceiving an other, there are elements which make it what it is
Well, it certainly is my opinion that John's mother is deceiving herself, and the mistake she is making is not taking seriously evidence that ought to be taken seriously... — jkg20
You find ways to rationalize doing it, reasons that have nothing to do with your real motivation, reasons that allow you to give what you're doing the color of rationality. — Srap Tasmaner
What must be the case in order to successfully lie to yourself?
Simple enough question. But hard to answer. — Moliere
Without introducing meaning, truth, and belief into the mix whatever theory of mind discussed will be utterly incomplete, wouldn't you agree? — creativesoul
What is the difference between being mistaken and self-deception? — creativesoul
I'm still waiting on a criterion which when met by a candidate counts as self-deception. — creativesoul
I don't even know what "ruling it our a priori" is supposed to mean. If it is impossible for one to deliberately misrepresent their own thought and belief to oneself, then any and all arguments which assume or validly conclude that are themselves based upon at least one false premiss. — creativesoul
so are you really asking how to lie to yourself and believe it? — Uniquorn
I'm not sure why it is impossible to deliberately misrepresent one's own belief to oneself. — Moliere
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.