Easy to cast aspersions about the poor when one speaks from the pedestal of privilege... complete ignorance of what that's like.

One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.

Do poor people have access to the internet? — BitconnectCarlos

Irrelevant.

Do you have access to microbes? Then why haven't you discovered all the possible medicinal uses involving them?

As if having access to the internet is adequate and/or sufficient enough all by itself for changing one's initial worldview in such permanent a way that they not only know how to dig themselves out of the unfortunate circumstances that they've found themselves in, but that they also have the confidence/willpower to do it.

You seem to be neglecting the most important elements necessary for an individual and/or family, and/or community of individuals to get themselves out of the situation that they find themselves in.

Ridiculous.

Is it possible to go from poor to rich just the way things are now?

Sure, but those are the exceptions and - while they are improvements to days long gone - they remain just the beginning of lasting changes that are needed. The changes that transcend the generations... a spanning across multiple generations. And you actually suggested access to the internet?

Access to the internet? Really?

:roll:

As if further re-enforcing one's pre-existing thought and belief is the fix?

The magical cure of, by, and for itself.

Can they watch Dave Ramsey? Is there a library near them? — BitconnectCarlos

The internet, Dave Ramsey, and public libraries as a miracle blend...

The ready made smoothie of economic information. Don't miss out! Get yours while you still can. Supplies are limited.

The simple path out of the poor house. More of what the poor already have. Hmmm...

When exactly is that supposed to begin working, and perhaps more importantly, when can we realistically expect to see the resulting improvements? I mean, it has yet to have happened, despite all of those things already being readily available to many if not most.

Must take more than just your magical elixir: The guarantee that sounds good to all who do not understand.

As if those three questions lead to all the answers of how to correct the tremendous wealth gap, and in doing so help those who find themselves at a significant disadvantage through no fault of their own to be able to take the time to digest all of the information necessary in order to have both, the knowledge and the ability to implement that knowledge. In addition, let us not forget, unless one get's very lucky, they must also possess and/or cultivate the inner confidence required for not giving up, the steel necessary for marching onward, the courage to continue on pulling one up by one's own bootstraps despite knowing and/or believing that one will fail in all sorts of ways...

Along with the courage to take new unfamiliar courses comes the unexpected. Poor people do not have mommy and daddy to catch them when they fall... fiscally speaking that is. Poor people do not have what it takes. No one is poor by voluntary choice alone.

Look... :smirk:

The economic smoothie... the magical blend... that you've offered here quite simply cannot fix what needs fixed in the extremely real and ongoing everyday plight of poor people.

The first step is to identify the problem(s). They are multiple. The second step is to identify the source of the problem. The third is to collaborate in order to fix the problem, which includes binding the hands(so to speak) of everyone who played an active role in crafting, implementing, and/or subsequently benefitting from pieces of legislation that were directly responsible for the financial collapse of the world.

As if talking about one's economic savvy is all that goes into understanding how we've gotten to the place where we are, which is soo far from where we ought be as a representative republic with democratic traditions.

I don't know, but given economics is invariably thread into life and always a factor you'd think people would be a bit more interested in it.

Interested in what...

:brow:

Your magical elixir that amounts to nothing more than access to information?


Either you fail to recognize the stark differences between the real life everyday socio-economic circumstances of poor people as compared to rich people , or you fail to properly consider the inevitable effects/affects thereof... all of which are entirely out of the control of hypothetical individual under our considerations.

You clearly do not recognize the latter, otherwise you'd fucking know better than to blame poor discouraged downtrodden people for being poor discourages downtrodden people.

I just don't buy the argument that poor people can't possibly educate themselves on fiscal responsibility. I've seen plenty of them do it. I work with plenty of them. — BitconnectCarlos

It's good that you choose to not 'buy that argument', for it's a non-sequitur, and thus not one that I'm offering. It most certainly does not follow from the position I do argue from and/or for.

Something to think about... carefully...

What counts as being fiscally responsible depends entirely upon individual particular circumstances.You're mistakenly presupposing that there are no poor people who qualify as being financially responsible.

Let me ask you a direct and very pointed question...

How many financial mistakes can an individual make and still count as being fiscally responsible?

Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school.
— BitconnectCarlos

Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right? — ZhouBoTong

Indeed. That's quite true, and it did not even cross my mind upon reading it...

I'm reminded of what Bush Jr. said immediately after 9/11. Spend... spend... spend... like nothing happened.

Everyone should absolutely be financially responsible just like everyone shouldn't drink and drive... this holds true even if some people have a really hard time with it. Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. They only exception would be if you're extremely wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

This is very interesting... seems a bit too shallow though. There's too much being left out of the discussion here. Real things. Everyday circumstances. Real life for poor people.

One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.

What's familiar comes first. Children learn what they live... that's the reality. If one is struggling on paper even to pay bills and provide food for the family despite working full time or several part time jobs(as is more common nowadays), then they may face a difficult choice between food and bills. These people do not have the luxury of even considering a different lifestyle...

I would bet the farm that wealthy people spend far far more money on frivolous items than poor people do. Fiscal responsibility you say???

:brow:

A five thousand dollar mistake can ruin a poor up-and-coming entrepreneur. Not so much a rich one. All else being equal.

We need people who do understand which pieces of legislation have resulted in unnecessarily and quantifiably harming so many Americans. We need people to understand which people voted for and against these pieces of legislation. Some decimated much of the middle class by virtue of decimating the opportunity to seek and acquire gainful employment; the good jobs for good workers; the kinds of employment that provided the resources by virtue of sharing the profits with the workers in much broader fashion that the current norms.

A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to make sure it is able to provide it's people with trustworthy markets, patrons, businesses, and all other services being provided by the American marketplace. This most certainly includes trustworthy money lenders for those in need. A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to ensure that it's citizens are not being systemically taken advantage of by any individual or group of individuals who wield such power... over and over and over again...

A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to protect and serve the best interests of the people, and this must include cultivating a socio-economic landscape with the most possible good trustworthy opportunities for those who want to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps(as many as possible if and when there are conflicts).

One measure of a government's worth to it's own people is the size of the aforementioned wealth gap. The greater the gap between the least and the most fortunate circumstances an American can be born into... the less worthy the government is to it's own people... especially when we're talking about a representative form of like the American republic.

Fixing that huge wealth gap requires reversing and/or correcting all of the previous pieces of legislation that paved the road. That requires electing and keeping enough individuals focusing upon the right sorts of change...

You see...

Not just any change will do, and that's what really chaps my ass about a long standing pronouncement of "getting things done". No one has swatted that shit into the stands as it ought and need be.

Where's Rodman when you need him?

Bernie's just an old leftist who's been spouting the same slogans for 40 years and finally the country has become ripe for his message. He's more of a symbol than an individual for his followers. But what a character ... there's something about him, the crazy old uncle with the hair and the hands waving and the delivery and the cadence ... he's got his act down really well. Like I say, I like the guy. Just not his ideas. — fishfry

Like his ideas about which pieces of legislation resulted in harming the most vulnerable members of American society? Like his ideas about what actually caused the tremendous disparity in wealth that we see today? Like his ideas about not continuing to allow money lenders to peddle misleading predatory and/or damaging financial instruments to everyday trusting Americans? Like his ideas about doing what it takes, over the long haul, to cultivate a politics that benefits nearly everyone across the board?

:brow:

Yeah, I can see how someone would not like those...

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.
— creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a strongly expressed conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, one way or the other.

I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton in 2016, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary motivating factor for her was not 'fixing the broken/rigged system'.

Secretary Clinton refused to produce evidence readily at her disposal that was and is needed for developing sound judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.

A well informed electorate is absolutely imperative to any and all free and fair elections. So many of the most vulnerable people are taken advantage of by those who are able and willing. Clinton has ties to the 2008 financial scam. She also had their(the financial sector) full support... as does president Trump... as did president Obama... as did president Bush Jr... as did president Clinton... as did president Bush Sr... as did Ronald Reagan...

...as does vice-president Biden...

All of them bragged about geting things done... look at the results for the poorest and most unfortunate people...

"In the spirit of transparency"...


