How should we introduce what we "believe" in?

[Armitage]

People say "I'm a social democrat"  or "I'm a libertarian". This creates an unnecessary difference where both may be just mindless robots...  

But seriously, that says nothing about their quality of reasoning or method of getting to our position. For us, any mental position is secondary to reasoning things carefully and comparing them to evidence. Also, many of us have a long history of learning, refining or rejecting our previous beliefs, so that it has become almost a habit. Some of us even have a dose of healthy masochism that drives us to examine exactly opposite "beliefs" to what we "believe" in. That is what defines us, not our momentary position. 

 

Please note that this is very different to Stef's benevolent turn of mind towards Christians, the sources of social stability and not killing unbelievers. His newfound tolerance is based on similarity of conclusions and has its merits. 

But I wonder if there is also merit to identifying ourselves as seasoned, methodical developers of our worldviews. Because there sure seems little benefit to identifying ourselves by the labels of positions. 

 

But there are downsides to this as well. This kind of defining ourselves seems extremely boastful, over-intellectualized, and even though it's true, it may put people to shame unnecessarily.

 

I don't know how people feel about this. It's true that I used to have resistance to certain ideas - I come from the leftist/transhumanist/ anarchist side after all. It took me a few years to understand what libertarianism is about. I've seen that Ayn Rand's philosophy is valid, obviously taken from Aristotle, but I didn't see how it jibes with her other ideas and I succumbed to many popular prejudices against her. 

But I've also reasoned my position on woo woo & metaphysics well enough to defend them in front of scientific skeptics & atheists. I've learned a lot and rejected what wasn't true (not everything, I've had some valid reasons for my position). Very few people would ever do that. 

 

So far, I've usually tried to say that I understand people's position, that I used to hold it as well, but it was long ago. I don't remember so well how it was like to be a democratic socialist and I'd like to remind myself what was it like. 

Knowing things as end conclusions isn't very useful. What is useful is being able to put ourselves into the old mindset and have empathy with misinformed and propagandized people, who truly believe that we really would occupy the stereotypical straw man anarchist/libertarian position of selfishness.

[shirgall]

I never believed in anything. Instead I found things out. Some of those things were true. Some things were false. The struggle has always been correctly identifying which bucket to put them into.

[A4E]

I never believed in anything. Instead I found things out. Some of those things were true. Some things were false. The struggle has always been correctly identifying which bucket to put them into.

This is interesting. What do you use, or what do you do, in order to correctly identify which buckets to put into?

[shirgall]

This is interesting. What do you use, or what do you do, in order to correctly identify which buckets to put into?

 

Depends on the area. Over the years I've been exposed to a number of tools, including authority, and I learned over time the authority was fallible, etc. etc. It's a journey of blind alleys and missteps, just like anyone else's is likely to be.

[dsayers]

Sorry, but -107 doesn't inspire to spend that much time reading. To answer the title, the way I introduce what I "believe" in is sharing that I accept that what I believe in has no bearing on what is true.

 

This is interesting. What do you use, or what do you do, in order to correctly identify which buckets to put into?

I think you're missing a step here. I tend to avoid labels altogether. They are shorthand and therefore inherently imprecise. I never call myself an atheist or an anarchist or a capitalist, but if somebody called me those things, I wouldn't correct them. Because there is no deity, humans do not exist in opposing moral categories, and we all own ourselves are all accurate descriptions of the real world. The problem is that not everybody that sees "anarchist" sees this as somebody who accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories.

Therein lies the problem. If labels are what you lead with, then this means you're not actually having a conversation with them. Like if I met somebody and I wanted to stay true to my values of not perpetuating predation by giving my time to somebody who would initiate the use of force, I wouldn't ask them if they're an anarchist. I would ask them who owns you? Then can we universalize this? Then can we agree that this means that theft, assault, rape, and murder are invalid as they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Then you can't have a government. If they respond with "but," then I know I'm not talking to a rational thinker.

 

Whereas if somebody wanted to push back against the promotion of anarchy, not only would I not know if they're a rational thinker, but I would identify with their pushing back! I don't like the word either. For one, it denotes that governments are the default and anarchism is the deviation. Also because it invokes in so many people visions of chaos that it's not an effective way of communicating an idea, regardless of which way you mean it. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad people started using the word voluntarist. It's better, but it's still a label. Some self-described voluntarists also promote political action and support minarchism. These labels conceal the fact that they're holding competing beliefs and therefore actually damaging.

[Armitage]

I never believed in anything. Instead I found things out. Some of those things were true. Some things were false. The struggle has always been correctly identifying which bucket to put them into.

