Before I used to believe the USA is a great nation with exemplary democracy, politics, strong economy and power. However with the recent event of Corona pandemics and the government changes, my beliefs on the USA have changed a lot. Mind you, I am not the right person to say anything about USA issues, as I said earlier, the total amount of time I have visited and stayed in the USA is maybe about a couple of months as a tourist.

Before I used to like the USA so much, I even wanted to emigrate, work and live there. But recently I was so glad that I was not in the USA. So, I must admit the recent news media reports about the USA has changed my views and beliefs on the USA tremendously.

I don't believe that the USA is a safe and good society to live anymore. Maybe they are not as powerful as I used to believe. The society has deep and bitter divisions just like any other societies and nations in modern times. The divide between the rich and poor is utterly severe, and they don't have a good healthcare system for the middle class or poor people. To see a doctor, maybe one needs very expensive private health insurance, and even then if one needs complicated treatment in the hospital it could cost arm and leg for the treatment having to be paid by selling home and all the life savings if one had any.

And then there are many other issues that I can never understand with the country such as gun ownership issues and the acute violence problems in the society. And in military power, it is supposed to be a superpower, but the way they exited from Afghanistan and the other countries once they had stepped in, without any resolutions as if they were retreating after losing the battle as if they were scared, and running away from them.

So, all these recent events contributed to changing my beliefs on the USA I suppose. But again, I don't trust my belief 100% on anything being a sceptic and agnostic most times.

It would be like, I am believing what an elephant is like, without ever having seen one in my life. All I know is, I know nothing as Socrates said, and my beliefs could be just groundless fuzz illusion. One thing for sure is that the beliefs are formed autonomously within me by the media propaganda. I keep telling myself, I should not trust the media reports 100%.

Anyway, I thank you, and I feel privileged having been able to discuss the issues with you, who I guess, is a native American citizen born and bred in the country for all your life.

I posit regarding all evidence I have or have not attained on the subject matter, or produced in this discussion/debate.

This just popped into my head. Why do we have false beliefs? This is inexplicable in some sense because the truth is what keeps us safe e.g. back when our ancestors were roaming the African savannah, knowing what a lion looks like and knowing what it can masquerade as will/should keep death and injury at bay...for as long as possible that is.

Why did evolution not stamp out those lineages that had a propensity to believe falsehoods? It's cleary a major drawback insofar as survival is the ultimus meta.

Is this an argument against evolution or will some evolutionary biologist, like a seasoned spin doctor, show us how lies/false beliefs give us an edge over our competitors? Do animals hold false beliefs? Most, if not all, of the times animals end up as lunch are times they've clearly been led up the garden path by stealth, camouflage, and other forms of cunning.

Humans are at the top of the food chain as an apex predator and that could have been because of our mastery of deception but that still doesn't explain why we're prone to believing falsehoods? Shouldn't we be twice as careful being full aware that homo homini lupus?

It doesn't make sense or does it? I dunno!

Perhaps the reason people have false beliefs is related to a wish to fantasise and fabricate 'the truth' because reality can be so grim and painful. There are all kinds of false beliefs, including ones about oneself. Of course, there may be false ideas which are believed fully or partially, and, at some point, an individual may need to face up to the false nature of beliefs, but as so many aspects of life are ambiguous it is possible to hold onto all kinds of fantastic ideas, even to the point of delusional ideas, or even 'psychotic' departures from accepted ways of thinking. The imagination can play all kinds of tricks, as a defense mechanism against the brutality of painful experience of facts.

Before I used to believe the USA is a great nation with exemplary democracy, politics, strong economy and power. However with the recent event of Corona pandemics and the government changes, my beliefs on the USA have changed a lot. Mind you, I am not the right person to say anything about USA issues, as I said earlier, the total amount of time I have visited and stayed in the USA is maybe about a couple of months as a tourist.

Before I used to like the USA so much, I even wanted to emigrate, work and live there. But recently I was so glad that I was not in the USA. So, I must admit the recent news media reports about the USA has changed my views and beliefs on the USA tremendously.

I don't believe that the USA is a safe and good society to live anymore. Maybe they are not as powerful as I used to believe. The society has deep and bitter divisions just like any other societies and nations in modern times. The divide between the rich and poor is utterly severe, and they don't have a good healthcare system for the middle class or poor people. To see a doctor, maybe one needs very expensive private health insurance, and even then if one needs complicated treatment in the hospital it could cost arm and leg for the treatment having to be paid by selling home and all the life savings if one had any.

