A C.I.p. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
r
r
l
,t_~
?
,13ft g,f#'t" ISBN...
31 downloads
741 Views
41MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
A C.I.p. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
r
r
l
,t_~
?
,13ft g,f#'t" ISBN 0-7923-6238-1
Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner Printed in the Netherlands.
INTRODUCTION: THE VARIETIES OF BELIEF AND ACCEPTANCE Pascal Engel University of Caen, CREA and Institut Universitaire de France
1. BELIEVING
The notion of belief is ubiquitous in contemporary philosophy: it occurs in epistemology, when one discusses questions about the rationality of belief and the difference between belief and knowledge, in the philosophy of mind when one raises questions about the nature of mental states and contents and about our various ways of ascribing them to people through a "folk psychology", and in the philosophy of language, when one deals with "the semantics of propositional attitudes" and with the logic of "belief sentences" of the fonn "X believes that p". The ramifications of these questions and their interconnections are numerous, and here, as elsewhere in philosophy, it is not obvious that one field of inquiry or one angle of approach dominates the others and deserves to be taken as primary or basic. Questions about what beliefs really are, metaphysically, cannot be easily divorced from epistemological questions about what differentiates belief from knowledge, nor from questions about the meanings o( the sentences through which we attribute beliefs to other people or to ourselves, and the latter cannot be separated from the former. A good example of these interconnections is provided by "Moore's paradox": "It rains, but I do not believe that it rains" (or "It does not rain, but I believe that it rains"). According to Wittgenstein1, Moore made a point, through such sentences, about "the logic of P. Engel (ed.), Believing and Accepting, 1-30. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
2
PASCAL ENGEL
assertion", namely that it makes no sense, in ordinary talk, to say that p, and to say, in the same breath, that one does not believe that p. This simple "logical" point, however, does not pertain only to the "logic" of assertion and belief talk. For, if Wittgenstein is right to say that "I believe that p " is not a description by the speaker ofone ofher mental states, but the expression of it, it is difficult to evade the question of what constitutes a genuine description of a mental state, in contrast to a mere expression of it. If there is a real contrast between such forms as "I believe that p " and "He believes that p " (for l'p, but he does not believe that p " does not give rise to a paradox), then any theory of belief which gives a uniform account of the meaning of "believes" when used in the first person and in the third person is bound to be false. For instance the functionalist account of belief according to which "believes" means in both cases "is a state apt to cause behaviour" is threatened by this contrast.2 Hence this simple "logical" point is not innocuous with respect to what belief actually is. It is not innocuous either with respect to the difference between beliefand knowledge, for a related simple "logical" point is that, unlike in the case of belief, a genuine contradiction emerges when ones says, "I know that it rains, but it does not rain": for knowledge implies the truth ofthe proposition known, which is thus incompatible with the asserti