Given that a financial loan is absolutely necessary for pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps if they find themselves in all sorts of unfortunate circumstances; given that nearly all poor people require a loan in order to even take some of the first steps towards a happy, healthy, rewardingly successful life; given that many many people in financial sector deliberately and knowingly crafted financial instruments for the sole purpose of immediate tremendous financial gains despite knowing that in doing so many many other people would be forced to face some of the most difficult and trying financial times of their lives; given that Hillary Clinton was paid to compel/convince these very same people to vote for her; given her propensity to hold belief that move her towards policies that are very favorable to the financial sector; given the absence of any attempt at correcting all those past mistakes; given these and so many other things of this very nature...

Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, or something else compelled her decision to lend support to Hillary instead of Bernie. A band of sisters... perhaps? I'd be ok with that. In her circles, very few predicted Trump's victory, and even fewer thought he had a chance. The timing of the surprise breaking news stories shortly before the election was/is curious though. Those seemed to damage Clinton far more than Trump. Particularly the ones about the corruption in the DNC. Couple that news with the broadly held belief that Hillary was going to beat Trump, and many of the people who would have voted if they thought it was needed... probably would have.

So, I would buy that claim from Warren regarding her choice between Bernie and Clinton. Biden is not a sister though.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.
— creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, on way or the other.

I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary issue is not fixing the broken/rigged system. Clinton refused to produce the evidence at her disposal which would be the strongest evidence we have to render judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.

People wanted to know what she said to those people who have tremendously benefitted at the expense of everyday American citizens, voters, and/or consumers. The exact words she used as a means to compel the movers and shakers of the financial sector to go out and vote for her are the strongest evidence possible for making informed decisions about whether or not she is the kind of candidate who can get the overwhelming majority of poor people the opportunities that every American deserves simply by being American.

I would say that a trustworthy government does everything in it's power to make sure it is able to provide trustworthy money lenders.

Failing to actually provide the entire unedited paid speaking engagement to 'wall street' is adequate ground to temper the amount of trust one places upon Clinton to do what needs to be done in order to correct the grave injustices that have been done in the aforementioned economic sector.

Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, which shows poor judgment, or correcting the issues which have led and will continue to lead to an enormous financial wealth gap between the richest and the poorest Americans.

One measure of what a government is worth to it's people is the inverse proportion to the size of the aforementioned wealth gap. The greater the gap between the least and the most fortunate circumstances an American can be born into the less worthy the government is... especially when we're talking about a representative form of like the American republic.

Fixing that requires reversing and/or correcting all of the previous pieces of legislation that paved the road. That requires electing and keeping enough individuals focusing upon the right sorts of change...

You see...

Not just any change will do, and that's what really chaps my ass about a long standing pronouncement of "getting things done". No one has batted that shit into the stands as it ought and need be.

Where's Rodman when you need him?

This may be why she is sticking it out for the super-delegates...she knows she can't win, but if she drops out, she MUST endorse Bernie or everything she stood for was a lie.

It's rather hard to claim to be a champion of the people if you also lend public support to one who can be clearly and demonstratively shown to have played a key personal role in harming so many...

Lol Americans are stupid — StreetlightX

Moderaters... moderate.

This is going to get very interesting...

The delegate count will not reflect the voting. The super delegate count will most certainly not. We'll see. This is the time(these states) when Hillary pulled away only for Bernie to pull closer in the end. If Biden does not get too far ahead as a result of today, Bernie will be fine... as far as votes in the remaining states go. The convention could be quite a circus though.

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.

We'll see what happens.

Thanks for your efforts here, but although you seem to be asserting that there are "basic beliefs" which are dependent on language for their genesis, you still haven't given an example of one. — Janus

Thanks. You too. You missed it, so I'll repeat it here...

Learning the names of things is as basic as basic can be if basic belief is held to have propositional content and/or allowed to be existentially dependent upon language.

I think beliefs that qualify as basic beliefs should be pre-reflectively and cross-culturally held by everyone; in other words the sorts of things that are believed on the basis of embodied human existence, and that most everyone would think you crazy for questioning. — Janus

There are pre-reflective beliefs that are prior to language and pre-reflective beliefs that are not. That becomes a pretty nuanced path. It's enlightening, but it's not the easiest one to understand. Asking for universally held beliefs is probably an unattainable criterion however. I mean especially with philosophers... Some things are true of everyone, but I highly doubt you'll find that everyone shares the same basic belief, especially if it's based upon language use.

