[lit-ideas] Re: Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas@Freelists. Org" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:19:18 +0600
Walter O. wrote:
"We don't attribute "knowledge-that" to someone who doesn't have the
right kind of evidence or reasons for her belief, or who simply
eschews the requirement of having any evidence or reasons for her
knowledge-claims, so I'm not clear why we don't demur from attributing
beliefs to persons who think they don't need to have reasons or
evidence for their beliefs."
I don't understand how holding a belief about beliefs would make a
difference in any way. Imagine someone offers all sorts of familiar
beliefs but then adds that they also believe that there is no
requirement to have reasons or evidence for their beliefs. If the
other beliefs did all the work that beliefs normally do, then what is
changed by adding the belief about beliefs? Do we need to ascertain
people's beliefs about beliefs before we consider their beliefs? And
this is without even considering the question of whether there is a
need for the appropriate beliefs about beliefs about beliefs.
It seems to me that beliefs about beliefs are just other beliefs, and
have no special powers to either legitimize or de-legitimize other
beliefs. I may believe that my beliefs have some special quality,
given either by God or Reason or Facts, but that doesn't change my
other beliefs in any way. Either they get the job done or they don't.
Walter continues:
"'Believing-that' seems to me to be a particular kind of language game
in which no individual has any kind of privileged authority over
determining the truth of whether she actually believes-that."
I whole heartedly agree with this. If 'believing-that' is a language
game not determined by individuals but rules and use, then arguing
that beliefs do or do not require reasons or evidence functions within
the 'believing-that' game. One can, of course, try to influence people
to adopt a rule that limits the effectiveness of one's opponents, like
pushing for the Gretzky rule or insisting that beliefs should be
accompanied by reasons or evidence, but this is politics. So, yes, I
agree that no individual has any kind of privileged authority over
determining the truth of what counts as a belief. What counts as a
belief will be determined by the rules of the various kinds of games
we engage in, and when we prefer that the rules change, we cannot
change them by fiat, but only through politics.
Sincerely,
Phil
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
