It seems to me that both words are nouns, and nouns are persons, places, or things. — creativesoul

Wrong...the names of activities and processes can also be nouns.

Activities and processes are things... are they not?

:yikes:

Well they are not things in the sense of being determinate objects; and I think the idea that you think they are such things is what Banno was criticizing.

Activities and processes are better thought of as doings or becomings, not as beings. I have had this disagreement with you before; where I have pointed out that there is pre-linguistic believing and thinking, but that it is misguided to say that there is pre-linguistic having of or holding beliefs or thoughts, because the latter is a confused way of talking that suggests that pre-linguistic beliefs and thoughts are determinate objects which can be mentally 'held'. This is a deceptive analogy with the notion of physically holding an object that many minds fall into; and I believe Banno is right to think that you are one of them.

Well they are not things in the sense of being determinate objects; and I think the idea that you think they are such things is what Banno was criticizing.

Activities and processes are better thought of as doings or becomings, not as beings. I have had this disagreement with you before; where I have pointed out that there is pre-linguistic believing and thinking, but that it is misguided to say that there is pre-linguistic having of or holding beliefs or thoughts, because the latter is a confused way of talking that suggests that pre-linguistic beliefs and thoughts are determinate objects which can be mentally 'held'. This is a deceptive analogy with the notion of physically holding an object that many minds fall into; and I believe Banno is right to think that you are one of them. — Janus

I've a couple of directions to go from this.

First...

Indeed. Banno has raised this point a number of times. I'm not denying that I'm prone to talk in terms of having and/or holding a belief. That's just layman's talk.

Do you find that such talk is somehow instrumental to the position I argue for? I mean, do you find that I cannot effectively set out thought and belief without saying those things?

Secondly, I'm wondering what counts as being a determinate object?

I strongly assert that all thought and belief consists of the same basic set of elemental constituents, of which, we can acquire knowledge thereof.

Does that require me believing that thought and belief are determinate objects?

That's just layman's talk. — creativesoul

OK, but this being a philosophy forum perhaps more precise, less confusing ways of speaking about it would be more productive.

Do you find that such talk is somehow instrumental to the position I argue for? I mean, do you find that I cannot effectively set out thought and belief without saying those things? — creativesoul

Well, if all you are saying is that animals think and believe, then what you claim is nothing controversial, but something that I believe most would take for granted.

To sum that I would say that thoughts and beliefs as the kinds of things that can be held; are dependent on language; whereas thinking and believing as organic pre-linguistic processes are not. It's not rocket science!

I don't know what you mean by "elemental constituents". Are you proposing some kind of reductive atomism?

To sum that I would say that thoughts and beliefs as the kinds of things that can be held; are dependent on language; whereas thinking and believing as organic pre-linguistic processes are not. It's not rocket science! — Janus

Why is it ok to talk about thought and belief that is existentially dependent upon language in terms of being held but it is not ok to talk about thought and belief that is not existentially dependent upon language in the same terms?

And no...

It's not rocket science. It underwrites rocket science.

Because words enable thoughts and beliefs to be held before the mind in determinate forms.

I don't know what you mean by "elemental constituents". Are you proposing some kind of reductive atomism? — Janus

Well, for someone who has levied several different charges against my position, I'm surprised that you do not know what I mean by "elemental constituents". Those would be what all thought and belief consist of, thought and belief that is existentially dependent upon language notwithstanding.

Because words enable thoughts and beliefs to be held before the mind in determinate forms. — Janus

So, thought and belief that are dependent upon language are determinate objects?

All you are saying is that the constituents are what thought and belief consist of; which is really saying nothingat all or just expressing a tautology. So, what exactly are those constituents?

All you are saying is that the constituents are what thought and belief consist of; which is really saying nothingat all or just expressing a tautology. So, what exactly are those constituents? — Janus

Well not really. It's expressing the fact that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon other things.

In short, all thought and belief consist entirely of mental correlations.

More popcorn...

...words enable thoughts and beliefs to be held before the mind in determinate forms. — Janus

Well of course. Language enables us to become aware of the fact that we have thought and belief, in addition to allowing us to be able to think about our own thought and belief. Furthermore, it also allows much more complex thought and belief to be formed.

As it pertains to the OP...

Metacognition is existentially dependent upon language. Some thought and belief exists prior to language. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Some thought and belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it. Some thought and belief cannot consist of language or metacognition.

Well, if all you are saying is that animals think and believe, then what you claim is nothing controversial, but something that I believe most would take for granted. — Janus

Well sure, if that was all I was saying... I'm sure most folk would agree. On the other hand, there is a large swath of philosophers who would not... lest they would suffer incoherence and/or self-contradiction...

The position I'm arguing for has the broadest scope of rightful application that I am aware of. It rightfully applies to everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written - as a measure nonetheless. I don't think most folk would take that for granted.

No, but verbal expressions of thought are determinate objects...you know, like written words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs and texts and auditory sounds and combinations of sounds, and so on.

Well not really. It's expressing the fact that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon other things. — creativesoul

What, you mean like we have to have experiences of things and events before we can have thoughts and beliefs about them?

