Questions from "How Mental Systems Believe"
Is an idea a belief?
What's the difference between the two?
Spinoza states that we believe before we evaluate while Descartes argues we have to evaluate in order to believe. Spinoza was arguing that we accept something as true before we go through the process of determining its truth. So. . . we have to work at changing our belief as opposed to work at adopting the belief in the first place, which would suggest that lots of false ideas/beliefs are adopted because our system works "backwards". So, our default is to assume that all ideas we encounter are true. . . until we prove them otherwise.
I'm trying to think of children--do they do this? If you tell a child something, they do believe you (the article later confirms that this is true). But is that a result of Spinoza's theory or just developmental or both? Is the Spinozian system in a way a developmental system that has nothing to do with age and everything to do with critical thinking (or the lack thereof)? So much recent research (Mother Jones had a an article on it maybe last year?) argues that it's almost impossible to get someone to change a "deep" idea they hold. That would make sense if the Spinozian theory is correct. Would it be useful, practical or possible to teach doubt at an early age and make it the default? Would it be better to start with believing ideas false or believing ideas true? How much does it depend on the idea?
The article suggests that when we are "resource depleted" or stressed, we lose our doubting ability--our reasoning decays and so we accept things as true that we should not. If this is our default, then it would suggest that Spinoza is correct. We want to and do often believe our perceptions even though we often are proven wrong. What we often don't realize is perceptions are not the same as cognition.
Is believing something true part of our human creativity, because everything initially seems possible? If we started out thinking things false, would we be less likely to attempt new things, contemplate new ideas?
In the article, the author asks are human beings Cartesian or Spinozian? But couldn't we be both and at different times with different ideas?
What's the difference between the two?
Spinoza states that we believe before we evaluate while Descartes argues we have to evaluate in order to believe. Spinoza was arguing that we accept something as true before we go through the process of determining its truth. So. . . we have to work at changing our belief as opposed to work at adopting the belief in the first place, which would suggest that lots of false ideas/beliefs are adopted because our system works "backwards". So, our default is to assume that all ideas we encounter are true. . . until we prove them otherwise.
I'm trying to think of children--do they do this? If you tell a child something, they do believe you (the article later confirms that this is true). But is that a result of Spinoza's theory or just developmental or both? Is the Spinozian system in a way a developmental system that has nothing to do with age and everything to do with critical thinking (or the lack thereof)? So much recent research (Mother Jones had a an article on it maybe last year?) argues that it's almost impossible to get someone to change a "deep" idea they hold. That would make sense if the Spinozian theory is correct. Would it be useful, practical or possible to teach doubt at an early age and make it the default? Would it be better to start with believing ideas false or believing ideas true? How much does it depend on the idea?
The article suggests that when we are "resource depleted" or stressed, we lose our doubting ability--our reasoning decays and so we accept things as true that we should not. If this is our default, then it would suggest that Spinoza is correct. We want to and do often believe our perceptions even though we often are proven wrong. What we often don't realize is perceptions are not the same as cognition.
Is believing something true part of our human creativity, because everything initially seems possible? If we started out thinking things false, would we be less likely to attempt new things, contemplate new ideas?
In the article, the author asks are human beings Cartesian or Spinozian? But couldn't we be both and at different times with different ideas?
Comments
Post a Comment