And then there are many other issues that I can never understand with the country such as gun ownership issues and the acute violence problems in the society. And in military power, it is supposed to be a superpower, but the way they exited from Afghanistan and the other countries once they had stepped in, without any resolutions as if they were retreating after losing the battle as if they were scared, and running away from them.

So, all these recent events contributed to changing my beliefs on the USA I suppose. But again, I don't trust my belief 100% on anything being a sceptic and agnostic most times.

It would be like, I am believing what an elephant is like, without ever having seen one in my life. All I know is, I know nothing as Socrates said, and my beliefs could be just groundless fuzz illusion. One thing for sure is that the beliefs are formed autonomously within me by the media propaganda. I keep telling myself, I should not trust the media reports 100%.

Anyway, I thank you, and I feel privileged having been able to discuss the issues with you, who I guess, is a native American citizen born and bred in the country for all your life. — Corvus

You are wise. The US today is not the US of the past. We did not pay much in taxes before WWII and since WWII we have continued to pay almost as much in taxes and during the war years. We did not maintain a large military force and we did have military bases around the world, and we were very reluctant to go to war. Our wars since WWII have been very controversial with much public disapproval of the military actions. It is not fear of the battle that keeps us out of war, but disapproval. The forefathers of the US made it very hard for the US to go to war, but this has been changed. Some of us are strongly opposed to making it easier for a President to take us to war.

War is only one thing we disagree about. Many of us want strong gun control laws. We also disagree on education issues and religious issues. A very serious disagreement is those who have more faith in science than religion. This pandemic has strongly pitted us against each other. Those who support Trump and those who oppose him, are also those who trust science and don't trust science. We have not been so divided since the civil war. This thread is about beliefs, and nothing is taken more seriously than those of us who trust science and those of us who don't. This is not a good time to visit the US especially not for people who do not look like Anglo-Saxons because we are so tense people are lashing out.

One more very serious problem is we have never had so many homeless people! The sight of so many homeless everywhere we go is terrifying! This is as serious as the pandemic because it screams to us things are not as they should be. The more we try to resolve the homeless problem, the bigger it gets. This is very frightening! It strongly attacks our own belief in our nation.

In so many ways we are not the country we defended and one has to ask- what do we think we are defending with our very costly military might? In my youth, the only time I saw a man sleeping on the streets, was when a man had gotten drunk and passed out. Now we see homeless women and children. We have not had this since the Great Depression. We speak of multi millionaires and see homeless women and children. This is so horrifying!

Perhaps the reason people have false beliefs is related to a wish to fantasise and fabricate 'the truth' because reality can be so grim and painful. There are all kinds of false beliefs, including ones about oneself. Of course, there may be false ideas which are believed fully or partially, and, at some point, an individual may need to face up to the false nature of beliefs, but as so many aspects of life are ambiguous it is possible to hold onto all kinds of fantastic ideas, even to the point of delusional ideas, or even 'psychotic' departures from accepted ways of thinking. The imagination can play all kinds of tricks, as a defense mechanism against the brutality of painful experience of facts. — Jack Cummins

Indeed. It's as if our unconscious, your domain of expertise, realized quite a long time ago in our evolutionary history, that if we ever learnt the truth about life - short, brutish, and nasty as Hume/Locke put it - people would commit mass suicide and that's one more player shown the red card in the game of life...not good for life, not good at all.

Buddha-Beautician paradox

The Buddha: Expose the truth, dispel the illusion (maya) as maya is the source of our dissatisfaction (dukkha).

The Beautician: Hide the truth, create an illusion (maya) as the truth is the source of our dissatisfaction (dukkha).

Perhaps the reason people have false beliefs is related to a wish to fantasise and fabricate 'the truth' because reality can be so grim and painful. There are all kinds of false beliefs, including ones about oneself. Of course, there may be false ideas which are believed fully or partially, and, at some point, an individual may need to face up to the false nature of beliefs, but as so many aspects of life are ambiguous it is possible to hold onto all kinds of fantastic ideas, even to the point of delusional ideas, or even 'psychotic' departures from accepted ways of thinking. The imagination can play all kinds of tricks, as a defense mechanism against the brutality of painful experience of facts. — Jack Cummins

Jack, my post to Corvus is a rather long explanation of the US no longer looking like the God-blessed nation we thought we had. I think your notion of our fantasies is correct.

