I am curious about the gap between belief and knowledge. If confidence and a willingness to act are the bridge between internally created belief and knowledge, is there really a gap between the two concepts in practice? In a world of humble knowledge, you can never be certain that you are right. As a consequence you willingness to act always exists in the absence of full confidence. Does this mean in an internally generated world, you can only ever act on belief rather than knowledge? If the full confidence (however justified) is not the benchmark for knowledge, then what is?
In the example, we have accepted that your friend still believes the new apple is ok to eat based on past experience. But this is a new apple and requires a new judgement and new act. The example suggests that the actual risk of the apple having something wrong with it has not changed. But this does not mean that there was never no risk. The apple example suggests between two points of time there has been a loss of confidence (and / or risk appetite), which undermines the previous belief / knowledge your friend held. In a sense your friend is now more confident that they do not know that the apple is safe (the right humble knowledge stance). They have a justified reason to believe that it is probably ok, but nothing more.
All this is a longwinded way of saying that you are describing something really interesting which doubtless will be explored further in your next piece. But for me at least, it suggests that for a purely internally generated proposition, no difference can exist between belief and knowledge.
I'd still argue there can be a difference between belief and knowledge - in a practical sense - even if it is completely internally generated. I can two such beliefs and one I am convinced of and the other I'm not so sure - even if I have no reason to be convinced either way. Human psychology is such that we convince ourselves of all sorts of things for all sorts of spurious reasons.
The first - that I am convinced of and therefore act without thinking as if it is true - would count as knowledge for me. The second would could as just belief. Whether I am justified in any way in that distinction is a different, although obviously important, question.
If we consider this and look at the justification for my belief, there is no real difference except for an arbitrary psychological difference. From how it feels to me though, there is a genuine difference of confidence.
Every statement is made expecting an agreement, hence, it is a truth claim. As we try to obtain proof that would help us attain an assured conviction of undoubtful reality, we reach out to the experience of the present. However, our experience is never adequate for the changing reality, and we look for causes to make sense of the world. Of course, artistic expression (and matters of belief) allows mytho-poetic language to communicate its truth; however, the public sphere requires rational discussions.
To justify contradictions in our behaviour and to find safety in our convictions, we often assign the causes of our actions to platonic universal concepts or emotional responses. Thus, we can always claim our individual or collective choices to be beyond our control. Yet, the existence of knowledge is a necessary condition to function in a factual reality.
As Wittgenstein later acknowledged - logic has limited reach and cannot infer matters of belief.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of going to later Wittgenstein on belief and knowledge, but it is very relevant. He explores the subjective 'view from the inside' that I'm thinking about.
I am curious about the gap between belief and knowledge. If confidence and a willingness to act are the bridge between internally created belief and knowledge, is there really a gap between the two concepts in practice? In a world of humble knowledge, you can never be certain that you are right. As a consequence you willingness to act always exists in the absence of full confidence. Does this mean in an internally generated world, you can only ever act on belief rather than knowledge? If the full confidence (however justified) is not the benchmark for knowledge, then what is?
In the example, we have accepted that your friend still believes the new apple is ok to eat based on past experience. But this is a new apple and requires a new judgement and new act. The example suggests that the actual risk of the apple having something wrong with it has not changed. But this does not mean that there was never no risk. The apple example suggests between two points of time there has been a loss of confidence (and / or risk appetite), which undermines the previous belief / knowledge your friend held. In a sense your friend is now more confident that they do not know that the apple is safe (the right humble knowledge stance). They have a justified reason to believe that it is probably ok, but nothing more.
All this is a longwinded way of saying that you are describing something really interesting which doubtless will be explored further in your next piece. But for me at least, it suggests that for a purely internally generated proposition, no difference can exist between belief and knowledge.
I'd still argue there can be a difference between belief and knowledge - in a practical sense - even if it is completely internally generated. I can two such beliefs and one I am convinced of and the other I'm not so sure - even if I have no reason to be convinced either way. Human psychology is such that we convince ourselves of all sorts of things for all sorts of spurious reasons.
The first - that I am convinced of and therefore act without thinking as if it is true - would count as knowledge for me. The second would could as just belief. Whether I am justified in any way in that distinction is a different, although obviously important, question.
If we consider this and look at the justification for my belief, there is no real difference except for an arbitrary psychological difference. From how it feels to me though, there is a genuine difference of confidence.
Does that make sense?
An interesting take on belief and knowledge.
Every statement is made expecting an agreement, hence, it is a truth claim. As we try to obtain proof that would help us attain an assured conviction of undoubtful reality, we reach out to the experience of the present. However, our experience is never adequate for the changing reality, and we look for causes to make sense of the world. Of course, artistic expression (and matters of belief) allows mytho-poetic language to communicate its truth; however, the public sphere requires rational discussions.
To justify contradictions in our behaviour and to find safety in our convictions, we often assign the causes of our actions to platonic universal concepts or emotional responses. Thus, we can always claim our individual or collective choices to be beyond our control. Yet, the existence of knowledge is a necessary condition to function in a factual reality.
As Wittgenstein later acknowledged - logic has limited reach and cannot infer matters of belief.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of going to later Wittgenstein on belief and knowledge, but it is very relevant. He explores the subjective 'view from the inside' that I'm thinking about.