Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Consistency Message-ID: <318@umich.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:01:15 EST Article-I.D.: umich.318 Posted: Wed Nov 6 11:01:15 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:48:01 EST References: <2449@sjuvax.UUCP> <546@ihwpt.UUCP> Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Distribution: net Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 40 Summary: I smell a Rand redefinition! In article <546@ihwpt.UUCP> rsl@ihwpt.UUCP writes: >> S1. Take any particular belief of mine that you choose; I hold >> that belief to be true, since that's what it means for something to >> *be* a belief. >I would dis-sent on S1 on the basis of incompleteness. Saying that >something is a "belief" ALSO acknowledges that you do not KNOW that >it is true and that you suspect that it, in fact, may not be true; >otherwise, I contend that you would say that you KNOW that it is >true. (e.g. I KNOW that I am typing this message; I BELIEVE that >you will comprehend its meaning). It does seem that when a person says "I believe so-and-so" he is admitting to some uncertainty, but this is only a connotation of the word "belief" and not strictly part of its meaning. At least, that's the way it is over here; I don't know about Illinois, where they may have accepted Ayn Rand's redefinitions of many words including "belief". :-> Anyway, take the set of things that a person *claims* to know. We could make up an S1' by substituting the words "thing that I claim to know" in place of the occurrences of "belief" in S1. Isn't it usually the case, indeed isn't it likely in your own case, that S2'. Something the person claims to know, is false. (I got this by modifying something said by the person rsl was responding to, namely this:) >> S2. I believe that some of my beliefs are false. So, that person's basic point: >> I think that virtually everyone accepts the Principle of >> Humility. But the set { S1, S2 } is obviously inconsistent. For >> those who have been wondering whether the mind is consistent, I think >> that this example at least shows that the belief systems of most -- >> perhaps all -- of us are in fact inconsistent. is probably right, even when S2 is replaced by S2' and S1 is replaced by S1'. >Eudaemonia, Richard S. Latimer [(312)-979-4886, Wheaton, IL] --Hedone, Paul V Torek torek@umich