Do philosophers really think that ppl are able to change their BELIEFS at will? What is your view?
I often encounter philosophers and thinkers discussing beliefs, as if they are products of our choosings. Some even blame people for having irrational or false beliefs. But how much of control do we even have over our beliefs?
It seems to me that we acquire beliefs through some psychological/mental/subconscious processes that are beyond our control. "Believing in", although a verb, refers to a mental state. We don't have a direct control over our mental states. For instance, "being happy" is a state. I can't just turn it on at my will. My efforts can only facilitate a more appropriate circumstances for being happy. Similarly, I can find a justification for a belief A, and that may "ease" my transition to the state of believing in A. But it can't trigger the belief in A.
If I am wrong, then anyone should be able to make themselves believe that "jumping from the top of a skyscraper won't kill you, but is rather fun" or that "a 5$ bill is equivalent to 50K".
I understand that a person can be judged/blamed for having a weak justification for his believes or lacking one all together. But any expectation of abandoning a belief, that lacks justification, is only fair, if those beliefs can be changed at will OR that a belief system updates automatically, when presented with a better justification. I don't deny that a belief can be sparked by a good justification but I doubt that it is always the case. (deny a causation)
After all, knowledge is justified true beliefs. That implies that, as a rule of thumb, you must have beliefs to justify them. Justifications comes after beliefs. Otherwise, we could drop the "beliefs" all together. Then knowledge becomes a justified true proposition. The justified must imply a belief.
It seems to me that we acquire beliefs through some psychological/mental/subconscious processes that are beyond our control. "Believing in", although a verb, refers to a mental state. We don't have a direct control over our mental states. For instance, "being happy" is a state. I can't just turn it on at my will. My efforts can only facilitate a more appropriate circumstances for being happy. Similarly, I can find a justification for a belief A, and that may "ease" my transition to the state of believing in A. But it can't trigger the belief in A.
If I am wrong, then anyone should be able to make themselves believe that "jumping from the top of a skyscraper won't kill you, but is rather fun" or that "a 5$ bill is equivalent to 50K".
I understand that a person can be judged/blamed for having a weak justification for his believes or lacking one all together. But any expectation of abandoning a belief, that lacks justification, is only fair, if those beliefs can be changed at will OR that a belief system updates automatically, when presented with a better justification. I don't deny that a belief can be sparked by a good justification but I doubt that it is always the case. (deny a causation)
After all, knowledge is justified true beliefs. That implies that, as a rule of thumb, you must have beliefs to justify them. Justifications comes after beliefs. Otherwise, we could drop the "beliefs" all together. Then knowledge becomes a justified true proposition. The justified must imply a belief.
Comments (25)
Personally, I think you would need to divide believers into two categories: (1) those who unconsciously absorb beliefs from the surrounding society, without ever reflecting on them, and (2) those who examine their own beliefs after which they decide to either keep them or exchange them for alternative beliefs or sets of beliefs.
Humans possessing will power, they are quite capable of exerting control over what they do or do not believe.
I posted a similar topic that may give some insight: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10953/humanities-dystopian-philosophy-cultural-bias
But to change a belief at will, especially one aquired when raised is almost exactly the same as breaking a habit. (like smoking, drugs etc.)
So it is possible but requires an awareness to cultural bias and/or will to change, awareness of cultural bias being the understanding of this habit, and the will or desire to change what your not happy with or is toxic to your well-being.
Quoting Apollodorus
Basically open and closed minded individuals. :)
I'm not sure if "close minded" is the right word. Maybe just "unreflective"? I think most people are like that in many different ways. When we're busy living our lives we don't always have the time or energy to reflect on our beliefs.
Even people with an "open minded" predisposition may find themselves in the same situation.
But, fundamentally, I believe that we do have the ability to change our beliefs at will, once we have discovered a good reason for doing so. For example, we change our opinion of other people all the time when we discover new facts about them.
Maybe "BELIES" in the discussion title should be changed to "BELIEFS"?
Sounds fair,
Maybe people who are raised to accept immoral acts as the norm would want to change such beliefs in a similar way, especially if they are in prison etc.
For example:
If the Earth is in fact round, then the assertion "The Earth is Flat" cannot be referring to the non-existent fact that the Earth is flat. And so at most "The Earth is Flat" refers to the possibility that the Earth is flat. But how can beliefs refer to possibilities?
If it is possible that the Earth is flat, then presumably the Flat Earther is referring to this possibility, in which case his assertion cannot be judged as false. On the other hand, if it isn't even possible that the Earth is Flat, then the Flat Earther can only be referring to other facts of his life, such as his present mental-state. In which case his assertion still isn't false when understood.
I saw that to, it reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/nixR6wVa4HY?t=85
xD
Yes, If one is raised/influenced to accept something as fact it can cause false beliefs if untrue.
