Core beliefs ?

[weltweit]

... I think that we may consciously and unconsciously strive to have a certain congruence in our beliefs but from a psychoanalytic perspective this is not necessarily always possible, and contradictory attitudes, feelings, beliefs etc are maintained, albeit in a defended way.

I think we strive to achieve conguence but agree that it is not always possible.

... However aspects accessible to consciousness only reveal part of the true picture of events, psychoanalytically speaking. Analysis is therefore a process that goes about unravelling these complex processes and their conscious deriviatives.

So we still have unconcious conflicts ..

Yes beliefs we consciously hold about ourselves, but as I outlined these are only tip of ice berg and may in fact be at odds, distorted and defended versions of the unconscious mental processes underlying them.

I think we strive to remove conflict from conscious beliefs but these as you say are just the visible tip of all that may be going on underneath. Hence the power of hypnotism in accessing the subconscious rather than just what is conscious.

 

[kyser_soze]

I dont think we accept beliefs uncritically, I think we do accept that further knowledge might come along that might render our belief as outdated.

Not so. That is only achievable if you're capable of adapting that belief system to accomodate the new data - using your flat earth example, despite proof of it's spherical shape in math by the greeks, the belief in a flat earth persisted for over a millenia afterwards. There's also externalities - Copernicus prooved that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, and was repeatedly asked to retract it as heresy. It doesn't automatically follow that new evidence=alteration in belief...indeed, as the Creationists have shown, new evidence that moves 'truth' away from their belief only serves to reinforce that belief (but that's also tied in to the fundie movement being a reaction to, and creation of, modernity as much as it does with them being the contemporary equivalents of flat earthers...)

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

1. Do we all have core beliefs? Yep, i reckon at some level.

2. Can we reduce our beliefs into simple one liners or is this absurd? I would hazard an opinion that an inability to break down your beliefs into simple one liners is a barrier to delivering your belief unto other people.

3. Should we challenge our core beliefs all at the same time or could this be destabilising? If you meet Buddha on the road, then kill him.

4. How do we cope with cognitive dissonance, between conflicting beliefs? Through discussion, through debate, through progress in thinking. I hope.

5. When is a belief not core? I dunno.

6. Have you changed or modified your core beliefs since you were 20 years old? Fucking yeh. Extremely in some ways, hardly at all in others.

etc etc ..

see above.

eta: is this like doing a survey on facebook or something

 

[inflatable jesus]

I dont think we accept beliefs uncritically, I think we do accept that further knowledge might come along that might render our belief as outdated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

I think that often when people use the term, they are referring to opinions that they can't really produce evidence for. Many of the definitions taken from dictionary.com suggest that the word is often used to refer to opinions where an undue degree of conviction is given. So you would use a word like 'belief' to refer to things like religious conviction, or one's opinion that Aliens regularly visit the earth. You wouldn't state that you believe your sofa exists. It would seem redundant.

For me, it often even seems like categorizing something as a belief just expresses that you think nobody can know about the subject for sure. That's not really how I look at my opinions on politics, human nature and so forth.

 

[kyser_soze]

Classic 'belief'...when you challenge someone on the need for hierarchy in society, they'll probably tell you 'someone needs to be in charge', but not be able to tell you why...

 

[fela fan]

Classic 'belief'...when you challenge someone on the need for hierarchy in society, they'll probably tell you 'someone needs to be in charge', but not be able to tell you why...

But they should be able to. The answer surely is because they want somebody to be in charge.

 

[kyser_soze]

But most people can't - it's just something that's ingrained in most of us from childhood in one way, shape or form - same thing for 'wanting' someone to be in charge; people can't explain WHY they want that, just that they do...

 

[fela fan]

But most people can't - it's just something that's ingrained in most of us from childhood in one way, shape or form - same thing for 'wanting' someone to be in charge; people can't explain WHY they want that, just that they do...

Not sure what you mean here kyser. What's ingrained in most people? Do you mean that the inability to explain why they want someone in charge is ingrained in people?

If so, that seems crazy to me.

