Contact Info / Websites

Entry #4

Personal Belief

2010-10-05 01:46:21 by Bacchanalian
Updated

A less elegant Epicurean approach in progress...

If we are to say that belief is a matter of conviction or opinion [a position apart from fact, empiricism, objectivity, or intrinsically effective (as oppose to absolute) consequences] does it not then follow that belief is in a sense unconditional: an assuredness of conditions that are not classically knowable, or an assuredness that does not, by nature of what it is, intrinsically reflect the conditions it alleges of known reality?

And if this is the case, does it not then follow that the motivation to believe is essentially disconnected, in the aforementioned sense, from what is believed?

Yet, if we are to say that belief is also a matter of laying claim to {what is}, does it not then follow that a belief betrays itself, in acknowledging that that which it posits is not necessarily what is - but what is wished to be?

Why not call it a wish? Or are the two words not synonymous afterall?

Personal Belief


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


X-TERRORIST-XX-TERRORIST-X

2011-04-06 20:18:12

Not going to lie I've been going through your posts and your just way too smart for me to comprehend. Can you answer yes or no as to whether or not you believe in God?

Bacchanalian responds:

Thanks, thought that can't be good for my ego.

I'm an atheist.


DubbiDubbi

2011-04-26 23:39:54

You're over-thinking it - semantics is complete bullshit, an attempt to sound profound by over-analyzing pointless things.

Yes, our beliefs, in a way, are actually mere wishes, as we can't objectively know anything, only hope to know. But why the fuck would we change a predominant manner of speech in our society over some semantic bullshit, dummy?

Bacchanalian responds:

Except I'm not saying beliefs are mere wishes, and the argument, while obviously relying on semantics, is not a semantic argument.


PhoenixGodwinPhoenixGodwin

2011-05-22 16:32:30

Having a good grasp on vocabulary seems to have the strangely paradoxical side effect of causing less people to understand you (people like MrPercie and Dubbi- who I've dealt with before), despite the fact that you have more control over your direct implications.

Merely stating the observation. Thoughts?


DubbiDubbi

2011-05-25 16:16:23

Honestly, I find it hard to decode anything Baccan says, not because of his vocabulary -- on an Iq test, mine was tested as superior to more than 99% of the population, so my small vocabulary isn't the problem -- it's that his sentences are constructed in such an odd, convoluted manner, that it's hard to garner any meaning from the sequence of words.


DubbiDubbi

2011-05-25 16:36:29

Also, my reading comprehension is pretty excellent as well, scored a 760 on the critical reading section of the SATs my first time taking the actual exam, probably could score an 800 if I really tried.

Can you explain why you write so unclearly?


PhoenixGodwinPhoenixGodwin

2011-05-25 17:28:39

Dubbi: Let's pretend I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have taken a standardized IQ test and that there was even a "99%" on there. Based on my experience with you and my experience with people who have displayed WAY more intelligence than you, I'll suggest that you were probably in the *99th percentile' of a particular region. This is a much different thing than saying "superior to more than 99% of the population", which implies that you are superior to EVERYONE. The very fact that you have so much trouble understanding what he or I say is an immense sign that that that's just not true- not to mention plenty of other things you've said over the course of this month alone. Bacchanalian has a very strong vocabulary and a good sense of syntax. I have only found his language to be superfluous and confusing on a couple occasions, but generally he's not doing anything a well read individual shouldn't be able to follow. Anyway, this is not the place for an argument between you and I.

Bacchanalian, I just came to let you know that I finally had the time to respond to you in the Physiomonistic Pantheism thread.


DubbiDubbi

2011-05-25 17:43:12

Are you stupid or something? I said the vocabulary wasn't the issue with me, as my vocabulary is strong, proven by an IQ test i took where a vocabulary test was one of the subtests, the Wechsler IV General intelligence test, if you must know. I only said I did well on that one component, not the entire test in my post -- though in fact I performed rather fantastically on the exam, but as you'd likely object if I told you the numerical score and percentile ranking that I received on the overall test, I won't.

Also, the amount of intelligence I display to you really means nothing; I rarely try to be smart on this website. And I can understand Bacchan's writing; it just is rather unclear and confusing for syntactical and other reasons. I think most would agree with that statement.


DubbiDubbi

2011-05-25 17:46:29

Shit, well I meant to say 99% on the vocabulary section, my mistake. Just bringing up my actual score for no other reason than to appear intelligent would be irrelevant and pretentious


DubbiDubbi

2011-05-25 17:51:23

Nevermind, from a semantic standpoint I was right all along, I just got psyched out when PG said I claimed 99% was my score on the actual exam, not the vocabulary section, and misanalysed my own post, tricking myself into believing I actually did commit what he said I committed.

"vocabulary -- on an Iq test, mine was tested as superior to more than 99% of the population"
The antecedent (wrong word?) of "mine" is vocabulary" in this sentence.
Also, sorry for clogging your newspost, feel free to delete any of these comments.

Bacchanalian responds:

I write the way I think, unfortunately - and the construction of my sentences comes from whatever concepts I need to keep floating in the air simultaneously to keep myself on the point. Obviously I can't write five things at once so it has to be sequenced and words added to provide relationships. Mix it together and you get my semi-intricate, way too pretentious for my own good, 'style'.

I'll try summarizing the passage: If you posit something merely as opinion (or conviction or belief) then you acknowledge that { there is no intrinsic connection between what your opinion alleges and the rest of known reality } and that { the connection you're operating on is one of intent (or wish) }.

A little more distilled: The only difference between a wish and belief is that the latter is said to have actually happened.

The few major implications I care about:
1) There is no epistemological distinction between a phenomenon according to whether it is targeted in a wish or alleged in a belief.
2) Anyone who holds a 'mere' belief is a hypocrite, as they no doubt also have wishes.
3) The supernatural holds an analogous relationship to reality as a phenomenon alleged in a mere belief.