Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!botter!hansw
From: hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <1541@botter.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 10:35:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: botter.1541
Posted: Mon Jul 27 10:35:15 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 02:27:28 EDT
References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <66@thirdi.UUCP> <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> <68@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand)
Distribution: world
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 53
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:


In article <68@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>In article <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes:
>
>>Evidence certainly
>>contributes to belief, but it never determines the choice.
>>So if you want to communicate, you must also be willing to believe.
>
>I'm not sure that belief is really always a matter of choice. (..)

As I wrote in the first part of my article, I agree with you
that belief is not always a matter of choice. However, it is at
several dayly-life occasions. Witness the fact that the verb "believe" has
the feature +Control. Consider the sentences:
    Please believe me! (Don't believe it!)
    *Please know it! (*Don't know it!)
The ungrammaticality of the latter stems from the lack of control
of "knowing". Evidently, this does not apply to the former.

>The notion of what truly constitutes compulsion in the area of thought is
>somewhat unclear (to me).  Is logic a form of application of force?  Does
>demonstration enforce agreement?  Or should force be regarded as the
>application of pain and duress (or a threat of some kind)?  My inclination is
>to apply the term to the latter.  If anyone has views on the topic of what
>consititutes the use of force or coercion, I'd be interested to hear them.

According to Heidegger, logic has its roots in the original Logos
(cf. Heraclitus). This Logos is defined in a rather violent way
("The Logos holds men together not without violence"). Compare
also the view of violence as "ultimate reason". At the
other hand, philosophy (science) has attempted to escape
from violence since the days of Socrates (see in particular the
work of the Frankfurter Schule).

I think that any-body will agree there is an important practical
difference between the force of brute violence and the force
of logic, or (in general) language. But the relationship
between violence and truth has always been a fundamental and
unresolved problem of philosophy, and it is not likely to be
resolved in this discussion.

As to the question of what constitutes the force of logic, I
would like to repeat my original statement. Without belief there is no
communication. But humans are by nature social beings who can
not do without communication. Refusing to accept a logical
argument (not believing it) obviously endangers the communication
possibilities. So refusing to believe anything, is just like
refusing to eat anything. It is possible, but how long will you
hold out?

--
 Hans Weigand, Dep. of Computer Science,
 Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
-