glass house philosopher / notebook 1
Tuesday, 25th December 2001
"...I'm delighted to be here today. Someone asked me if I was nervous about going back to my old school. I said, No, I wasn't nervous but actually what I felt and I don't want you to take this the wrong way was nausea. And I don't mean that in the existential sense. You leave a place that has been part of your life and you tell yourself, "I shall never walk this corridor again, I shall never look out of that window again, I shall never push that door again...", and then it turns out that you were wrong. You made a false prediction. And here you are, walking down the same corridor, looking out of the same window, pushing the same door.
Except, of course, the corridor, the window, the door are not the same because since I left the main building of University College School was burned down by an unknown arsonist. The Governers wisely decided to rebuild the old hall and class rooms to the original design. So this sense of familiarity is in part a skillfully created illusion.
"But one real item from the past is here, my teacher John Older who used to take us for Chemistry. For me, much of what this trip was about was seeing him again. When Mr Older taught us, he was fresh out of university. He tried to make us see that Chemistry wasn't about cookery, but putting questions to nature. For me, from my early teens, a Chemistry set was like a construction toy, only much more exciting. It was the greatest thrill to see chlorine gas bubbling through boiling benzene. So we didn't exactly see eye to eye.
"The reason I am here today because after the ruination of my dreams of becoming a scientist, I found philosophy. Now, it seems impossible that I could ever have chosen anything else.
"Here I am, in London, talking to you on the 25 January 2002, but actually these words were first written on Christmas Day, 25 December 2001. I know from bitter experience not to delay writing down your thoughts when they come to you. There's nothing worse than the agony of trying to piece together a hotch botch of half remembered ideas after the inspiration has gone cold.
"So, keep a notebook. That's the one piece of advice I will give you. Since August 1999, as some of you will have discovered if you've looked on the web, my philosophical notebook has been open to view on the Glass House Philosopher site. I obey the one rule for philosophical notebooks, that you don't tear out pages. Once a page is on the web site, it's there for good. I did once allow myself an exception to that rule, when I'd caused serious offence to someone and I felt I had to remove the page. But there have been plenty of things that I have written in my notebook which I'd like to remove, but cannot. All I can do is try to do better next time.
"The title of my talk is 'Belief'. In epistemology or theory of knowledge, you start with the question, 'What is knowledge?' The answers are of the form, 'Knowledge is true belief plus XYZ'. Now, if you say, 'F is G plus XYZ' your definition of F isn't any good if you don't know what G is. Epistemologists think they know what belief is. It's knowledge that's the problem. Anyone can have beliefs. But when are those beliefs knowledge? That's supposed to be the question. Well, I'm not so sure.
"What I'm hoping to do today, is get you to feel uneasy about the concept of belief.
"We might approach the definition of belief in the following way. Belief is just one item from a larger class of propositional attitudes. What all propositional attitudes have in common is a content which is given by a 'that...' clause. I hoped that I would get here on time today. I desired very much that I would get here on time today. I believed that I would get here on time today. That I would get here on time today is the common content of my hope, my desire and my belief.
"Amongst all the different propositional attitudes, one is particularly interesting. That is when you adopt completely neutral attitude about the proposition in question. You don't believe or disbelieve it. You don't hope it or desire it or fear it. You just think it in a neutral sort of way, or, as I shall say, consider it. If someone asserts a proposition and you understand what they say, and you don't have a view you don't hope, desire or fear, believe or disbelieve then you are simply considering that proposition. Considering is taking in, without any further attitude, what a proposition says.
"Now, we're ready to give the schema for a partial definition of belief:If A considers that P, and condition XYZ holds, then A believes that P.
"Why doesn't the reverse hold? Because we have unreflective beliefs, i.e. we believe things which we have never considered until someone asks us.
"What is the condition XYZ? That is the question I am asking. What is the condition that turns the neutral attitude of considering a proposition into belief? What's the difference between believing a proposition and merely considering it? You'd think the answer to that question would be obvious, but it isn't. It's baffling.
"Here are two things one might say about belief:
- A belief is what you say when you say what you believe.
- If you want an orange, and you believe that there's an orange in the refrigerator, then you will go to the refrigerator. (In case the example sounds familiar, it is actually from Donald Davidson.)
"Both these things are true, but they don't tell us what makes something a belief. If you are merely considering a proposition, you don't blurt it out as if you believed it. So belief is tied to assertion. On the other hand, if you are doing a proof, say, in arithmetic, it is perfectly OK to say, 'Consider that the square root of 2 is a rational number.' Someone says, 'Red sky at night, shepherd's delight.' You reply, 'You don't believe that old wives tale, do you?' 'No, I was just remembering the saying.'
"The second condition doesn't define belief, or what it is to hold a particular belief, but it does tell us one very important thing: We attribute beliefs to a subject in order to explain their actions...."
That's a possible start. I'll have to think about it more.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!