We are talking about a single speaker's assertions/statements. All statements, when sincerely spoken, are belief statements. The two beliefs in question directly contradict one another.

I'm saying "It is raining and I believe that it is not raining".

There is only one belief; the belief that it is not raining. So where is this contradiction? — Michael

There are two belief statements. The contradiction is there.

It makes perfect sense. "it is raining" and "I believe that it is raining" mean different things. The former refers to the weather -- a physical fact about what the world is doing outside my head -- and the latter refers to my belief. — Michael

Sincere speakers believe the statements they make. A sincere speaker believes it is raining regardless of whether or not they prefix the statement with "I believe". Given that it is not raining inside your belief, the latter is not just about your belief. "I believe" adds nothing meaningful here.

But what is absurd about asserting "it is raining" and "I believe that it is not raining"? You keep saying that it sounds absurd without explaining what about it is absurd. We've already established that the two sentences mean different things, have different truth-conditions, and can both be true. So where exactly does the problem arise? — Michael

In the account of those two belief statements. The problem is the conflation of belief statements and propositions(statements examined in isolation from the speaker).

One cannot believe both that it is raining and that it is not raining. Asserting "it is raining" assuming a sincere speaker, tells the audience that the speaker believes it is raining. Asserting "I believe that it is not raining" directly contradicts that.

A speaker cannot believe them both at the same time. A speaker can assert them both at the same time. Hence, the absurdity and/or self-contradiction.

...a lie is not the same thing as a contradiction or an aburdity. — Michael

That one is.

What have I said that leads you to believe that I've made any conclusions about you as a person, aside from noting that the idea of "white privilege" seems extremely offensive to you?

How is it harmful?

Again, I'm not saying "I believe that it is raining and I believe that it is not raining". I'm saying "It is raining and I believe that it is not raining".

There is only one belief; the belief that it is not raining. So where is this contradiction? — Michael

If you're sincerely saying that it is raining, then you believe it is raining. If you believe that it is raining, then you cannot believe that it is not.

Why is it that "It is raining outside" - when and if if spoken sincerely - is spoken by a language user who believes that it is raining outside?

What is the necessary link which makes it impossible for someone to sincerely say "It's raining outside" (a statement about the state of affairs of the world), when they believe it is not (a state of their internal mind) — Isaac

Why do we need a link that makes it impossible to sincerely say "It's raining outside" if we do not believe that that's true? Belief presupposes truth. One cannot believe both simultaneously; that it is raining outside, and that it is not raining outside.

There's no link needed here that I can tell...

That's just how meaningful belief and statements thereof work(s).

Again, what does sincerity have to do with it? What it means and whether or not it's true has nothing to do with what the speaker believes. — Michael

Seeing how we're talking about the absurdity of particular belief statements, and the two are contradictory, and it is impossible to believe both at the same time, it matters.

The claim I have made is that the meaning and truth of the sentence "it is raining outside" has nothing to do with the speaker's belief... — Michael

"It is raining outside" - when and if spoken sincerely - is spoken by a language user who believes that it is raining outside. When spoken insincerely, it is uttered by one who believes it not.

...why does it matter if "one cannot believe both that it is raining and that it is not at the same time"? — Michael

Because that is what makes it incoherent and/or self contradictory when one claims both at the same time.

"It is raining outside but I do not believe that it is raining outside" consists of two completely different claims that have completely different subject matters as well as completely different truth conditions.

"It is raining outside" is true if and only if it is raining outside. "I believe it is not raining outside" is true if and only if I believe it is not raining outside. One cannot believe both that it is raining and that it is not at the same time. Thus, stating "It is raining outside, but I do not believe it" is incoherent in every situation I can think of aside from the example Isaac provided earlier.

To combine them into a single sentence however, is to treat two separate claims about completely different things as if it is a single claim with one set of truth conditions.
— creativesoul

No it isn't.

My name is Michael and water is H2O. — Michael

Red herring.

When one does not believe that it is raining outside, they cannot also believe themselves if and when they say otherwise, despite the fact that the belief is false while the lie is true(if it is raining, they believe otherwise, but nonetheless state that it is raining).

You're conflating the meaning of a sentence with the beliefs of the speaker. They're not the same thing....

...It is not a contradiction for "it is raining" to be true and for "I believe that it is not raining" to be true and so it is not a contradiction for "it is raining and I believe that it is not raining" to be true. — Michael

I think I agree with the latter part. There are two statements at hand. Each with it's own focus, meaning, and/or truth conditions.

