Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point? — TiredThinker

I agree.

Though I suspect "confidence" and "faith" are related, I would not consider them synonyms. Generally, one's confidence is more easily eroded than one's faith? And people having the same degree of faith may not necessarily have the same degree of confidence? And wouldn't people be more likely to rely upon faith when their confidence wanes than to rely upon confidence when their faith wanes? They are not the same.

I would agree that "we" don't have a drive for wisdom. Or if we do, it is not equal in all people. Perhaps some are more naturally disposed toward wisdom than others.

Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. — BC

We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. — BC

Or do we shut it down? The socialization process is often heavily focused upon shutting people up. Though we do try to find kinder ways to shut them up, the goal remains the same.

Great post. If wisdom is something we desire, then do all desire it equally? Or maybe it is something only certain people desire. And when we say things like "I learned that the hard way", aren't we confessing that wisdom may have been thrust upon us? And some of the wisest people I know strike me as people who have never been in search of wisdom per se. Instead, their wisdom seems to be a matter of profiting from their experiences, both good and bad. Great post.

Philosophers are nothing but curious children, and children are our purest philosophers — kudos

I am more likely to agree with the latter than the former. Much of philosophy strikes me as anti-curious and focused more upon shutting down the curious rather than seriously considering their questions.

Socrates may be a good example of the philosopher as curious child but we know what happened to him. His incessant questioning was not well received.

My question came about because of the use of the word 'confidence', which I had laid out in a different context earlier, as an alternative to faith. — Tom Storm

That is an interesting notion. Yet if we think about the way people use the words, I would expect someone's confidence to be more easily eroded than their faith. And couldn't one lose their and still have faith?

I often think of faith as a measure of how deeply a belief is held. Isn't faith what we cling to when our beliefs are under serious attack and our confidence is waning? When it comes to our deepest beliefs, maybe faith is just the last thing we let go of.

Worms double down — Vaskane

Instead of proving the above by example, you could actually discuss the philosophical issues presented. Either way, your dictionary definition, your ad hominem skills, and your deeply profound contributions regarding the variations of faith are noted.

I'll be free from any TPF moderator backlash since you're digging for the meaning of my words. — Vaskane

What do moderators have to do with anything? Are you afraid I am going to tell on you? Though dealing with you would be more pleasant if you were not a bully, that is your problem to deal with. I have no desire to silence you or to adjust your poor behavior. And how un-philosophical of me to actually dig for the meaning of your words.

Semantics didn't matter was a nice way of me saying: don't be a dumbass — Vaskane

Though I appreciate your concern for my psychological development and emotional well-being, you are not my mother. You have no reason to believe that the fear of coming across as a dumbass (or any other fear) will silence me. It certainly hasn't silenced you.

a debate you never should have started because you were completely ignorant about — Vaskane

I again remind you that the discussion began in earnest when I took seriously your suggestions that I exercise "due diligence" and that I should "consult a dictionary." I make no claim to be any more or less ignorant on the subject than anyone else. But you have said nothing to indicate your ignorance is any less complete than mine.

I wish you nothing but the best.

All I hear you saying is "blah blah blah, I don't know the definition of faith." — Vaskane

I remind you that what you choose to hear as "blah, blah, blah" is my response to your criticisms that I had not done my "due diligence" and that perhaps I should "consult a dictionary". I chose not to hear your criticisms as "blah, blah, blah."

The "blah, blah, blah" you choose to hear will become a deeper understanding if you instead choose to hear that common-place definitions are inadequate to uncovering meaningful variations of faith as solicited by the title of the OP, i.e., "Types of faith. What VARIATIONS are there?" (Emphasis added by me.).

You'll notice I never equated the two to be the same, so listing their differences is non sequitur. — Vaskane

You'll notice you "equated the two to be the same" by declaring "semantics here doesn't matter" and by subsequently offering commonplace definitions that either equate "faith" with "strong belief" or equate both as synonyms of the Latin word "fides". Consequently, my listing of their differences is in order.

