Epistemological Ponderings

[sheepmage]

One thing I've pondered many a time involves points of disagreement with Objectivism. A lot of my friends bear somewhat similiar philosophies to mine, and as I've discussed them further, I find even more agreement, as well as a better notion of the point of disagreement. Usually, I've been finding, it's one fundational point that they disagree with

Comments

[sheepmage]

I think at least some of the ambiguities you point out can be resolved by clarifying some terminology. Whether it'll take care of all of them, well lets see. First, a belief is a stance that a person takes consciously or subconsciously toward a proposition. This stance can be only one of two states, affirmation or negation...yes or no...true or false. Alternatively, a person could opt to take no stance toward any proposition...basically, that's just saying "I don't know". The seperation of conscious (or explicit) beliefs and subconscious (or implicit beliefs) doesn't seem too difficult to pinpoint given this point of view: conscious ones are those taken by one's consciousness. In other words, the following thought actually becomes the focus of your attention: "This is true", where this refers to the relevant proposition. The rest are subconscious.

Given all that formalism, it should be understood that both explicit and implicit beliefs can give rise to psychological symptoms. A bad belief can cripple one's ability to think or act, or can even direct one's conscious efforts against himself. Different beliefs can give rise to all sorts of emotions...in fact, I dare say that beliefs can give rise to every sort of emotion that there is.

My hypothesis is that psychological symptoms, or effects, can give rise to different sorts of beliefs. Explicit beliefs are interesting in this way. Implicit beliefs, I believe, can be actually caused by psychological states, like phobias can give rise to implicit beliefs in the existence of nonexistents. Explicit beliefs are trickier however. In everyday life, an explicit belief can't be caused by an emotion, or psychological phenomena. The actual cause of any explicit belief is choice for any normal person. We choose the beliefs we focus on and assert. In some cases, we choose them based on evidence, and in other cases, we let our subconscious and emotions determine them for us. If we choose a belief based on evidence, it is hard to go wrong contextually. Relying on the subconscious and emotions is errorprone, however. There is a further distinction between knowledge and belief which I won't go into here, but it's worth noting that these distinctions are important.

It is when person chooses to hold a belief in error that interests me. No actual evidence exists that would point to, hint at, or prove the existence of God. The fact that other people believe in God, and that you trust some of these people, does not count as evidence. What interests me is why people, given the complete lack of evidence, choose to believe in God anyway. I suspect there are psychological factors, things people choose to place above evidence (like the fact that people they trust, admire, or whatever have thought about the question and come up with that answer), that help them in this decision. Evidence is primary in the domain of knowledge...ultimately something counts as knowledge if there is sufficient evidence for it. Emotions and the subconscious can help us form beliefs in the moment, but ultimately, reason must error-correct using evidence in the long run. People who fail to do so are either choosing to ignore this fact about epistemology, or have created their own view on epistemology that places something above evidence.

So, given all this, I think I can answer your questions. I don't believe our psychologies can support vicious circles. Beliefs give rise to psychological states, and psychological states can give rise to beliefs...but one of these is going to have to be primary. To figure it out, you have to trace back the chronology, which can be a painstaking process, but it can help you isolate explicit beliefs that you shouldn't hold, or implicit beliefs that you need to fight. In the case of your belief in God, I'd say that you no longer explicitly believe in the existence of God, which is a good thing. But, you may implicitly believe it on some level, and that could be troublesome. Could this implicit belief given rise to other, possibly explicit beliefs? Sure, but that's why you gotta think about your beliefs and figure out where they came from/why you believe in em. Seem reasonable?

[adkein]

I look forward to continuing this discourse in person next we meet. It would, I predict, be inefficient to try to sort out one another's respective thoughts in this format, so for know we'll just leave it that I'm right and you're less right.

(:

Care to lunch in New Haven sometime in early July?

[sheepmage]

Your smiley is backwards. And that sounds like a good idea.