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.

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 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.

Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish. However, in some ways it may be the most honest and authentic way. To try to force thinking beyond doubt may force prematurely or inadequate answers, which is just about trying to struggle with doubt, as if it an enemy. Why not embrace doubt instead?

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.

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.

On what basis do you think history has ended? Do you think that it is a post-apocalyptic era which humanity has entered? Definitely interaction has changed, more with the internet than television. If lockdown had not happened, I think that it is unlikely that I would have ever engaged in this forum and it does seem such a different mode to face to face interaction. To some extent, so much of the changes may become more permanent, but I am still not convinced that it is equal to the 'end' of history which Baudrillard spoke about, although his ideas are fairly vague and ambiguous.

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.

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.

Distinguishing between beliefs which are based on mental states and those which are propositions is important indeed. Sometimes, this distinction is not recognized fully and the subjective nature of experience may be mistaken for knowledge. That is almost a soliptist error. However, language comes into play in both the understanding of subjective mental experiences and propositions or rational explanations, and the ability to navigate clearly this area. In a way psychological understanding and philosophical explanations both require the ability to articulate clearly as a basis for analysis.

I think that you make some important points in your post, especially, that of being able to 'learn from history instead of trying to end it. The aspect of Baudrillard's idea which your post appears to captivate is that the "myth' of the end of history may have an impact on the way human beings act with regard to the future of civilisation.

Yes, I have come across Nietzsche's idea of 'the last man' briefly. My understanding is that it is equated with nihilism, and many may be falling into that category. It may be the worst possibility because it would involve passive pessimism. Of course, wishful thinking about everything resolving itself is probably not helpful either. People may range at all points along the spectrum in trying to view the future, or potential end of it.

I don't think that we can in any way rely on computers for the rebuilding of civilisation if the current one collapses. It would be an aspect of the past, like ancient Egypt or Rome, and it would be so hard to know what might ever happen in the distant and remote future. It may be worth human beings focusing on the stage at the present time, to try to ensure the possible continuation of the current one, rather than giving up...

There may be no clear answers as to whether someone who is anxious, depressed or suicidal will be aided positively by studying psychology or philosophy whether it will make things even worse. To suggest that it should be avoided would be taking the view that exploring psychological areas in more depth would be focusing upon such issues. So, is avoidance preferable?

It is possibly true that the study of psychology may draw people who issues to work upon, although many choose to study it because it has a clear pathway into becoming a clinical psychologist. You appear to be suggesting that it is not a good idea if people who have experiences of depression or any 'mental illness' end up with licences to help others. As so many people have some kind of experience of anxiety or depression this would rule out so many, and from what I have seen in mental health care some experience of mental illness is often valued in the profession, as giving a stepping stone towards an empathetic approach to others' psychological distress.

I have just looked at the two articles which you included in your link. They are very interesting, so I thank you for sharing them. The idea of a world state is an aspect which I have wondered about for some time, and how it would work in relation to anarchy, division and pluralism. Or, could it pave the way towards totalitarianism? So much may come down to the nature of leadership and hierarchy. It would require such a degree of responsibility by those in positions of power in leading the way forward in sustainability and allocations of resources in a fair and equal way. The question may be whether humanity, especially the leaders have reached the level of consciousness to oversee this, or would collapse under the sway of the worst aspects of human nature, like many previous political movements?

Thanks for the discussion on the ideas of Fukuyami as I was having a little difficulty connecting the idea of the end of history with politics. What your post has lead me to wonder about is whether on a global pandemic humanity may be at the point where it may need to go beyond the politics of both capitalism and socialism, in order to go beyond fundamental divisions, if this is possible in any real and practical way.

I looked at your link and I can see what you mean, but I wasn't thinking about it consciously. Also, it is interesting to think of the garden of Eden and the end of the world, or history, because they are the start and end of the Biblical account. I have read the beginning and end of the Bible more than any other part. My initial concern about the end of civilisation came in the context of the Biblical idea of the end of the world, before I came across Baudrillard's idea while studying sociology.

It may be that the Biblical idea and Nostradamus's ideas had some kind of self- fulfilling prophecy. Humans may have viewed themselves as the last inhabitants of the planet, and treated resources carelessly, without regard for future generations and other lifeforms.