I also think that the set of basic beliefs, as something like Collingwood's "absolute presuppositions" or Wittgenstein's "hinge propositions", would form the grounds upon which all other reason-based beliefs and knowledge are founded. — Janus

I've nothing against either idea. However, due to the sheer breadth of belief content... what's it about... unless every subject matter shares some common denominator, we will inevitably end up with a set of basic beliefs that have little to do with one another. The common thread would be language use.

Naming comes first.

That's the best I can do at the moment.

Cheers!

:smile:

There are degrees of dependence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not existential dependence. A is either existentially dependent upon B or it's not. If A is existentially dependent upon B. and B is existentially dependent upon C, D, and E, then so too is A.

Of these, if any are basic, it would be C, D, and E.

(1) I see a tree,
(2) I had breakfast this morning,
and
(3) That person is angry.

All three of these statements of belief are about what's happened and/or is happening.

Some belief is not.

The first is based upon(is existentially dependent upon) knowing how to use "I see a tree" and all that that entails. The second is based upon(is existentially dependent upon) knowing how to use "I had breakfast this morning" and all that that entails. The third is based upon(is existentially dependent upon) knowing how to use "That person is angry" and all that that entails.

All are based upon prior belief and not just one, but rather a plurality thereof; all of the ones required for language acquisition itself that are themselves propositional in content.

Learning the names of things is as basic as basic gets if we require all belief to have propositional content. None of the three are basic beliefs, even if we rule out non linguistic ones.

Argh...

I just cannot do it! I cannot bring myself to keep reading someone talking in terms of 'perceptual beliefs' and 'memory beliefs', when that very language use alone shows clearly that the author has gotten belief itself wrong to begin with.

All beliefs are existentially dependent upon and include physiological sensory perception and memory both. So, there is no stronger ground for concluding that both are irrevocable necessary elemental constituents of all belief. Thus, removing either from the other(to separate the two) is to remove both from the belief itself, and this move renders what's left utterly inadequate, insufficient, incomplete, and just not quite enough to remain a belief.

There is no belief without either. There is no belief without both. All belief is existentially dependent upon both perception and memory. There is no such thing as a perceptual belief as compared to memory beliefs.

Perhaps this would be best put a different way. What counts as a perceptual belief and a memory belief is determined solely by us, we cannot be wrong about it. Those things do not exist in their entirety prior to our naming and describing them. However, if we have knowledge of what all belief consist of; if we have knowledge of what all belief are existentially dependent upon; if we know what we're talking about when we're talking about belief, then we know that Platinga does not.

Sorry. I think I ought exit now.

:worry:

Correct, Plantinga never discusses basic beliefs in terms of nonlinguistic beliefs. Nonlinguistic beliefs wouldn't fall under the category of epistemology.

Hey Creative, how's it going? — Sam26

I'm good Sam.

:smile:

I think I'm going to copy and paste a few of the criteria for "basic belief" mentioned in the link. May be interesting to grant them as a means to see where things go...

If someone believed that the government was corrupted by monetary influences and that Clinton is, was, and has been one of the ones reaping tremendous monetary personal benefit from those practices, at the expense of themselves, and that such people need to be removed nearly all costs, in addition to also believing that Donald Trump was not and would not become one of those people, then the rational choice for them is, was, and will be Trump.

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
— creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? — Xtrix

No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. If I may I'd like to further elaborate, since it seems needed...

What counts as the rational choice is entirely dependent upon the belief system of the agent doing the choosing. When one is rational, one is consistent, one is 'logical; and in being so one makes decisions based upon their own belief about the way things are.

All individuals will make decisions about which of two choices is best based their pre-existing belief system(world-view). Rational ones will choose what makes the most sense according to what they already believe, and irrational ones will choose what does not make the most sense according to they already believe.

What counts as a rational decision is all about forming, having, and/or holding beliefs that are consistent or amenable with and/or to one another(coherency). It's not about making decisions based upon true belief.

I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?
seconds ago — Xtrix

Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works.

