Statesboro, GA, USA
There's no difference in meaning to me between "he truly believes" and "he has a true belief"
Suppose I borrowed John's Ford truck yesterday. But Sam wasn't around to know the details. Martha on the other hand, was with me when I borrowed it.
"Sam truly believes, though wrongly, that I borrowed John's Schwinn bicycle. But Martha has a true belief that I borrowed John's Ford Truck."
The same thing also applies to "weak" and "strong". Someone can weakly believe that their loved one survived a car accident, and yet that belief could be true. But someone's belief that the sun revolves around the earth, is very weak in light of the discoveries of Copernicus. Someone can strongly believe that they are Jesus Christ, and not be. But the argument that Jesus Christ existed is a very strong one.
If you deny the differences here, you have just denied not only the world of grammar, but also the world of men, potatoes, and cats in which you live from day to day. If it comes between reality and philosophy, go ahead and ditch your philosophy. Some philosophical ideas are just wrong, despite the fact that they can seem so enchanting. And the idea that every proposition is true, is one of them.
and I truly believe what I'm saying here ... So how can you argue?
But when someone says that some belief is false, I think that is a bad manner.
But what if someone truly believes it is a good manner? Your retreat from true and false, into questions of good and bad, does not prevent you from drawing the line. You're still drawing lines of belief, even if they are twice removed. You still have to ask whether or not your estimation of what is "bad" is true. If not, you're only giving me autobiography, not philosophy.
but I don't think it is ever right to speak against anyone's belief, and certainly not anyone for being a believer in that belief.
Caught ya. You just spoke against my belief ... because I truly believe that it is sometimes right to speak against someone's belief. And you do too, or you wouldn't have done so.
If someone says he has a true love for choclate, are you going to say that love is false, just because you don't have a love for choclate?
Of course not. You're talking totally subjective now, concerning taste. But wouldn't you admit that that's a different kind of question than asking whether or not that brown stuff is actually chocolate or not?
I work as a Registered Nurse. And we take a lot of lab specimins, including collected stool. (I don't want to gross anyone out here, but bear with me). I played a joke on a secretary once, by putting some melted Reeses chocolate in a specimin cup, and setting it on the desk for her to key the lab into the computer (the usual protocol). Needless to say, I wasn't very tidy. I purposely smeared chocolate on the bag and a little on the desk. She was quite irate, when she saw, right in front of her, what she thought was something other than chocolate. For more than a few seconds, she truly believed that that lovely chocolate was fecal matter. I still have lumps to prove it!. But does that mean that it actually was? No, she was wrong. Well ... maybe more than anything she was wronged. But she was still wrong.
I know, I know, that was rather naughty of me. I am an avid prankster, I must admit. She didn't take it so bad after she found it was really good 'ol chocolate. She rather enjoyed the snack.
How is it right for you to tell someone else what his or her belief is or is not?
How right is it for you to tell me it's not right for me to tell you you're not right??
I don't think it should be much different if I said you believe in Zeus intead of Christ, despite everything you ever said.
It doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp the difference between a historical personage, and a mythological personage, if you haven't acknowledged the foundational difference between true and false. Arguing the difference between Zeus and Jesus Christ is easy enough, but if your framework is mistaken, then arguments will be wasted.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny there is truth present, even in wrong assertions. For example, I believe your conclusion is wrong, but much in your premise is right. Just because someone believes that it is possible to have wrong conclusions, doesn't mean that they see no shades of grey, no nuances and subtleties of truth in all views. It's just that the truth in certain premises isn't always weighty enough to redeem the faulty conclusions that may follow.