Doxastic Voluntarism and the Insufficiency of Language

Can I choose to believe what I want to believe?

You shout at me: "2+2=5!"

You hold up 2 fingers in front of my face, and then you raise 2 more.  You're now holding up 4 fingers.

You shout at me: "I'm holding up 5 fingers! Say it! Say it!"

Now, I can say, "2+2=5."  But can I believe it?

I can say: "You're holding up 5 fingers."  But can I really believe it?

It's not up to you to decide what I believe.

Is it up to me?

Can I decide what I believe?

Let's say I really want to agree with you.  Is that the same thing as agreeing with you?

As I already said, I can say, "2+2=5".  Can I believe it?

I can even say, "I believe that 2+2=5."  

I can even say, "I believe that 'I believe that 2+2=5.'"

Or, "I believe that 'I believe that 'I believe that 2+2=5.''"

I can also say, "2+2=5 is true."

Or "'2+2=5 is true' is true."

Or "''2+2=5 is true' is true' is true."

Or, "I believe that 'I believe that 2+2=5 is true' is true."

But no matter how many chains of words we connect together, nonetheless, we can still ask, after all that: but do you really believe it?

It seems to me that, although we may express (some of) our beliefs in language, nonetheless, the beliefs themselves are not merely words.  They are not, and cannot be, fully captured by words.  

Similarly: I can easily write a program, only a few lines long, to cause a computer to display a message on a screen, which says, "I think therefore I am."  But does that mean that the computer has achieved self-awareness?  No, it does not.  The words are empty.  When I say, "I think therefore I am," does that mean something more than when this 3-line program says it?  Yes, it does - because, for me, the phrase "I think therefore I am" reflects an actual experience that I really am conscious of.  I can doubt the existence of everything I experience, but I cannot meaningfully doubt that this experience is happening.

I can say, "I see 5 fingers."  But can I actually see them?

The process of my eyes and visual cortex, seeing things: this is outside of language.  

And even the desire that I have, to agree with you: this also stands outside language.  The belief is outside of language, the desire is outside of language, the visual process is outside of language, and the fingers are outside of language.  None of which prevents language from talking about these things.

But it does mean that we should think critically about words, because they can be false.  The truth of a proposition is outside of the proposition itself.

This is not an anti-language stance.  Actually, it is pro-language, because language cannot function unless there is something outside of language.

Even if, somehow, you did manage to make yourself believe that there were 5 fingers..... would it be true?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

The American Ontology

Image
I subscribe to the American Ontology, which can be stated as follows: An entity can be said to exist, if and only if, and to the extent that, it is, or pertains to, a celebrity. Places, material objects, and animals exist to the extent that they are the places, material objects, and animals of celebrities.  Events don’t happen unless they happen to celebrities.  Entire regions of the world don’t exist, because they don’t contain celebrities.  The American Ontology can be seen as a logical consequence of Berkeley’s famous esse est percipi : to be is to be seen.  And therefore, the more seen something is, the more it is .  Everyone else can be dismantled, and used for spare parts. In turn, the American Ontology has its own logical consequences: celebrities only exist because of their relation to other celebrities.  For instance: Jordyn Woods is famous (i.e. existent) because she was living with Kylie Jenner.  Kylie Jenner is famous because she is the sister of Kendall Jenner. 
Read more