 

[kyser_soze]

No, some kind of need and/or respect for authority - it starts with the relationship we have with our parents, is reinforced at school, in religion and then comes to the fore in our adult lives - hierarchy is everywhere; indeed, it's the default setting for civilisation.

That's what I mean.

But most people can't tell you why they need to have someone in charge.

 

[fela fan]

No, some kind of need and/or respect for authority - it starts with the relationship we have with our parents, is reinforced at school, in religion and then comes to the fore in our adult lives - hierarchy is everywhere; indeed, it's the default setting for civilisation.

That's what I mean.

But most people can't tell you why they need to have someone in charge.

Ah ok, got it now. As for respect for authority, i must have got left behind. For me a great maxim to live by is to be ready to disobey at any time. Authority is to be accepted or rejected according to the law or rule on its own merits.

An automatic respect for authority seems not much different to following a religion closely. Blind faith.

It's a pity when they can't answer why they need authority that they don't realise something is up. If they can't answer why, then why automatically do something you have no reason to be doing? We don't normally behave with no reason, so why over this sector of life?

 

[weltweit]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

I think that often when people use the term, they are referring to opinions that they can't really produce evidence for. Many of the definitions taken from dictionary.com suggest that the word is often used to refer to opinions where an undue degree of conviction is given. So you would use a word like 'belief' to refer to things like religious conviction, or one's opinion that Aliens regularly visit the earth. You wouldn't state that you believe your sofa exists. It would seem redundant.

Yes I accept that point, belief is usually about something significant and about which conviction is needed or perhaps not many facts are known.

For me, it often even seems like categorizing something as a belief just expresses that you think nobody can know about the subject for sure. That's not really how I look at my opinions on politics, human nature and so forth.

Yet we say such and such "reinforces our belief in human nature" ..

Perhaps belief is required in areas where there is not much knowledge but where for one reason or another we have to make a judgement. i.e. as we grow up, do we go or continue going to church or do we stop? What do we believe?

 

[inflatable jesus]

Aye. i see what you mean. You could use it in that regard too.

 

[Diamond Dog]

I think one has to always question where their beliefs come from; if there are any discursive factors that limit what we can actually hold to be a 'belief'.

 

[weltweit]

I think one has to always question where their beliefs come from; if there are any discursive factors that limit what we can actually hold to be a 'belief'.

I think it is part of the process of becoming an adult to question all the beliefs that were given to us as children and decide which still hold water, or which we will accept as our own adult beliefs.

Thus things like church about which we may not have had any choice as children, now as we become adult we must decide on, continue to accept or discard.

 

[kyser_soze]

Thus things like church about which we may not have had any choice as children, now as we become adult we must decide on, continue to accept or discard.

That's not quite the case with religious faith tho, is it? Faith is irrational and is not a product of evidence-based thinking (no matter what Dwyer might say). There's a line in Dogma that sums it up quite nicely:

Religious faith is like a cup that doubt, questions & life events drain, & needs to be replenished. When you're young you don't question as much, but as you get older the cup needs to be refilled more often - and sometimes the cup runs out and you loose your faith.

 

[Demosthenes]

Faith is irrational and is not a product of evidence-based thinking (no matter what Dwyer might say). .

that' just not true. Certainly not for all people who believe.

 

[kyser_soze]

From my perspective, having lost my faith, it is. I believed in God because it felt right and good, not because I'd seen any proof that God existed, and citing the existance of the universe as proof of God simply isn't enough for me.

So I'll amend...faith for others might be rational, and they may well have a lower requirement of proof to believe. For me it isn't, because my standard of proof requires a higher level than simply the existance of the universe.

 

[weltweit]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that as a child we might accept going to church because our parents or our school do this and we are expected to tag along. But when we are adult we have the first chance to question whether to continue the ritual and maintain or build on our childlike belief, or whether we will discard it and perhaps build new beliefs in their place.

Belief, core or not, has perhaps by definition to have some unknowables within it, otherwise we would still believe but we might have science standing firm with apparent evidence to support our beliefs. But even science based beliefs can be incomplete or contain uncertainties, has anyone ever proven without any doubt Darwins theory of evolution?