In closing, I took your criticisms seriously and responded by offering a VARIATION in the concept of faith (as solicited by the title of the OP) that unequivocally asserts significant semantic differences between "faith" and "belief" and that is not encompassed by the common-place definitions you offer. Presuming you would give my criticisms the same good faith consideration I gave your criticisms is a mistake I will not make again.

I wish you nothing but the best.

it is an excellent quote and it took me a while to track it down. But it was worth it. I rely heavily upon Kauffman for my understanding of Nietzsche and was not surprised to find out it was his.

Then I suggest you use a dictionary to find you're wrong. — Vaskane

Seriously? You are going to use a dictionary to throw down the gauntlet on a philosophical forum? :-)

The thread is entitled “Types of faith. What variations are there?” (Emphasis added).

If you had initially identified your variation as a commonplace dictionary-type variation, then I would not have bothered to respond to the notion that "semantics here don't matter." Perhaps the below variation on faith would be more philosophically fruitful.

“It is commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonymous. . . but there are important
differences. . . Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts,
whereas belief is simply something we take to be true.” - Simon Laraway paraphrasing Mark Wrathall.

https://hum.byu.edu/difference-between-faith-and--belief#:~:text=Faith%20is%20a%20different%20thing,we%20take%20to%20be%20true.

Simply put, when it comes to the less commonplace variations on faith, semantics here do matter.

Semantics here don't matter — Vaskane

yes it does

faith works via believing — Vaskane

I think you have that backwards. Believing works vis faith. It seems simple enough that faith is generally what we rely upon when it comes to beliefs regarding the unknowable. When it comes to believing that which can neither be proven true nor false, believing either way must of necessity require faith. For beliefs of a non-empirical nature, what other metric could there be?

There is only one type of faith, blind, faith works via believing, not knowing. — Vaskane

I have faith in what I know.

for me thinking in language is also literally picturing the written word/sentence in the mind's eye, I typically do that when I need to plan a sentence between uttering or writing it, as opposed to just speaking naturally and going with the flow — Lionino

Fascinating.

Whether purely silicone based systems can produce sentience seems impossible to answer currently. Finding evidence of silicone-based life, while unlikely, would really shake this up. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

I, for one, don't think in language but in images — Lionino

How do you think when it comes to writing and re-writing?

My paper for my senior seminar almost 40 years ago was entitled Pylyshyn and the Mine/Body Problem. In a sense, the answer will always be no because humans will continually move the goal posts. And AI cannot do that. :-)

Therefore, conversely, it makes no sense to try to apply quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world — and this also applies to philosophical conclusions. — Wolfgang

The transfer of the quantum world to the mesoworld meant philosophy, not technology, — Wolfgang

The above statements strike me as inconsistent. The first seems to include more than philosophy (perhaps science and/or technology?) while the second seems to exclude all but philosophy (including science and/or technology?).

And what is the demarcation line between science/technology/philosophy? And if working technology (transistors as an example) does rely upon both, then does that not have significant philosophical implications?

Please advise.

— Pantagruel

Numbers start at zero. The counting starts at 1. If I am running a 100 yard race, I do not get to start at yard 1.

my last post was intended for you. — ENOAH

and as somewhat of an aside, I greatly appreciate your initial comment to the original question. I would like to discuss it with you. So at some point in the not to distant future, I will contact you via your inbox.

Thank you — ENOAH

You are welcome. And I appreciate all your comments and efforts. As resistant as I sometimes seem to being pushed, pushing me is the most effective way to force me to examine and/or reexamine my positions and to clarify them. And that is priceless.

So thank you.

It is the logical structure underlying language and not mind that is a check against illogical thought. I take this to mean that any illogical thought or propositions would evidently involve a contradiction.and would not be accepted. — Fooloso4

Logic, language, and the world can only make sense to beings for whom logic, language, and the world can make sense.

Why are you and I one of those beings and my hat is not?

I still only get talking the talk from Nietzsche and no walking anywhere. — Fire Ologist

Nietzsche did philosophy from the beginning to the end of his sanity. And he abandoned the ivory tower and did it his way. That was his talk. That was his walk. It was lonely and it ended in madness.

there is a logical structure underlying both language and the world — Fooloso4

and doesn't there also have to be a logical structure underlying mind?

Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being? — ENOAH

The nature of being (ontology) is inaccessible in the absence of being.

A deeper understanding of the nature of being (ontology) can be facilitated with the use of language.

I suspect the above is "truth regarding" all intellectual pursuits.

Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness — ENOAH

Perhaps. Dasein is constitutively pre-ontological. Please see Being and Time.

Also, consciousness is derivative of being-in-the-world. Ibid.

.

Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness — ENOAH

Not all ontologies are the same. Heidegger would say yes. Please see Being and Time.

didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality? — ENOAH

What Heidegger does in Being and Time is consistent with Heidegger's intentions as set forth in the Introduction to Being and Time. Please see Being and Time at page 64.

Is metaphysics for skilled specialists — Joshs

The systematization (schematization?) is nothing new. Plato schematized as have many philosophers throughout history. Some wish to explain everything while others wish everything to be explained.

And in contemporary philosophy, those wishes are evidenced in responses (including some of mine) to questions such as "What's your description of metaphysics?"

I suspect one could Google and find a chart with "Metaphysics" at the top.

It has more to do with the dynamics of conformity. Metaphysics is what One does.

but what is your best description of Metaphysics? — Rob J Kennedy

Contemporary metaphysics represents the systematizing of philosophy.

.

Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics. — Joshs

Excellent point.

extracted from the rest of metaphysics — ENOAH

I do not know what that means. Ontology is not "extracted" from the rest of metaphysics. Metaphysics is an emphasis upon what is, epistemology is an emphasis upon how do what know what is, while ontology is an emphasis upon the nature of what is. There is no necessary hierarchical relationships upon the separate areas of emphasis.

Indeed, the areas of emphasis are to a large degree artificial and serve the purpose of making philosophy in general more accessible by dividing it up in a somewhat artificial manner. When I say my primary area of interest is ontology, I am not saying to the exclusion of all other areas.

You want to talk metaphysics, then we can talk metaphysics and you may run circles around me. If you want to talk epistemology, then we can talk epistemology and you may run circles around me. If you want to talk ontology, then we can talk ontology.

And if you do not want to talk ontology, then that is fine too. But only a metaphysician would attempt to persuade that metaphysics is some sort of umbrella term that includes ontology and epistemology. It is not.

and the "problem" with "pure" ontology — ENOAH

I do not understand what you mean by pure ontology. I have never referred to pure ontology. I am not familiar with the term.

And you may rest assured that my understanding of the nature of being (my ontological disposition) provides me with useful knowledge each and every day.

If your understanding of the nature of being fails to provide you with useful knowledge each and every day, then your understanding of the nature of being is insufficient. And that is on you.

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. — Wittgenstein

One could just as well say that the limits of my language and the limits of my world are the limits of me.

And I for one am tired of being written out of the equation.

they are not propositional and are not as clearly beholden to local axioms as a more fully developed linguistic system — Tom Storm

Well said. And more than a minor point.

but even grunts, growls, and purring excite our language based desire to interpret. is it not in our linguistic nature to interpret the as-structure of all that comes at us? though the grunt, growl, and purr lack discernable syntax, it could be risky to interpret them as semantically void.

This is possible because there is a logical structure underlying both language and the world — Fooloso4

Be that as it may, that does not answer the question of whether logic and language are separable. All it does is raise the parallel question of whether logic and the world are separable. I suspect they are not. No logic, no language. No language, no logic.

And to simply say that one underlies the other gives no necessary primordiality to one or the other. It is not as if we could strip the world away and examine the underlying logic or take away the underlying logic and observe the world. No logic, no world. No world, no logic.

The only useful purpose of their intellectual separation is to facilitate an understanding of the unitary phenomenon of the logical world created with language. Can it get more transcendental than that?

chicken or the egg. and with no language to express the axioms, silence. and speaking only for myself, silence is preferable to incoherence.

It is logic rather than language which is transcendental. — Fooloso4

Are logic and language separable? First we divide the whole into parts to facilitate an understanding of the whole and then we proceed to destroy the whole by declaring some parts more real than others. The notion of either logic or language without the other is as non-sensical as a one sided coin.