Being rational is all about being consistent in speech and behaviour and avoiding self-contradiction. Perhaps the following will help make my point clear...

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump.

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Clinton was not as important as not allowing someone like Trump to hold the highly esteemed office of the presidency of The United States of America, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Clinton.

Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. — Xtrix

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.

It may be a more productive discussion if you would just lay out the problematic beliefs that many Americans have in a way that will compel those capable of looking at things anew, to do so. There are a wealth of common misconceptions and (mis)understandings that a very large swathe of everyday working class Americans and small business owners alike maintain and/or believe to be the case.

The answer must be in there being two sorts of basic beliefs - those that are presumed in order for an activity to occur, like keeping the bishop on its own colour in order to play chess; and those that are somehow universally basic... and "here is a hand" is one of those. — Banno

"Here is a hand" is as basic as it gets for talking about hands. So, that also seems to be basic in the same sense as "bishops move diagonally" for playing chess. Both beliefs are needed in order to do something. The one is needed in order to talk about hands(language games), and the other is needed in order to play the game of chess. It's almost as if "Here is a hand" serves as a basic rule... just like "bishops move diagonally". In that sense, it's not two sorts at all, they are both the same in that they are the groundwork(basic rules) for doing something else with language.

:wink:

...drawing a distinction between those things which are generally thought to have independent existence and those which are not.

And you still haven't addressed the more salient question as to whether you can give some examples of basic beliefs which are generated prior to, or independently of, language use. — Janus

Well, I've actually already answered these concerns in this very thread. However, I do not wish to continue going on here about my own position and how it applies to Plantinga and his concerns. So, this will be my last post setting these difference out. I do reject the idea of properly basic belief being anything other than the most basic of all kinds of belief... and those are not mediated and/or expressed in language by the creature that actually formed them. That's strictly speaking concerning what counts as "basic". I lean heavily toward ordinary language use on that.

On the other hand, as I've already set out a few different times, there is most certainly a sense of what counts as " basic" that permits and/or allows complex beliefs to count as such. This is because the criterion is all about the certainty one has in such belief as well as the belief itself being basic to a bunch of other ones. Although, again... strictly speaking none of those count as basic in the sense of the very first ones. So...

The entire discussion hinges upon calling complex belief "basic", which is of no real surprise to me, because all of the ones being called so are statements of belief, and statements consist of correlations that include language use. That's already one-step-removed from being basic... strictly speaking, of course!

P.S.

And I expect we would be involved in teasing out what each of us holds as being a criterion for what counts as "independently of language use". If I remember correctly, our positions do not work with/from the same criterion of what counts as such.

I work from existential dependency and/or independency, and that involves the basic elemental constituency of the thing under consideration. I also work from the notion of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our naming and describing it. That's not a clean cut. There's some overlap. Some things are existentially dependent upon thought and belief, us, and language use... but are nonetheless things that exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them and/or our naming and describing them.

That's enough for here. This isn't the place for it. From here I'll tend towards continuing to talk about belief statements as belief... and see how they pan out as properly basic or not, according to the criteria in the link, because that is the aim of the thread.

I do think there are nonlinguistic basic beliefs along with linguistic basic beliefs, but this covers a lot of ground. — Sam26

:wink:

That one's hard(impossible to me) to deny.

The trick, if there is one to be had, is taking proper account of the belief content, what they consist of. Although, I've now come to see - clearly I think - that nonlinguistic belief are not under consideration in the paper, nor have they been throughout the history of epistemology. Rather, the focus... as it ought be for questions of what counts as a knowledge claim... is the claim.

As always, good to see ya Sam!

:smile:

Touche.

:wink:

Freud said... — frank

All sorts of stuff that are now known as "projecting"...

So, to the question, "Is Belief in God Properly Basic?," a discussion of "basic" and "foundational" seem to put the cart before the horse if we don't know what God is. — Hanover

:up:

The notion of "further existence" is fraught.
— creativesoul

I can't see why it is fraught. All I meant by anything having "further existence" is existence beyond merely human experience or perception of the thing in question; what we might think of as some kind of independent existence in other words. So a tree has "further existence" in this sense. — Janus

Talk of "further" and "beyond" makes sense in comparative measures of distance. It's unnecessarily complex in that it needs clarifying by removing the terms from their normal use.