The pandemic, growing homelessness, increased tornados, floods, hurricanes, fires. Who wants to believe these things will not go away?

Before I used to believe the USA is a great nation with exemplary democracy, politics, strong economy and power. However with the recent event of Corona pandemics and the government changes, my beliefs on the USA have changed a lot. — Corvus

The USA began as a Roman patrician-like slave republic that almost a century later forcibly surrendered slavery in order to remain a republic. Afterwards a century of racial apartheid followed. (And then I was born.) Now a half-century or so later, about half the population wants slavery back or, at a minimum, apartheid again – at any intellectual or moral or civilizational cost! These folks are heavily armed, many are radicalized, and would rather destroy the USA in order to save the USA from any prospect of a multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan, and prosperous future.

My beliefs about my country have changed a lot too ... since the neoliberal-über-alles Reagan-Thatcher years of privatizing profits and socializing costs and nationalizing corporate debts whereby fiscal austerity (adversely impacting median & below incomes the most) was incrementally underwritten by deliberate policies of shifting the national tax burden from the upper 10th percentile of incomes to state and local tax burdens on the median 40th & above percentiles of incomes. And who voted for that? Those who least expected to – who felt the most entitled not to – get assfucked so openly, blatantly, and lubelessly. They blame it on everyone – anyone – else except our Corporate Masters and themselves. So now groomed for two generations, like molested children & battered spouses, these folks beg rabidly for "the good old days" and "making America great again" and "lynchings" (by cops, courts, churches, etc) as a national pasttime. Kind of scary, my friends, considering this old, once and future slave republic is still a global hegemon with several thousand active ICBMs, etc.

(Btw, I'm a citizen of color PTSD'd from being a 'seventies era' 20th century American struggling with and through 21st century America.) :death: :fire:

I have been thinking about this since Amity
queried my use of the expression of 'I believe' in my writing on this site. I have been thinking about how I was encouraged to use the expression, 'I believe' on some academic courses as an ownership of ideas? I am wondering about the nature of 'belief', and what that means in terms of personal construction of meaning and the wider scope of meaning? — Jack Cummins

Before it runs headlong into the weeds, the SEP entry on belief notes that "[m]ost contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a 'propositional attitude'". Other terms characterized as propositional attitudes include hope, wonder, doubt, and denial, for example.

Take a proposition, like "I won the lottery yesterday". Consider the range of attitudes toward that proposition expressed by ordinary sentences like:

I believe that I won the lottery.
I hope that I won the lottery.
I wonder whether I won the lottery.
I doubt whether I won the lottery.
I deny that I won the lottery (i.e., I believe that I did not win the lottery).

Does "belief' make any sense at all beyond the scope of personal meanings, and how can the idea of belief be seen in the wider scope of philosophy, especially in relation to objective and subjective aspects of thinking? — Jack Cummins

I believe that it's October, that it's daytime, that the bright yellow thing in the sky is a star, that Biden is the current US president, that humans are mammals, that we are speaking English, and so on. It seems clear there's a "subjective" aspect to these beliefs: I am the one who "has" them. It seems clear there's an "objective" aspect to these beliefs: They are beliefs about objective matters of fact, about states of affairs in the world that, to all appearances, are what they are independent of my humble grasp of them.

In such happy cases, it is those objective matters of fact that make our personal beliefs about them true beliefs.

Do you find something troubling about this way of speaking? Or is there some other use of the word "belief" you have in mind? Or what problem should we be considering here?

It's common for people to use the language of "belief" to put some distance between beliefs and truth claims. For instance, on some occasions we use phrases like "I believe..." to indicate our uncertainty or open-mindedness, or to signal our acknowledgment, tolerance, or respect for conflicting beliefs. On some occasions we use phrases like "They believe..." to explain someone's actions ("The thief believes the jewels are buried nearby"), or to distinguish someone's belief from other people's belief, from reasonable belief, or from the facts ("He actually believes he won the lottery"; "He actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster").

It seems to me that all such emphatic speech acts rely on the more basic role of the term "belief", which is so aptly characterized as a propositional attitude.