If that's what you mean, it's obvious, but experiences of things and events don't constitute thoughts and beliefs about them; surely there is a distinction between constitution and dependence.

The position I'm arguing for has the broadest scope of rightful application that I am aware of. It rightfully applies to everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written - as a measure nonetheless. I don't think most folk would take that for granted. — creativesoul

I can't see that you are arguing for any position which does not merely consist in truisms; tautologies which no one would deny. I'm sorry to say I can't find anything substantive there to either disagree with, or to use as a beginning point for further discussion.

At least popcorn may be eaten, no matter how lacking in nutrition it may be...

...verbal expressions of thought are determinate objects...you know, like written words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs and texts and auditory sounds and combinations of sounds, and so on. — Janus

If thought and belief are not determinate objects, and verbal expressions of thought and belief are, then it only follows that verbal expressions of thought and belief are not equivalent to thought and belief.

So...

When you speak of holding thought and belief, in order for you to meet your own precision standard, you ought be talking in terms of holding expressions of thought and belief.

Have you justified your charge towards me yet? If so I missed it.

I can't see that you are arguing for any position which does not merely consist in truisms; tautologies which no one would deny. I'm sorry to say I can't find anything substantive there to either disagree with, or to use as a beginning point for further discussion. — Janus

That's odd.

If there's nothing to disagree with, and what's been said is applicable to everything talked about, then one could begin application of these true claims anywhere they so choose. I've been piddling with such things the whole thread.

What, you mean like we have to have experiences of things and events before we can have thoughts and beliefs about them?

If that's what you mean, it's obvious, but experiences of things and events don't constitute thoughts and beliefs about them; surely there is a distinction between constitution and dependence. — Janus

Well no. That's not what I'm saying.

Yes. Surely there's a distinction between elemental constitution and existential dependency. There's also a relation that matters here.

What I'm saying is this...

All thought and belief consist of the same set of elemental constituents. Some thought and belief exist prior to language. That which exists prior to language cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That which exists prior to language cannot consist of language.

If put to good use, this outline coupled with a good understanding of thought and belief, squarely places both truth and meaning prior to language. I've not made that argument in this post, but have in the thread and elsewhere. I could easily do so if you like.

You figure that that is just something that everyone would just agree to?

How about you?

When you speak of holding thought and belief, in order for you to meet your own precision standard, you ought be talking in terms of holding expressions of thought and belief. — creativesoul

No, the beliefs are held only within the verbal expressions of believing, otherwise they would not be expressions of believing. In other words you hold a belief only as an expression of believing; the believing itself, as process, cannot be held.

All thought and belief consist of the same set of elemental constituents. — creativesoul

I see no reason to believe that. What are those "elemental constituents"? That's the first question; if you can answer that, the next question would be 'what reason do you have for thinking they are always the same?'.

In short, all thought and belief consist entirely of mental correlations. There are no examples to the contrary.

...the beliefs are held only within the verbal expressions of believing, otherwise they would not be expressions of believing. In other words you hold a belief only as an expression of believing; the believing itself, as process, cannot be held. — Janus

Held...

Like keys?

You do realize that I can set out precisely what that process includes?

Can you?

This(notion of holding belief) is a deceptive analogy with the notion of physically holding an object that many minds fall into; and I believe Banno is right to think that you are one of them. — Janus

Gotta love the irony...

Dontcha?

:vomit:

...If thought and belief are not determinate objects, and verbal expressions of thought and belief are, then it only follows that verbal expressions of thought and belief are not equivalent to thought and belief. — creativesoul

...the beliefs are held only within the verbal expressions of believing, otherwise they would not be expressions of believing. In other words you hold a belief only as an expression of believing; the believing itself, as process, cannot be held. — Janus

So, beliefs are not expressions of belief, but rather beliefs are held only within the verbal expressions of believing...

Yeah.

That's exactly the kind of precision we're looking for.

Have you justified the charge you levied against me earlier?

Mirror, mirror...

Pots and kettles...

Projection...

Special pleading...

Double standard...

Yeah yeah, I know. I'm a dick sometimes.

So it is only while one is actually verbally expressing "The cat is on the mat" that s/he holds that belief...

You have something better than this to offer two face?

This is off the OP, but warrants a bit of attention since it's been raised here again...

On my view, "holding a belief" is a proxy phrase meant to simplify what would be an otherwise unwieldy manner of speaking. Creatures that have and/or hold belief are the ones that draw, have drawn, and will once again draw the same or similar enough correlations between different things. All thought and belief consists of such correlations(as does all attribution of meaning). The drawing of the correlation is thought and belief formation. That's how it's always done. That is the basic process. Now, this process, if we must call it such a thing, is replete with the presupposition of it's own correspondence to fact/reality, and the attribution of meaning which makes perfect sense in light of the fact that all thought and belief is meaningful and presupposes it's own truth somewhere along the line.

Point being...

Don't take the phrase "holding belief" too literally or seriously. It doesn't serve as philosophical ground.