 

[weltweit]

... So I'll amend...faith for others might be rational, and they may well have a lower requirement of proof to believe. For me it isn't, because my standard of proof requires a higher level than simply the existance of the universe.

Some believers would say "you cannot see the wind but you know that it is there" their belief is that you can see evidence of a God all around you.

I however am more like you KS I would need a higher level of proof, I was brought up CofE but as an adult I have lapsed.

 

[Diamond Dog]

If the essence of rationality is to subject everything to reason, if reason/rationality must criticise all things, then surely to be true to its essence reason must also question and criticise itself?

This could lead to nihilism, or one could take faith, or specifically a leap of faith, to be the thing to question reason, to be its foil; as faith is, by its nature (according to reason), unreasonable and irrational; its necessary 'opposite', IFSWIM.

The point I'm trying to get across is perhaps rationality/reason needs faith in order to validate itself.

 

[kyser_soze]

If the essence of rationality is to subject everything to reason, if reason/rationality must criticise all things, then surely to be true to its essence reason must also question and criticise itself?

This could lead to nihilism, or one could take faith, or specifically a leap of faith, to be the thing to question reason, to be its foil; as faith is, by its nature (according to reason), unreasonable and irrational; its necessary 'opposite', IFSWIM.

The point I'm trying to get across is perhaps rationality/reason needs faith in order to validate itself.

Read Niets on that bit. While I am somewhat past his more deranged ideas, I do agree with his idea that in order to progress one must 'look over the edge' of the abyss of nihilism - that everything is absolutely and utterly pointless given the uncaring scale and nature of reality - and then start back up creating meaning for oneself from there, the idea being that you've rejected 'believing' in everything else - church, science, political ideologues, folk wisdom - and are free to create your own reality...obviously it's not perfect because one can never completely throw off ones cultural milieu, but at least doing it this way you get to choose for yourself.

For me the outcome was faith in myself, in my ability to interpret things and in my ability to make the best decision at the time using the evidence available to me, not to rely on some kind of overarching set of beliefs to guide such a process. Wrysmile nicknamed it my 'context dependent morality'...

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I have one core belief:
I believe that everything exists because and for as long God allows it to.
All the rest is constantly open for assessment.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

1. Do we all have core beliefs?

2. Can we reduce our beliefs into simple one liners or is this absurd?

3. Should we challenge our core beliefs all at the same time or could this be destabilising?

4. How do we cope with cognitive dissonance, between conflicting beliefs?

5. When is a belief not core?

6. Have you changed or modified your core beliefs since you were 20 years old?

etc etc ..

1) Does a sociopath [= no conscience] have any "core beliefs" other than, perhaps, "whatever I want is cool and I'm gonna get it regardless and, if necessary, in spite of everything and everybody"? Is that a "core belief"?

2) Of course, most people do that all the time, as it's much easier that way, no effort required, hence the success of simple, almost idiotic "beliefs" and "ideologies", not to mention even "dogmas"... Gimme 2-3 "principles" to explain everything and off I go... usually where everyone else is going anyway... [we are, by and large, seriously conformist, weak and silly like that... ]

3) That's exactly THE point of "ideologies" and even "dogmas" - they provide social stability, hence not easy to fight them off...

4) By "ideas" of pragmatism and positivism, i.e. "that which works", that is to say "brings results", read: money, power, influence, fame, amassing etc. etc. The most potent "ideology" today being "nothing succeeds like success"! Again, "thou shalt not think critically for thy selves"! In vernacular: "Don't go too deep, it will do your head in"...

5) All that is negotiable, under the same, unchanging and apparently non-challengeable social, economic and political conditions.

6) Nope.

 

[gorski]

Yes, I have one core belief:
I believe that everything exists because and for as long God allows it to.
All the rest is constantly open for assessment.

salaam.

Your right. My right is to weep for you! [Sorry, can't pray, by definition...]

 

[Aldebaran]

Your right. My right is to weep for you!

No doubt with good intention but it is puzzling why you would feel so compelled to "weep" for me.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

Just a light-hearted tease...