That which exists in it's entirety prior to our discovery is prior to our naming and descriptive practices(language use). A tree exists in it's entirety prior to our attributing the name "tree" to it. As I said, I do not think that we're that far apart. Here there is no need to explain what "further" existence is. Mt Everest. Language-less belief. The moon. Iron. Etc. All sorts of things exist in their entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices.

Basic belief - on my view - is yet one more of those things.

This loosening would permit some properly basic belief to be existentially dependent upon language, while also having no issue accounting for those that are not.
— creativesoul

OK, so I had said that I think basic beliefs (in order to count as basic) must be pre-linguistically formed and may or may not be articulated. You seem to be saying that some basic beliefs are not pre-linguistically formed. Could you give an example of such a belief? — Janus

Sure, but first...

To be clear regarding that 'loosening' bit, I was just teasing out some different possible meanings(ambiguity) of the notion of "properly basic belief". Different people have different criteria. Different people use the same term to pick out and subsequently refer to remarkably different things.

Oh the banes of philosophy.

:wink:

Plantinga's notion is much different than my own. Sorry if that much has not been clear enough.

Strictly speaking, since there is no such thing as belief at the moment of biological conception, and there is no such thing as disembodied thought, belief and/or cognition, then it only makes sense to say that all belief begins simply and accrues in complexity. It must be that way in order for belief to be amenable to evolutionary progression.

So, with that in the forefront of thought, basic belief would have to be of the first, initial, and/or simplest sort possible while those that are not would have to be of the sort grounded upon some other more basic belief(s). Otherwise there is no difference between grounded and ungrounded belief if both qualify as basic.

However...

Plantinga blurs those lines by claiming that a properly basic belief need not be a groundless, and/or unfounded belief/proposition.

If one's worldview includes a strongly held conviction regarding belief in God, then such a person always has their belief about God in the back of their mind, so to speak. The beliefs about God for some people act as a measuring rod of sorts, constantly and continuously used to help them decide whether or not to believe things that other people say. For example, I've known some of those people to think in ways similar to this...

Since God created everything... any claim to the contrary is wrong/false/not true. This counts as rational/logical thinking, like it or not. And it is exactly this sort of thinking that makes sense of saying that a belief in God is basic.

It's not basic in the sense that I've been arguing, but rather it is basic in the sense of being an operative set of beliefs... firm 'guidelines'... that which is held to be true, and thus the measure of whether other claims are... particularly when other claims contradict one's beliefs about God.

That's a very different sort of basic than I've set out, but it's not so different from some of the other conventional notions throughout history like some mentioned in the paper/book/link.

So what kind of further existence do beauty, values and God have? Would they exist absent human perceptual experience? Is there anything there which would reliably appear to all percipients as beauty, value or God, as there is in the case of oases, mirages, rainbows and trees, in other words? — Janus

The notion of "further existence" is fraught.

A better question: What do beauty, values, and God consist in and/or of? Are they things that exist in their entirety prior to naming and descriptive practices?

Do those names pick out individual things that exist in their entirety prior to the namesake?

Anyone know what the current delegate count is?

Numbers are not the only names for quantities. They are names for quantities nonetheless. So... that criticism misses the mark.

Properly basic beliefs can be given linguistic form, but they cannot be dependent on language use. The difficulty then is to explain how the jump is made from pre-linguistic intuition to linguistic formulation. We can say that the linguistic formulations of what might be considered to be "properly basic beliefs" find their foundations in pre-linguistic "seeing". but that is not the same as to say that the former are rationally justified by the latter. — Janus

I wouldn't argue for and/or defend my position like that, but I do not think that we're too far apart in general.

I think the best path here is methodological in that we must first come up with an acceptable and adequate criterion for what counts as "belief". I've done that. Then and only then can we expect to make sense of the further subsequent qualifications of "basic" and "properly basic" as kinds of belief.

Basic belief must be of the simplest variety. Basics always come first. It makes no sense whatsoever to say otherwise. Doing so renders the notions of basic and complex utterly meaningless.

