Posts: 66321
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Seems to, to me.... Perhaps you could explain why it doesn't?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm
You have to distinguish between the three:
The statement contains different type of beliefs but is a belief itself.
The statement is a belief itself and contains different type of beliefs, and is believed on the basis of other beliefs.
The statement contains different type of beliefs and is a belief itself, and is not believed on the basis of other beliefs.
Posts: 66321
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Actually, I only have to distinguish it from between two types of beliefs..
"Beliefs that are properly basic, in that they do not depend upon justification of other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief (a "non-doxastic justification")"
or
"Beliefs that derive from one or more basic beliefs, and therefore depend on the basic beliefs for their validity"
but lets have a go.
-The statement contains different type of beliefs but is a belief itself. - This wouldn't help me to determine whether or not the beliefs were properly basic. The difference between a belief and a properly basic belief isn't going to be highlighted by whether or not they are both beliefs....so this one seems useless. It's not about whether the beliefs contained in the statement are different, or whether or not they are beliefs, but whether or not one depends on another.
-The statement is a belief itself and contains different type of beliefs, and is believed on the basis of other beliefs.-
Right, such as a statement about belief in certain attributes of something being based upon a belief that said something exists to have attributes in the first place...... The question I keep asking, can you believe that your identity is perpetual without believing that you have an identity?
But you're angling for the third, so make that work, line up the dominoes for me on that count?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm by Mystic.)
The first encompasses both of them. So it can be properly basic or not.
The 2nd is not properly basic.
The 3rd is properly basic.
I can see how this is complicated.
You need to believe in an identity to believe in a perpetual identity, so it seems you cannot justify belief in the latter without the former.
But what they really mean, is that, when a belief is based on argument deduced from other beliefs. From inference.
Posts: 66321
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 20, 2013 at 1:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2013 at 1:27 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What you're really arguing, you mean. What they "really mean" seems very plain to me. You believe in identity, and from this belief (and as usual, other unspoken things) you have come to the belief that it is perpetual.
To put this another way mystic, the very notion of identity has been criticized as not being a properly basic belief, but you feel comfortable adding attributes to this, and still considering it properly basic (even though Im fairly certain you're prepared to explain why you feel the attribute you've chosen is reasonable..which will again be - at the very least- another list of beliefs upon which this depends. I'm not so much dismayed by your use of this as a properly basic belief, I'm questioning why you feel comfortable doing so. If you want to do so, by all means, have at it, go from there - there will be nagging questions..but hey, that's the point at which you chose to begin..right?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 22, 2013 at 6:41 pm
I'm not convinced that identity is 'properly basic' either.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 22, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Belief we should value human beings is properly basic even though humans are complex and our beliefs in humans is complex.
Belief in morality is also properly basic even though morality is complex.
Belief in perpetual identity is also properly basic even if identity is complex.
Posts: 66321
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 22, 2013 at 11:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Unfortunately...even granting this your second example about appreciating your parents still doesn't qualify.
You (a belief in identity) believe that treating your parents a particular way (belief in morality) because you value them (belief in value) is the right thing to do (belief in morality, again). That's actually quite elaborate. Not properly basic at all.
(cogito for example, has been criticised as "I think, therefore I am" - "i am" being dependent upon "I think". If one wanted to be a stickler its very difficult to identify something thats properly basic - which is why the position of anti-foundationalism exists)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 24, 2013 at 10:02 am
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2013 at 10:03 am by Mystic.)
Whether it's elaborate or not, it's properly basic if it's not proven by other premises or not believed on by other premises proving it.
|