I find that I agree with most of what you say. The area where it gets more complicated is with issues such as belief in God and life after death. It may seem strange to bring those areas in, but I was brought up with such beliefs and, having read a lot of philosophy and related fields, I have spent a lot of time dwelling on such matters, often going round in circles. For many, hope and wishful thinking may come into play in holding onto such ideas. Also, when people think about their own future, uncertainty as to what may happen, hope may play an important role too.

... belief in God and life after death. — Jack Cummins

(Re: belief that) If one has a propositional attitude with respect to "God" or "life after death", then one has corroborable (public) evidence which are truth-makers of such truth-claims; where evidence is lacking and/or makes-true the negations of said truth-claims, holding such a propositional attitude is delusional. (NB: Churches, etc pimp such delusions as (apologetic) dogmas e.g. "the Nicene Creed", "the Sh'ma Yisrael", "the Šahādah", etc; and "new age" / conspiracy theoreticians (bs artists, propagandists, political paranoids, Woo-nuts, schizoids-in-general (Žižek re: "ideology")); and ...)

(Re: belief in) Otherwise, such "beliefs" may be avowals (i.e. subjective appeals, or emotional declarations of trust) instead, therefore not truth-claims at all like e.g. figurative idiomata or swearing, glossolalia or babytalk.

When I say I believe something, it's usually something I know, just to be conducive to conversation.

It is possible to believe things that are true.

You speak of the way in which beliefs 'may be avowals (ie. subjective appeals, or emotional declarations of trust)' and this may be where philosophy is needed to stand back from beliefs critically. That is because a lot of people ordinarily do accept beliefs on the basis of trust and, authority. For example, some people say that they hold certain beliefs because they are based on the Bible or church teachings, or in textbooks or the newspapers.

Many people do not wish to question and analyse, but would rather 'trust' the 'experts'. This is the problem with beliefs and how they may not be based on evidence. Philosophical methods and analysis enable a potential demystication of this, as a way of going beyond superficial thinking, to a more accurate and careful critique of what ideas are accurate, in the light of empirical methods and rational theories.

I'm watching a video series on philosophy. It has the following to say about beliefs vis-à-vis testimony

1. David Hume: We should believe testimonies only when there's good reason that the testifier is likely to be right (principle of justification).

2. Thomas Reid: The propensity to believe testimonies even without adequate evidence that the testifier is likely to be right is innate (the principle of credulity). Reid argues that if Hume were right, the principle of credulity should be weakest in children but, the truth of the matter is, it's strongest in children.

You speak of the way in which beliefs 'may be avowals (ie. subjective appeals, or emotional declarations of trust)' and this may be where philosophy is needed to stand back from beliefs critically — Jack Cummins

What would be the point of us "to stand back from beliefs critically?" How are we to live an examined life (Socrates) if we "stand back from beliefs critically"? Philosophy that does not reflect on "beliefs critically" it seems is not (western / modern) philosophy but more like sophistry or pastoral ministry or self-help therapy.

When I said 'stand back from beliefs, I did not mean that examining them is to be avoided, but the opposite, that they need to be examined and reflected upon. What is so worthwhile in cognitive behavioral therapy is the way in which beliefs and assumptions are explored and critiqued, as it is underlying beliefs, including those about the self which have an effect on the emotions. Also, many philosophical beliefs as unexamined may affect the emotions, especially if there are underlying core conflicts.

Brain-teaser.

1. Hitler's identity was/is defined by his beliefs (Nazism)

2. I can change my beliefs and yet I don't change (my beliefs are not me).

Ergo,

3. Something's wrong (We've misidentified Hitler, Hitler is not Hitler if to be Hitler is to subscribe to Nazism or I can change who I am by changing my beliefs).

He is (you are) not ONLY "defined by" his (your) "beliefs" which is why he could have changed them (you can change yours).

When I said 'stand back from beliefs, I did not mean that examining them is to be avoided ... — Jack Cummins

You said "stand back from beliefs critically" which seems like "avoid examining them" to me. CBT (though not philosophy itself) certainly engages "beliefs critically". What do you mean by "critically" if not by examination? Your point is inconsistent and thereby is lost on me.

He is (you are) not ONLY "defined by" his (your) "beliefs" which is why he could have changed them (you can change yours). — 180 Proof

So, it's yes and no kinda deal. Yes, Hitler is Nazism but not quite. :chin:

Let's take another, more benign, example, the Pope. The Pope draws his identity from Christianity i.e. if the Pope thinks/says/does anything that's Chrsitianity thinking/speaking/doing but the Pope is, and I quote, "not ONLY" Christianity. We are more than just our beliefs. Why then are we demonized/worshipped for our beliefs? We shouldn't be, right? We can change our beliefs just as easily as women slip into attire after attire.