My thoughts exactly. That's why I wrote quote unquote "believe". I don't like that word either. I thought it was obvious. But the content of the post is about other people and how can  we introduce ourselves to them so that they understand how we go about our thinking, not our conclusions. Sometimes I tell them that I have a dose of healthy masochism that makes me seek out the opposite evidence to what I "believe" in. 

 

Sorry, but -107 doesn't inspire to spend that much time reading. To answer the title, the way I introduce what I "believe" in is sharing that I accept that what I believe in has no bearing on what is true.

Sorry, that -107 was pre-therapy me. And I suspect quite a few pre-therapy others who took advantage of the anonymous downvoting. This is the most irresponsible, non-free, byrocratized web mechanics I've ever seen. If I could, I'd copy the app from The Thinking Atheist forums, they have a very transparent reputation system, so it doesn't get abused. I've had many conflicts over there, many even more vicious, but a very positive reputation nonetheless. Anonymous downvoting is a disgrace to a free society. 

Ditto what I wrote to Shirgall.

 

I think you're missing a step here. I tend to avoid labels altogether. They are shorthand and therefore inherently imprecise. I never call myself an atheist or an anarchist or a capitalist, but if somebody called me those things, I wouldn't correct them. Because there is no deity, humans do not exist in opposing moral categories, and we all own ourselves are all accurate descriptions of the real world. The problem is that not everybody that sees "anarchist" sees this as somebody who accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories.

Therein lies the problem. If labels are what you lead with, then this means you're not actually having a conversation with them. Like if I met somebody and I wanted to stay true to my values of not perpetuating predation by giving my time to somebody who would initiate the use of force, I wouldn't ask them if they're an anarchist. I would ask them who owns you? Then can we universalize this? Then can we agree that this means that theft, assault, rape, and murder are invalid as they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Then you can't have a government. If they respond with "but," then I know I'm not talking to a rational thinker.

 

Whereas if somebody wanted to push back against the promotion of anarchy, not only would I not know if they're a rational thinker, but I would identify with their pushing back! I don't like the word either. For one, it denotes that governments are the default and anarchism is the deviation. Also because it invokes in so many people visions of chaos that it's not an effective way of communicating an idea, regardless of which way you mean it. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad people started using the word voluntarist. It's better, but it's still a label. Some self-described voluntarists also promote political action and support minarchism. These labels conceal the fact that they're holding competing beliefs and therefore actually damaging.

I see. My post was about how to avoid using labels. Or failing that, if it is possible to have a label as someone who obeys evidence and justified arguments and who investigates those who oppose him.

 

The problem isn't just that people aren't rational, they don't even know what does it mean to be rational and how does it look like. It's just another positive label that people try to score for themselves due to one-upmanship. 

What you said is useful for sorting people out who already are rational. What I mean is showing to everyone what is rational and what is not. There are intelligent people out there who will not register on your rational radar, because they do not have the tools to think.

There are times when we know there probably is no intelligent life around, so it's a lost time. We can use that time to describe our "healthy masochism" of a rational investigator and how it causes that we get things right more often (refraining from attacking or criticizing).

[Torero]

Armitage, I gave you an upvote for your post. -107 seems very unfair considering your open ways of thinking.

 

If you remember Stefans video about "arguments don't count" it's actually a very good question you ask. Because if rationality would be enough, people with some rational thinking (still most people are capable of that at any time or another) would be much easier convinced.

 

So the "belief" question I think is justified.

 

Coming to your "believe" point, I would like to express it that I am a statheist, or a state-atheist. Where in the past (and in some countries that is still the case) the Church (of any religion) was the leading force, in postmodern Western societies the State has taken over this role.

 

While the Church only has indoctrination as weapon (and in some countries law), the State has all 3 weapons in their hands: "indoctrination, weapons and law". You could add banking as the driving force of course.

 

I simply do not believe in the idea that a State has control over those factors.

 

So where do I believe in? In the possibility that we can live, thrive and strive without that power.

[Armitage]

Armitage, I gave you an upvote for your post. -107 seems very unfair considering your open ways of thinking.

Thank you. The truth is, I've stumbled upon an extremely difficult philosophical problem that is sure to cause heated arguments even in very intelligent and educated people. Or specially because they are such. There's no point in even talking about it until I finish my Master's thesis. It's such a difficult problem that I learned most of what I know by cracking it. It's a part of rather obscure philosophy of science and language that isn't bullshit like most of my govt curriculum, but few people ever bothered to learn it.

Trust me, I have to rewrite some chapters like 3 times, because the argument is not clear enough and it's digressing. So far I've met just one person on FB who agreed with me. And some people on this forum chose to express their disagreement by downvoting the post, on average -5 votes per my post.

