Eric's post touches on a very large topic (which btw may be one of the reasons I have failed to engage with some of Paul Stone's interesting posts over the years). I agree that issues of "self" lie at the heart of at least part of the explanation for the apparent discrepancy between "beliefs" and lives led. The evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers has an interesting recent book trying to sketch an explanation for human self-deception in Darwinian terms (because self-deception, like altruism, might seem to conflict with Darwinian principles - for how does it help us in 'selfish' terms?) - drawing on principles used to explain deception and counter-deception strategies in nature, where they are rife (from the virus that 'tricks' its way into the body, to the cuckoo, to insects that gather in the shape of bee so that another bee will attempt copulation and they then attach themselves and use the bee to convey them relatively huge distances). So our capacity for self-deception is linked to our need to protect our sense of "self", as well as to deceive others - though, in Trivers view, we have evolved to deceive ourselves mostly the better to deceive others (albeit some kind of counter-deception strategy must also be there to counteract the damaging excesses of self-deception: so his account uses a version of the 'divided self'). It might be added that there is a profound epistemic problem here - truth is not so manifest, and this makes fooling ourselves easy enough. Trivers makes the point that science can be understood as a set of counter-deception strategies (I agree). But in the case of certain kinds of metaphysical belief (and most beliefs are 'metaphysical' rather than 'scientific') there is that strange way a mind can hold to these 'intellectually' while living seemingly otherwise - we might think of the Idealist philosopher who goes home to his wife and children and pays his mortgage etc. and behaves for all the world as if this is all real and not simply a figment of his imagination. If we take the religious fundamentalist who acts otherwise like a "naive materialist", there are various explanations that might account for this apparent discrepancy - including that it is only apparent: for the tendency to animism is strong in religious metaphysics but it is quite easy to combine an animistic metaphysics of the material world with the view the animating force [perhaps God] lies behind the surface of the material world and so the surface of the material world can be treated as would a "naive materialist" without this contradicting any deeper religious sensibility. Of course, this does not so easily explain that kind of fundamentalism that seems to be combined with worldly pursuit of wealth - though this combination is certainly much older than the pay-pal Christianity of the modern Bible-belt. Donal ________________________________ From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 23:27 Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Socialist Beliefs >> The chef was French and decidedly unAmerican. He would sing the Internationale as he worked as a kind of in-your-face snub at the owners. I value the inspection of motives rather than beliefs. Why did Marx, who never worked a day in his life, write Das Kapital? Why are so many evangelical Christians, with their insistence on miracles in theology, in other aspects of their lives, naive materialists? Why are people often, in daily life, exemplifying the opposites of their proclaimed beliefs? The people who "love mankind" are often quite nasty to individual people. Beliefs are a type of symbolic self that people defend. Meanwhile they often run roughshod over their beliefs, their shadows showing. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html