The former statement "it is raining" is about whether or not it is raining. The latter statement "I believe that it is not raining" is about the speaker's own belief. That's how both can be true at the same time.

To combine them into a single sentence however, is to treat two separate claims about completely different things as if it is a single claim with one set of truth conditions.

I'm not conflating the meaning of a sentence with the beliefs of the speaker. I did overlook the fact that one can deliberately misrepresent their own beliefs. One can say whatever one wishes about their own belief.

↪creativesoul
Really? I guess it did for me and I thought maybe it would be the same for others, go back to the link and read page 24. — Judaka

Read enough to be pleasantly surprised...

Struggle to grasp how you've arrived at the belief that discussions of "white privilege" are not helpful.

Thus, one who thinks, believes, and/or says "It is raining outside" cannot also think, believe, and/or otherwise say "it is not raining outside", or "I do not believe it is raining outside" without self-contradiction.

I can believe one thing but say the opposite. It's called lying. — Michael

Yes. That claim needs amended somewhat.

Statements are statements of belief, assuming sincerity.
— creativesoul

What does sincerity have to do with it? I can say "My name is Andrew" which has a meaning and a truth-value that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it. — Michael

Funny you should ask. Remember the struggles I went through coming to acceptable terms with Gettier's paper? The solution is drawing and maintaining the difference between a statement and statement of individual belief. In short, Gettier forgets all about the fact that the statements he's accounting for are Smith's beliefs. Had he kept that in mind, the referent of "the guy with ten coins in his pocket" is Smith himself. The truth conditions remain the same.

Gettier moves from "the guy" referring to Smith, to "the guy" referring to any guy with ten coins in his pocket. The problem, simply put, is that Smith did not believe that anyone else would get the job but himself, yet Gettier needs us to forget that part along with the truth conditions thereof.

Gettier changes the referent, the meaning, and the truth conditions of Smith's belief statement. That's an accounting malpractice.

The problem in a nutshell for Case I.

One can say whatever one wants to say about their own past mental ongoings.

To your point...

One can offer a report of past events captured on video. One can sincerely say "Look, it's raining(in the video), but I do not believe that it is(at that time, again, in the video)" without contradiction.

I would concur.

↪creativesoul
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us

Read my posts on this page. — Judaka

That page was completely absent of any particular posts clearly attributed to Judaka.

There were none. So...

Do black lives matter to you?

Macintosh watches a video his third friend made of the evening showing himself and the window behind him, he exclaims - perfectly coherently - "Look at me getting up to leave without even reaching for my coat. It’s raining outside, but I don’t believe it is”

The statement can be made perfectly coherently narrating in present tense the recollection of a past discrepancy, which is all his friend was doing in the first place — Isaac

If one misuses verb tense.

It was raining, but I did not believe that it was.

Statements are statements of belief, assuming sincerity. Thus, one who thinks, believes, and/or says "It is raining outside" cannot also think, believe, and/or otherwise say "it is not raining outside", or "I do not believe it is raining outside" without self-contradiction.

"I believe" adds nothing to "it is raining outside" during sincere speech acts.

What's evident in the replies to this thread, again, is that the privileged do not understand their privilege. — Banno

Well, some certainly do not. Some do. Thus, I'd temper the claim above while generally agreeing with it.

What's been clear here... from my vantage point anyway, is that for some reason or other, some folk hereabouts find it very troubling to openly talk about the completely unacceptable residual affects/effects of racists writing laws... systemic racism. It's not as of it is a big secret. Hence the earlier question that Judaka approached as if it was an attack on them personally, was actually aimed at the problem. It's cuts directly to the heart of the matter at hand.

We all know that being treated like that(like American black people by some of those in power) is wrong. No one of us would want to be treated like that. If it is impermissible for another to treat us like that. If we do not wish to be treated as such, then, if we care about the society we live in, we ought wish the same for our fellow black citizens, community members, family members, friends, and/or loved ones. If we will not, do not, and/or refuse to acknowledge the historical problems of racism in America, we are a part of the problem today, regardless of whether or not we are racist.

If we want to correct the issues...

We do not deliberately portray blacks in the most negative light simply because they are kneeling in peaceful protest of what we all know is happening. Peaceful demonstration is a protected American's right; a means to voice grievances. There can be no form of punishment.

...perhaps someone here can actually give a compelling argument for why it is important for people to understand their privilege and why thinking about things in this way is important or useful? — Judaka

There are many white people who agree that racism is wrong but do not understand the extent of it's historical consequences. There are many white people who feel personally attacked by the notion of white privilege. There are many who attack whites because they have benefitted from a system largely governed by rules written by racists.

