2007-03-02 14:42:06 · 11 answers · asked by sokrates 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Tammi,
What if the asserter is identical with the onlooker? Moreover, it strikes me as inconsistent vis-a-vis one's beliefs to say that the cat is on the mat, but I do not believe it. What is I were to assert, "It is raining outside, but I do not believe it." If I do not believe that it is raining outside, why would I (as a putatively rational subject) assert (with serious intent) that it is raining outside?
2007-03-02 15:00:16 · update #1
No. If you didn't believe it, you would have said that the Cat is not on the mat or that it could be but you are betting that it isn't. If you said that you believe a cat is on the mat, but it isn't there, I would tell you to get some medication for schizophrenia.
2007-03-02 14:52:50 · answer #1 · answered by wassupmang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From "the cat is on the mat" it follows that: there is a cat; there is a mat; there is a cat and a mat; there is a feline creature; there are at least two objects &c.
From "I do not believe the is a cat on the mat" the only thing I can conclude is: "I do not believe the cat is on the mat", which could mean : I don't believe there is a cat or a mat, or I don't believe that the cat I'm thinking of is the same cat given by "the cat", but none of that is analytic. Nor must I be available to the reason why I don't believe the proposition. If asked, "why don't you believe it?" I could say "I'm not convinced" or " I haven't checked". But lack of certainty or lack of evidence aren't good logical reasons to count something False, contra disbelief-- there's something about my human psychology that causes me to feel this way towards the proposition, in effect, and I don't have to explain what those mechanisms are in order to be in a state of disbelief. Surely there is some reason why I disbelieve, but nothing I have the wherewithall to discern. So I can say: "I don't believe the cat is on the mat, even though I don't know why; but the cat is on the mat, whether I'm convinced of it or not"
The two statements should be kept apart.
When I say "Suppose it's raining outside, though I don't believe it"
you should be able to distinguish what's going on. And most scientific or logical encounters are of the extensional sort, because we can find out something meaningful if we consider all the what-ifs while bracketing all that murky talk of intensional attitudes. "Suppose it's raining outside and your car windows are open; will the seat get wet?" If I don't believe it's presently raining outside, it doesn't change the answer to this question. And given the atemporality of most propositions, it would be absurd to discount them all because I cannot assent to each one on the basis of how I feel about it right now; beliefs aren't static. When checking a long proof, how available does one have to be to each belief... it's impossible unless they are unconscious (and therefore unknown by myself), and even then I often entertain some propositions even though they aren't sufficiently proven to the level of belief. Providing a necessary and sufficient condition for most helpful concepts is dauntingly futile. Can I believe something that I can't even grasp, or that doesn't exist?
It doesn't matter what I believe as long as whatever is proposed actually is or is possible, and the explanatory power of the theory is propitious. And even when unbelieved and false on all counts, we still can evaluate hypotheticals by making meaningful use of devil's advocate. An assertion never loses its force if it is introduced by "Suppose...". And that may, in fact, be all we ever do.
2007-03-03 01:02:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
case 1: the cat is actually on the mat. and you do not believe it.
by making your stated assertion, you are consistent as far as the assertion goes. why you disbelieve the cat is on the mat is another matter. the fact that you disbelieve but are able to state the actual status of the cat, however does seem to indicate an inconsistency. but it is only inconsistent with what you believe. it is not inconsistent with the reality of the situation. so you must more carefully define consistency, i.e. what is your reference point for consistency: an onlooker, or the asserter?
case 2: there's no cat, or no mat,or the cat is elsewhere.
why are we bothering to talk about it? next question please.
2007-03-02 22:54:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if you assert that"The Cat Is On The Mat?" you don't believe it and are consistent.
2007-03-02 22:46:42 · answer #4 · answered by JAN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consistently speaking, you could theorize that the mat is a metaphysical mirror of the adamic race, and therefore you could not believe it and still be consistent--as long as your belief or disbelief was completely stagnant.
2007-03-02 22:45:43 · answer #5 · answered by Munya Says: DUH! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are content being consistenly WRONG, then sure. You can be just like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
2007-03-02 22:50:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, because the cat is on the chair, typing this reply!
2007-03-02 22:44:43 · answer #7 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Surely. However, it would depend on just what the
cat said that you didn't believe.
2007-03-02 22:44:47 · answer #8 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the pussy was never on the mat, we all know where can find pussy.
2007-03-02 22:44:54 · answer #9 · answered by My H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but then you are lying to your self and that wont change any thing, or will it?
2007-03-02 22:51:56 · answer #10 · answered by crazydrummer347 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