I have to admit that I rarely ever smell the roses and often don't pay much attention to gardens at all. However, it is probably good to appreciate nature. I spent more time in parks in lockdown because venues were shut down and it does seem that many people did begin to appreciate outdoors, when in usual circumstances people often prefer being indoors. Children love being outdoors and some adults do, but many like myself are more inclined to wander around shopping centres and coffee shops. I will try to remember to smell the roses. One of my female friends made me laugh when she told me that she is not looking for a relationship with anyone and that she sometimes falls in love with trees.

I found a lot of ambiguity in his use of many terms in, 'The Illusion of the End'. In some ways it makes it hard to interpret his ideas clearly, but it may be that he was writing ambiguously as an intentional way of leaving a lot of scope for readers' imaginations.

There was some kind of thought about humanity moving into space at one point, but I am unclear if this is still on the agenda. Baudrillard does speak of technological 'resurrection' but I think that he means prolonging life beyond the 'normal' lifespan and this idea is being worked on by the movement of transhumanism. It is likely that possibilities of combining human and machine are being worked upon, but it is hard to know how much is the realm of science fiction and what could really happen. David Pearce spoke of head transplants becoming a likely event, but if It became possible in my life time I would certainly not wish for it.

But, of course if the majority of civilisation was wiped out somehow, it is likely that there would be some survivors, even if they were in remote places. If some computers 'survived', it is possible that the survivors would be able to use information at some point to rebuild civilisation.

I am definitely making a connection between Baudrillard's idea of the 'end' of history and the civilisation that has developed in many nations. How can civilisation go on in the way it has done? Climate change seems to be a warning sign, and the question is whether it is too late or not to avert it. Perhaps we are coming to the end of consumer materialism. I wonder if the pandemic and the scale to which so many lives were turned upside down will bring a wake up call for some big changes, but it is hard to know...

There is a big difference in the idea of the end of the world and the idea of the end of history. However, it is possible to see a fair amount of ambiguity in Baudrillard' s writing, and I am referring to his book, 'The illusion of the End'. This is because he does point to the possibility of the end of civilisation. In particular, he speaks of remnants of history continuing beyond the end of civilisation as we know it in the form of artificial intelligence.

Baudrillard was speaking of 'history' in a Hegelian sense. This can get lost in the interpretation of his writings, and the way in which he speaks of cycles rather than linear aspects. So, an underlying issue would be whether the end, or would give way to a new beginning at some point in time.

It is useful that you have mentioned Fukuyama's writing about the the idea of 'the last man'. I have not read his writing, but Baudrillard's idea grew from that particular perspective of political thinking, including utopianism.

I think that it would cause all sorts of emergencies because everyone is so dependent on it increasingly. Being unable to use this site would probably be low on the agenda of our worries, although I once dreamt that TPF site crashed..The problem of people using Wifi for most things is going to become more of a problem though, especially as we rely on it for information in emergencies and for communication.

I think that your reply captures the way in which sentience is an essential part of belief. It is not as if knowledge is some abstract aspect 'out there', because as human beings the way people search for meaning in the form of belief is an essential part of living existentially.

I think that your point about destroying life is important and I could be tempted to start a thread about destruction, but won't do so for now, as there are several addressing the climate and environmental concerns.

So, I am thinking of how it connects to the nature of belief. What may be important is how there is often a consensus of belief maintained by those in power. Many people do not question authority and may be lulled into a security that the leaders know what they are doing. So, the issue may be about blind belief.

Discussing philosophy online and in real life
Going to coffee shops to meet friends and to read and write
Listening to music, ranging from goth, metal, punk and emo, psychedelia, indie and alternative rock
Drawing and painting
Meandering around, including record and bookshops, charity shops and libraries

I agree with you against 'blindly insisting others to follow'. I could gladly criticise Google as I am sure that 's/he' could not be distraught through personal attacks. I use Google, as a basic guide but I do think people are beginning to look to this resource engine almost as an 'expert'. Some of the information put on the web is so much better than other bits. I am not referring to people on this site particularly, but I think that there is some danger of people looking for information on Google and seeing it as a reliable because it is on the internet. I 'believe' in the importance of critical thinking as a stepping stone for belief, rather than the fuzziness of bombardment of information and the loss of personal voice amidst it all.

It's a little confusing, because it all ties up with your reply to someone else. Perhaps all this shows how convoluted philosophical arguments can become. Such is the nature of belief and our personal entanglements in its web.

