How does epistemology account for Belief as it relates to the nature of truth?

Position:Home>Philosophy> How does epistemology account for Belief as it relates to the nature of truth?

Question:

Any armchair philosophers or procrastinating A!.B!.D!.'s care to answer this for me!? I know there isn't one answer (nor any unified theory of epistemology), but I'm just looking for a general answer about how philosophers have approached Belief as a phenomenon, and how Belief is seen in the context of how we "know!." I'm sorry it's a can of worms, but anything you know (or believe you know) on the subject would be helpful!.

Can truth ever be verified independently of all belief!? And if so, wouldn't this require at the very least a belief in Truth!? And what is Belief anyway!? Is it another word for knowledge, or more like an expression of a relationship to knowledge, whether that knowledge be true or false!?!?!?

Sorry for all the questions!.!.!. You don't have to keep it super simple, but clarity would be appreciated!.

Thanks!Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Probably the best place to start is a definition of belief, so we're all talking about the same thing!. The one I use is something along the lines of 'something you trust to be true'!. Unfortunately for us, its meaning has shifted a bit through time and become somewhat blurry!. So your mileage may vary!.

This definition suggests that belief is about trueness, but that it's not a necessary indicator of truth!. Your trust may be well-founded or even completely unfounded; either is still a belief!. This contrasts with an opinion which is just your choice and not something that necessarily has anything to do with truth at all!.

You are probably already familiar with Plato's definition of knowledge as a 'justified true belief'!. So a belief that turned out not to be true wouldn't be knowledge, nor would a belief that had no real foundation at all (that's just a good guess)!. Though some people have some criticisms of the idea, I think it still holds up pretty well!.

Truth as a whole, I think, would be true whether or not ANYONE believed in it!. And it wouldn't be too hard to find examples of cases where we found a truth precisely because we are trying to disprove it and eliminate it as an option!. But conversely it's not hard to find examples where no amount of proof changes a particular person's beliefs, and some where it actually causes them to believe less in the people, methods, and tools used to provide the proof!.

So I would say that one of your suggestions does bear out!. If you believe in nothing (or at least if you doubt certain core metaphysical assumptions) there is no proof for you and your beliefs aren't likely to be susceptible to any kind reasonable process!. This is the dilemma of solipsism!. If you have enough trust in either your senses and reason or that of others, then you will tend to be led where those take you no matter what your initial beliefs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Here is the description of "truth" that I use:

"Truth is the product of the recognition (i!.e!., identification) of the facts of reality!. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts!. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions!. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics!."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 63!.

That, in itself, is an explicit statement of epistemology!. I believe it answers the "essential characteristic" of your question--as well as some of the side questions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Isn't epistemology more sound logical reasoning and not truth and therefore theorising, including theorising about beliefs will fall under the category!.Www@QuestionHome@Com