Understanding white privilege corrects all these misgivings and results in solidarity.

Thought before language or language before thought? That is a bit of a chicken and egg question as the two are entangled. — apokrisis

That is well worth unpacking though, for it sheds much needed light upon the subject matter. One historical issue is the all or nothing approach. Some thought is prior to language, other thought is not.

...there are those who hold that any worthwhile theory of language must set out a specific set of instructions giving how meaning is to be determined. — Banno

Or perhaps... how it always has been, still is, and will continue to be... 'determined'.

I feel like I'm not allowed to try to forward new ideas unless I've got a PhD and can get published in a professional journal. — Pfhorrest

Not only is it common to feel like one is not allowed... they are actually not. I'm a prima facie example. Academic philosophy still works from a piss poor understanding of what human thought and belief is, what it consists of, and how it emerges and subsists in the world. The inevitable consequences of that basic rudimentary misunderstanding are strewn throughout philosophy including each and every subtopic. Not only that, but as a result of current geopolitical politics being based upon philosophy proper in many ways, and philosophy proper being sorely mistaken about human thought and belief, and given that human thought and belief is precisely what politics is... the legitimization of thought and belief about what we ought or ought not do... well...

A sixty to one hundred thousand dollar loan for a philosophy degree is a financial death sentence.

Like walking black at night, possessing a counterfeit twenty dollar bill, or lying asleep in bed?

There is an argument that goes; (1) moral evaluations depend upon minds and mind derived structures, therefore (2) there are no objective imperatives. I agree with the premise and the conclusion (with some qualifications), but think the implication from (1)=>(2) is false. — fdrake

Needs unpacked.

Rests upon drawing and maintaining a meaningful distinction between what counts as a "mind derived structure" and what does not. That path is long, winding, and unnecessary.

Drop "mind derived structure" in favor of focusing upon just what it means to be dependent upon a mind. I would even take it one step further and clarify... existential dependency. All mind derived structures are themselves existentially dependent upon a mind. However, the converse is not the case. Not all minds are themselves existentially dependent upon mind derived structures. So, the former exhausts the latter.

Then there's the bit about being objective...

Nothing objective can be dependent upon a mind in any way, shape, or form. All things ever thought, believed, spoken, written, uttered, and/or otherwise expressed are existentially dependent upon a mind. Therefore, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, written, uttered, and/or otherwise expressed has been(or can be rightfully/coherently called) objective.

So, regarding the 'argument'...

All moral evaluations are existentially dependent upon a plurality of minds. Not all moral imperatives are existentially dependent upon moral evaluations. All moral imperatives are existentially dependent upon a plurality of minds. Nothing objective is itself existentially dependent upon minds. All moral imperatives are. Therefore, there are no objective moral imperatives

I agree with the statement called the 'premise' and the statement called the 'conclusion'. However, there is no immediate and obvious implication between the two. The second does not follow from the first.

Changing the subject doesn't change the question. I'm puzzled here.

What's so bad about the question? It's not an implied accusation, like when asking someone if they still beat their wife and kids.

We do agree that racial and legal injustices towards blacks were/are commonplace and need to be corrected, right?

I'm getting a sense of frustration about the topic coming from your words. No one's asking for white people to beat themselves over the head. Rather, what's being asked for is for everyone to do everything in their power in order to stop the racial injustice towards black people whenever and however we can. Coming from an openly proud and outspoken gay man like yourself, certainly you share much common ground with anyone who has been treated horribly as a result of public norms that did not accept you as you are because of that. I know you can relate to unjust discrimination on many different levels than me.

So we both know of some problems regarding how blacks have been treated throughout American history. Surely we're also both aware of how other minorities(aside from white males) have been treated here as well. We agree that no one should be subject to such treatment and grave injustice.

As you well know, white privilege is the result of policy meant to benefit whites. A large part of which meant keeping blacks from being able to freely and publicly intermingle between whites, talk to whites, befriend and/or love whites, etc. This was done under the auspices of freedom of choice and liberty. The freedom to choose the kind of people one wants to be around. In fact, that sentiment of separation ran(and still currently runs) so deep as to be shared through different individual family and/or community members throughout generations in such a way that any individual family member thought and/or believed to be 'too close' to any particular black person would find themselves ostracized from the family as a direct result from breaking with/from the accepted norm. Such belief persists in practice.