I can't make any sense of your reply to Athena. I have no idea of where you quote about Google comes from. it certainly doesn't come from her post, and I don't see what relevance it has to what she has said at all. Are you criticising Google? I simply don't know what you are trying to say in connection with belief in the post above.

Sometimes it seems as if the notion of individual perspectives and views is becoming lost. Of course, it is important to get accurate knowledge but, even then, each person has to think about it on a personal level. Even though there is so much information about everything, it is likely that each person thinks a little bit differently, putting ideas together, interpreting and forming conclusions. Also, the basis of beliefs and understanding is likely to be connected with personal experiences and life experiences play an important role in the modification of beliefs. I am sure that this includes attitudes and the whole mindset from which our ideas evolve.

I am sorry if you think that I read your reply wrongly and I am certainly in favour of valid reasoning and logic. I believe that individuals are socialised into specific belief systems, and this programming is deepseated. But, certainly, I am in favour of logic and reasoning, as a way of exploring it. Philosophy is a means of providing the tools for going beyond mere acceptance of what childhood socialisation offers, and about going beyond skeleton structures of belief, to the most informed perspectives possible.

I think that your idea of 'forced' belief is interesting, because in some ways ideas can be enforced in childhood and later as a form of subconscious programming. It goes beyond the surfaces of logic and, ideas may be conveyed on a subliminal level, almost hypnotically and it is at this deeper level of consciousness that the core of belief may function.

You are suggesting that it is not possible to know a falsehood and I think that it is so much easier to know falsehoods than 'truth' itself. We can say that the world was NOT created in 7 days and so many ideas can be rejected on the basis of entire lack of credibility. So, I would suggest that perception of what is false is such an important starting point for all else.

I think that your concept of faith as the emotional aspect of belief is important because human beings are not guided by reason alone, but by a complex mixture of the two. It may be a problem if people develop 'faith' on the basis of emotional needs entirely, but, probably most people develop 'faith' based on aspects of emotional bias, and it may be that they remain unaware of this, as an aspect of bias which may be almost unconscious.

I have been reading this thread a few days late and one aspect of discussion which I think is interesting is the question of delusions and illusions. In the case of delusions, there is a clear a acknowledgeable falsehood, even though it may be clung to by someone. However, with an illusion it is a matter of perception and different 'images' of 'reality' or 'truth' and this is where it gets a bit more complicated.

That is because any view is only one of a plurality of possibilities, and this is where the issue of subjectivity and objectivity comes in. These are often seen as two distinct modes. However, as beings in time and space human beings are subjects within a larger objective sphere. So, perception and gaining knowledge involves belief and personal perception, but also extending outwards to wider spheres of objective and intersubjective of knowledge.

I thank everyone for the comments in the thread and I apologise that I haven't been able to engage in it in the last few days due to personal circumstances. I have only replied to the one on 'personal meanings' so far because it caught my attention, and I will write some more replies as soon as I am able to, but please continue debating the nature of belief...

Jack

I thank you and others for replying. I think that the 'personal meanings' aspect is an important area of questioning beliefs. There is a major difference between the personal aspects and establishing of socially constructed ones. It ranges from the way people develop ideas throughout life, ranging from personal autobiographical narratives to depictions of the world.

Children may be encouraged to think in terms of stories, including belief in Father Christmas and as they get a bit older such beliefs are seen as childhood fantasies. The examination of statements in the light of established knowledge within the cultural context of accepted beliefs. There is a certain amount of negotiation because some aspects of belief are based on subjective values, such as political beliefs, but it would seem problematic if a person held onto beliefs without a social context, and there are likely to be dialogues and debates about certain areas of belief within any given culture, but if someone held on to private subjective meanings without reference to others' understanding it would be a private world of fantasy and potential delusion.

I am writing this thread with a view to wider consideration of the nature of belief and how it figures In the scope of knowledge and ideas. I wish to argue that belief and the idea of suggesting that 'I believe' is about ownership of ideas, rather than bringing these in a vague way' as aspects of development of argument for any philosophy position.I am hoping that I have not misrepresented @Amity, and what I am trying to explore in the idea of this thread is the personal and wider aspects of ideas, especially in relation to what may be considered under the scope of 'belief, in the context of the personal and cultural contexts. What is'belief, or system of beliefs and the scope of its validity'? How does one justify belief, through scientific methodology or through other means of verification of personal belief systems? Do collective aspects of verification and validity cancel out the individual ways of thinking, as inferior to larger systems of belief?