 

I'd like to have a debate even deeper than this problem some time in the future. I think that Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions might be based on academic science. I have an idea that the scientific revolutions (such as in physics) are an equivalent of economic boom and bust, due to inflexibility of tenured academic positions and government funding of science. But that's just a small byproduct idea of the problem that I'm working on.

 

If you remember Stefans video about "arguments don't count" it's actually a very good question you ask. Because if rationality would be enough, people with some rational thinking (still most people are capable of that at any time or another) would be much easier convinced.

 

So the "belief" question I think is justified.

Do you mean the video "Facts don't matter?" I don't remember "Argument's don't matter":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw78QZF3chg

 

So far, I think I might almost reasonably say in introduction: "I'm someone who obeys evidence and consistency of claims. I seek out opposite beliefs to see if they have better evidence than me. That's what I do. Are you into that too?"

 

Coming to your "believe" point, I would like to express it that I am a statheist, or a state-atheist. Where in the past (and in some countries that is still the case) the Church (of any religion) was the leading force, in postmodern Western societies the State has taken over this role.

 

While the Church only has indoctrination as weapon (and in some countries law), the State has all 3 weapons in their hands: "indoctrination, weapons and law". You could add banking as the driving force of course.

 

I simply do not believe in the idea that a State has control over those factors.

 

So where do I believe in? In the possibility that we can live, thrive and strive without that power.

No, you don't. Allow me to take the Boromir pose, "One does not simply disbelieve in the idea that state has a control over these factors."   

It's a fine conclusion to have, I have it too. But would you try to introduce yourself as someone who does the rational things that inevitably lead to the state-atheism? Try it and see how it sounds.

Try to think how your friends (and enemies) would react to you if you introduced yourself as I did just above.

 

This actually reminds me of one of David Zindell's books and its "Fravashi language" - a language which is extremely philosophically clear, because it only contains verbs and no nouns at all. So it doesn't have any labels 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"People say "I'm a social democrat"  or "I'm a libertarian". This creates an unnecessary difference where both may be just mindless robots...

But seriously, that says nothing about their quality of reasoning or method of getting to our position."

​

Hold it right there,  Amritage I think to point out they might both be mindless robots is to plant a red herring. Are you saying whether someone is a libertarian or social democrat has absolutely nothing to say about their reasoning and methodology? I find that hard to believe you would lack the ability to discriminate between Marxism,feminism, and multiculturalism , and American libertarianism which is none of these things. Also just on an IQ basis, libertarians are higher. So I don't think it can honestly be claimed that a position says potentially nothing about the quality of their reasoning. Maybe there is coincidence, but there's obviously a lot more than just coincidence going on here between these two groups. This is just empiricism.

 

I experience a lot of terror thinking about telling people what I believe which is so deep and personal as morality. It's something I have from trauma and need to go through therapy for. So I empathize a lot with having difficulty telling people what you believe. It can be very painful in my experience.

[csekavec]

OP, I disagree with you fundamentally.  In addition to what Matthew M. wrote may I add:

 

If the same concept gestalt isn't shared between all the parties using a label the label isn't being productive to the conversation. Contrariwise if those prerequisites are met then it's a highly useful tool. I think it's worth noting explicitly that I'm not giving special status to "label" that includes all the PC baggage. It seems that you are.  

 

The issue isn't with labels or in avoiding their use. It is in their inaccurate or indiscriminate use.  ie, some folks use "liberal" as a pejorative.  Lazy speech.

 

And finally your proposal is just to move the label from an affirmation of position (a noun) to a description of a process (a verb). It does nothing to change a core complaint you brought up: the problem of labels being misused. 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

I never believed in anything. Instead I found things out. Some of those things were true. Some things were false. The struggle has always been correctly identifying which bucket to put them into.

This defies most epistemologists' analysis of knowledge. Can you explain how it's possible to know something without believing it? As I've understood it, knowledge is a subset of belief.

[dsayers]

This defies most epistemologists' analysis of knowledge. Can you explain how it's possible to know something without believing it? As I've understood it, knowledge is a subset of belief.

Belief is temporal and is only useful when it serves as motivation to test that belief. Once tested, the belief is either discarded as not accurately describing the real world or upgraded to fact because it does.

[shirgall]

This defies most epistemologists' analysis of knowledge. Can you explain how it's possible to know something without believing it? As I've understood it, knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

I guess you could say I believed my senses. To me a belief means something accepted as true something that you don't know to be true and knowledge is something clearly experienced and remembered. Whether that belief comes from trust or faith becomes an important distinction. For me it has generally been a case of "trust but verify".