Basic belief must be of the simplest variety/kind. All kinds consist of correlations. Basic correlations would be drawn by a creature capable of drawing correlations between different directly perceptible things; the simplest correlations possible.

Perhaps the criterion could be adjusted - 'loosened up a bit' as it were - so as to be something like... the simplest variety/kind of belief adequate for serving as strong and/or reliable ground for some conclusion(more complex belief) or another. This loosening would permit some properly basic belief to be existentially dependent upon language, while also having no issue accounting for those that are not.

This would add some practical consideration.

from Plantinga

...so far as I know, no one has developed and articulated any other reason for supposing that belief in God is not properly basic...

If what counts as properly basic belief includes the first ones, the rudimentary ones, the most simple and basic ones, then belief in God quite simply cannot count. That's more conclusion than supposition.

Of course, I reject the targets of Plantinga's criticisms of the classical and other conventional foundationalist criteria for properly basic belief for reasons that are not in line with Platinga, but are in direct line with my critique thereof. I reject his for the same reasons I reject theirs.

"Properly basic belief" can be construed in a myriad of ways.

It is a name that is used to talk about a plurality of different things. This thread bears witness. All such constructions are linguistic ones. That is, all our linguistic constructs are existentially dependent upon language use. I think we all agree here. The name "properly basic belief" is itself existentially dependent upon common language use, it is the result thereof. All naming practices are language use.

So,"properly basic belief" is a name of our own arbitrary choosing. Like all naming practices, "properly basic belief" is used as a means to pick individual things out of the world to the exclusion of all others. The name always has a referent. The referent is not always the same. There are different senses(accepted uses) of the name. Some of those pick out that which is existentially dependent upon language. Some do not.

The difference is imperative to our understanding.

If a properly basic belief is not existentially dependent upon language, then it can consist of nothing that is. Statements cannot be properly basic by this criterion. Propositions, propositional form, and propositional content cannot be properly basic by this criterion.

Belief in God is most certainly existentially dependent upon language use. So, if we are to claim that belief in God is properly basic, then properly basic beliefs need not be the first ones, they need not be the basis of all others, they need not be the most basic ones...

Then why call them "properly basic"?

Whenever we get into a discussion, this comes up again.

Tedium ensues. — Banno

Yes. Philosophy done well is work... and quite often it is of the tedious variety.

Witt's quip is perfectly applicable in situations where some belief of an individual is claimed to be ineffable by the individual. If it cannot be stated by the individual, then it is not a well formed belief of the individual. They cannot know what it is that they're talking about. They know that they do not have a good enough grasp to be able to speak clearly about it. What is known can be stated clearly.

I'm clearly stating that not all belief has propositional content.

All belief consists of correlations. All predication consists of correlation. All statements. All sentences. All naming and descriptive practices. All interjection. All exclamation. All interrogation. Etc.

Our knowledge of this correlational content is the bridge between the ineffable(Jack cannot state his own beliefs) and the effable(we can clearly know and thus state what all belief consists of, including what Jack's belief consists of). Prior to common language use, all belief consists of correlations drawn between different directly perceptible things.

That is what facilitates all language use, creation, and acquisition.

Indeed. And...

To state what your mouth is, you have to put it into a sentence with a subject/predicate form...

Therefore your mouth has propositional content and/or form or it's not a mouth.

To state what Mt Everest is, you have to put it into a sentence with a subject/predicate form.

:brow:

...any belief can be stated; and if it cannot be stated it is not a belief. — Banno

It only follows that Jack has no beliefs. You and I both know that that's not right.

To state what a belief is...

Belief does not require being stated.

Propositions are not words. Propositions are the things that words mean. — Pfhorrest

Many others share this view... this use of the term "proposition". This is not the thread to criticize it, but it's wrong on several levels, including but not limited to what belief and meaning are.

I'll say this much...

"Tree" is a word. It refers to trees. Trees are what "trees" means. Trees are not propositions.

That's more palatable. Everything contrary to Trump's beliefs is a hoax to him. I would go even further and say that there have been many things he knows to be true and still calls it a hoax, or fake news, or a witch-hunt. The man is a liar of the worst variety... a practical one. A means to an end. The end is an increase in his own wealth and power.

A spoiled rich kid who has never once had to pay for his own mistakes.