Its being aware of your own beliefs/biases/habits that allows you to address what is fact vs fiction, it only requires the will to do so. :)
I think you are largely right. Plus people often require a reason to change outlooks. It's not something you generally do without a trigger.
Quoting Curious Layman
I don't think you can choose your beliefs any more than you can choose who you love. That said, most of us can readily alter our views about a neutral subject when new information becomes available. Less neutral and ontologically important beliefs, such as political affiliations, theism, etc, only seem to change if there is a revelation or trigger event. But you do not choose to change them.
I also think some people change their beliefs incrementally - over a lengthy period - as their overall beliefs evolve over years, like a mosaic changing colour, tile by tile.
Good point.
But I think there is an additional problem in this particular case. The Earth is "round" from a scientific or learned perspective. But in everyday life our experience is that the Earth is flat.
If the Earth is flat for all ordinary, practical purposes, then believing that it is flat can't be entirely "false".
Makes you wonder if a person's observation or thinking can be hindered by not having a greater perspective, which can lead to a false positive.
The word "love" suggests an emotional approach to the issue. When emotions are involved, matters may get more complicated. But even then, we may fall out of love with someone overnight when we discover something in them that we find reprehensible or repulsive.
True. But we can't escape the fact that there is a big difference between the way we experience things psychologically and the way they are seen or analyzed scientifically.
To take another example. Physics tells us that matter consists of minute energy particles or fields. Medicine tells us that the human body consists of muscles, bones, blood, fat, mucus, and similar substances.
Yet, psychologically, this is not how we experience a human being. Our psychological experience makes us see intelligence, goodness, beauty and other things that may cause us to go so far as to fall in love with a person.
The scientific, philosophical or analytical perspective tends to take a secondary place if it registers at all.
Hmm, so maybe the understanding/context of what field/perspective is a consideration within the questions/problems we try to solve.
This is a good consideration of thought process, I like this. :D
Well, perspective does matter if it impacts on what beliefs we accept or reject IMO
I don't think so. This restricts whatever "knowledge" is, and includes things such as knowledge by luck or knowledge by accident.
This is probably also tied in with some rather peculiar connotations and uses related to the English word "knowledge".
I didn't say they were exactly the same, just that they are both examples of things you don't choose.
But you may be onto something, A- it may not be wrong to say people come to ideas for emotional reasons. Now how would you test for that?
Well, we don't tend to come into the world with too many ideas in our head. We tend to start with some basic sense perceptions and emotions. As our emotional needs become more developed and stronger, we tend to absorb or adopt ideas that correspond to those emotional needs. Only later on do we begin to examine our ideas or beliefs but even that often only partially and without necessarily exchanging them for a different set of ideas or beliefs. The case of more reflective and analytical minds is of course a different story. That's why I said that believers need to be classified according to their capacity of reflective thought.
Sure, I wasn't making any comment about your need for classification. My own belief is that reflective thought is also often a product of people's emotional lives and concomitant personality traits. It is not necessarily connected to education or intelligence or choice. Some people are frankly too frightened of life to engage in reflection. In all this the salient question is always to what extent people will be rewarded or punished for doing this - by their own thought systems or by the family and culture they live in.
Yes, that seems like a sensible way to look at it. However, I'm not sure if it's fear of life in general or fear of certain ideas that seem to threaten our perception of ourselves and the world. The ego, the emotional part of our psyche, wants to be reassured in its emotional needs and therefore tends to seek out and accept ideas that fulfill those needs and reject those that don't.
Very true. People also live beholden to the shadows of their parents and schooling and peer groups and often fail to take adventures elsewhere for fear of upsetting what they experience as the natural order.
The reason I am saying is that many of you are implicitly assuming that beliefs are a choice, without justifying that opinion, especially given the criticism I have provided above. For instance:
Quoting Apollodorus
Quoting sime
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
All this responses presume that believe could be a choice. Then they are trying to explain, when they become a choice. But non entertain the possibility that believe is never a choice.
I am leaning toward the idea that our will has nothing to do with it. Believing is a state, just like being happy or in love. You have control over the fuel but not over the spark.. One may travel to some sunny destination, with his friends and away from his monotone and miserable life. Yet, the journey may fail to produce a happiness in his heart. Although all the circumstances are right, and thus there are a plenty of fuel available, the spark is missing. Nobody can make themselves happy at will, in all circumstances.
Seems to me that beliefs resemble happiness, in that the sparkle is also a product of some fusion of psychological, circumstantial and other factors.
If you refer to my original comment, the idea of choice itself being an option is down to how the individual is raised/influenced in a way that is accepting to believe in.
If they don't believe its a choice (or unreflective/ closed minded) its basically a cultural bias that favours the ideology of cultural bias itself.
So how much control you have on your beliefs depends on your upbringing and influences.
Sorry if you assumed I was biased by the examples I gave, and assumed I only read the first paragraph but thats not the case.