We agree that something needs done.

American society is evolving in that it's changing, bit by bit, into a more representative form of government. Slowly but surely. Acknowledging that the rules governing the American people were always written only by those with the power to do so is one step we need to take. The overwhelming majority of those folk, at one time, were racist. They nearly all held beliefs surrounding the intentional devaluation of black people based upon nothing aside from the fact that they were black. As before, many held up their own rights of freedom and liberty to value/devalue whatever and whomever they so choose. In the United States, so it is strongly believed, one is free to think and believe whatever they so choose. Acknowledging the fact that the policies enacted by those kinds of racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, violent, people have had seriously harmful effects/affect upon those not white, not male, not American 'enough', not heterosexual, not 'us'(in their minds) is yet another step in the direction of the right kinds of change.

Here's a suggested course of practical action/application...

When a presiding federal judge first enters the courtroom, sees a black man sitting in the counsel's chair, and immediately assumes that he is the defendant, despite his being appropriately dressed, then it is clear that the system in place includes judges who think the worst about someone simply because the color of their skin is black. When that same black man finds himself arguing in front of the Supreme Court due to his legal acumen/skill, we can also most certainly know that we have judges who are utterly incapable of making fair, impartial, and/or sound judgments about a black man(most likely blacks in general). Such a person is unfit to wield such tremendous power over black people.

Such a person cannot be granted the power to influence and/or outright determine the fate of any black man, ever again.

Yes. Yes indeed...

Let us change the way society works. Illuminating the deep-seated injustices is a step in the right direction. You've helped do this with your last post. Acquiring knowledge of white privilege requires discussion. What we do with it is another matter altogether. The need to shed light upon the racially charged hateful parts of American history, including the systemic racism imbedded into the criminal justice/law enforcement institutions remains until there are no racists. misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic people left in power.

Not all whites are racist. Not all racists are white. White privilege warrants careful and attentive discussion, not disdain for it's mention.

What grounds the refusal to answer?

Do you not know how blacks have been historically treated?

Would you want to get treated the way blacks in America have been and still are, in many ways, being treated?

Questions aren't the sort of thing that can be honest or dishonest. It's a serious question. Do you have some issue answering it?

Compelling argument against placing too much value upon personal liberty/freedom/rigged individualism.

Serious question here...

Would any one of you like to be treated in the exact same way as blacks are known to be treated by police and the criminal justice system in the United States of America?

My apologies. I would question that claim myself... Open mouth, insert foot. Should have read more carefully than I did.

I asked for the science that tells us that mask-wearing is better than personal liberty in the long term.
— Isaac

Are you serious?
— creativesoul

Of course he is.

"Better than" is a value judgement. Science doesn't make value judgements. — ChrisH

Isaac is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but since you answered...



So what? I mean, that's not even in question here... is it? What difference does that make to the discussion here?

Science is not an agent. Science doesn't think, believe, wonder, or anything else that agents such as ourselves often do. Science doesn't make any judgments. That's not even in question, and I seriously doubt that the OP meant anything of the sort.

He was simply claiming that science could be used as a reliable means to help us make better moral decisions... how to act in order to minimize unnecessary harm and how to act in order to increase human flourishing. If those are moral concerns, then science, can be rightfully and reliably used as an important tool for doing so.

Science is the most reliable means of acquiring information from which to better make our own judgments, including the ones under consideration here regarding the ongoing pandemic and what we must do if we want to contain it and be able to get on with our lives on the other side of that task.

Science doesn't tell us that we ought do everything in our power that we can to minimize the death and suffering from the pandemic either. It does however offer us the best knowledge available regarding how to do so.

That's the point.

...why don't we say "good-bye" when starting a conversation? — Harry Hindu

Because that's what's often said in situations of parting ways, not the beginning of conversations. "Hello" is a greeting, and it is not always an appropriate/accepted method/means to begin a conversation. Rather, it is often just a pleasantry; just a nice polite way to acknowledge another's presence.

A short bit on names and pointing...

Names refer to something other than the name. They pick out some individual to the exclusion of all else. Saying that they 'point to something' is wrong-minded. "Trees" doesn't point to trees. We often point to trees when teaching a language learner how we use the term "tree", but that learner has not grasped the use/meaning of the term until they have drawn correlations between the name("tree") and it's referent(a tree). Street just offered adequate enough explanation regarding the indeterminate nature of the pointing part of those activities.

Austin is well worth reading for additional understanding of some of the other things we do with words.