Epistemic Responsibility?

But then...

Ok, here's a little something to ponder upon. I'd love it if 180 Proof weighs in.

1. Epistemic responsibility is, well, a really good idea. Beliefs have moral consequences - they can either be fabulously great for our collective welfare or they could cause a lot of hurt.

2. Epistemic responsibility seems married to rationality for good, there's little doubt that that isn't the case. Rationality is about obeying the rules of logic and, over and above that, having a good handle on how to make a case.

So far so good.

3. Now, just imagine, sends chills down my spine, that rationality proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that immoralities of all kinds are justified e.g. that slavery is justified, racism is justified, you get the idea. This isn't as crazy as it sounds - a lot of atrocities in the world have been, for the perps, completely logical.

Here we have a dilemma: Either be rational or be good. If you're rational, you end up as a bad person. If you're good, you're irrational.

As you can see this messes up the clear and distinct notion of epistemic responsibility as simulataneously endorsing rationality AND goodness.

Thoughts... — TheMadFool

I don't think my point about standing back from beliefs was particularly inconsistent, because what I was meaning is that each person has a set of beliefs but needs to maintain some objectivity. That is because there is a need for acknowledging subjective views and be open to critical examinations as well. For example, if someone has socialist beliefs, it is important to acknowledge certain values, like equality of wealth and fair distribution of wealth. On the other hand, it is important to be able to be able to think about ideas such as the rationale of arguments for capitalism. So, I am really suggesting the importance of critical examination, alongside recognition of personal bias and values.

When I said 'stand back from beliefs — Jack Cummins

Yes, we shouldn't, it's better that we stand back from examining our beliefs critically. See my reply to 180 Proof and epistemic responsibility which might open Pandora's box.

I am not sure what my 'boo boo' was. Have a look at the reply which I sent to Proof and see if it makes sense rationally.

I am not sure what my 'boo boo' was. Have a look at the reply which I sent to Proof and see if it makes sense rationally. — Jack Cummins

Read my post just above yours. Edited.

I agree that rationality has its limitations. The problem which I see is that human beings are comprised of various functions, including rationality, emotions and imagination. Therefore, when they simply try to follow rationality they are influenced by the other functions as well, even though this may be denied. What this means is that rationality is used to justify beliefs while the actuality is not that simple. In particular, I know people who are racist or sexist and they are able to justify their ideas, to the point where it is extremely difficult to argue with them. In most cases, their beliefs stem from strong emotions often based on childhood conditions. I do challenge racism and sexism, but it is extremely difficult because such ideas and values are deep seated beyond the surface of rational logic.

Why then are we demonized/worshipped for our beliefs? We shouldn't be, right? — TheMadFool

Self-serving bias: people "demonize" those they disagree with and "worship" those they agree with especially when the social or political stakes are high enough.

So, I am really suggesting the importance of critical examination, alongside recognition of personal bias and values. — Jack Cummins

Well, the post you replied to where I describe "belief that" and "belief in" distinguishes between them critically in order to suggest that the latter only tells us about the "believer" and nothing about the object of belief (as the former can). Rationality and science are effective to the degree they "bracket" (epoche according to phenomenologists) or filter-out and minimize the vagueries and arbitrariness of how "personal bias and values" tend to confuse 'what is the case' with 'what is not the case' and vice versa. I don't see the cognitive / epistemic value, Jack, of what you're proposing. Our "personal bias and values" may be useful for parochial survival (i.e. shallow heuristics) but they are profoundly inadequate for discerning truths from untruths and establishing knowledge (i.e. deep algorithms which are explanatory or facilitate explanations). Philosophy reflects on this difference and, IME, to the degree philosophers reflect "critically", they prioritize knowledge over mere (porcine) survival.

I am in favour of going beyond personal biases but recognising them initially may be a starting point for this. Critical thinking is important, but the question as to what extent a person can be neutral or value free is another matter. To strive towards that may be to go beyond what it means to be human and may be an approach which could be used to usher in totalitarian regimes.

So rationality and science are "totalitarian"?

Didn't you get the TikTok dancing racoon video which proves this?