Difference between belief and agreement

[AlP]

Sorry to bring up epistemology again. We've had a few topics on the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". I can't seem to find anything on the difference between "believing" and "agreeing". It seems to me there is no difference; they mean exactly the same thing. Though "believing" perhaps sounds more important than "agreeing". Maybe "believe" is a euphemism for "agree". Does anyone "disagree"?

[Recusant]

Maybe you're going right over my head, but to me this seems more of a semantic question than an epistemological one.  After reading your post, here's what went through my head:
 
"When one agrees with an idea, it can be said to be a case of 'coming to the same conclusion.'  In other words, there has been thought on your part which has brought you to the same idea as the one with which you agree.  In the case of belief, however, reasoning is not necessarily part of the process at all.  You can believe something for all sorts of reasons, including but not limited to actual thinking on the subject."

  On examining this line of thinking, though, I decided that I'm giving too much credit to one who agrees as opposed to one who believes.  After all, there are plenty of cases where people agree with something pretty much unthinkingly.  It really comes down to how the terms are defined, but in general I'd say that you're right; it's a 'distinction without a difference.'

I'm just a "shade tree philosopher," though, so don't take my word for it.

As far as I'm concerned there's no need for apologies.  Epistemology (Donald Rumsfeld aside) can be a fascinating subject, and if you don't like it, it's easy enough to turn to one side and ignore it.  I guess your first sentence was a good way to warn those who find it unpalatable for one reason or another.  Rather than being apologetic, one could also just come right out in the first sentence with: "Warning: This Post May Contain Epistemological Elements!"

[Renegnicat]

One could say that "agreement" denotes that the belief is not original, while "belief", may or may not be an original one.

Am I right, or am I right?  

[AlP]

Maybe you're going right over my head, but to me this seems more of a semantic question than an epistemological one.  After reading your post, here's what went through my head:

I think that's what I mean. It isn't an epistemological problem at all. Here's the thought that just went through my head:
"Believing is agreeing with the voice in my head that I call consciousness."

Am I right, or am I right?

Oh dear now we're getting into ethics again. I believe what you meant to say was "am I correct or am I correct?"  

[Renegnicat]

 DO NOT QUESTION TEH L33T R0|33R7 /\/\U64|33!!!!

[AlP]

I appreciate your outburst Renegnicat.

I've been thinking about this some more. I think that calling something a belief is reification error. Believing seems to me to be behaving or thinking in a certain way. In the instant in time that one believes something, one is agreeing with oneself or someone else.

Sometimes we talk about "an agreement". I don't think this is necessarily an error. An agreement usually involves a future obligation or right. I think humans have probably been forming agreements for a long time. "The agreement" itself is intangible from a detached standpoint but real enough from a human perspective. An agreement, while abstract, has time value. It's like insurance.

Belief on the other hand is slippery. I'm not sure what "a belief" is. A belief has no substance at all. Specifically, there is no long term obligation. It is something that has a tenuous existence in the instant of time that it is thought or expressed. In human terms, what is it other than a mistake? Is there some value I'm missing here?

I hope this adds some substance to an OP that was admittedly rather vague. The idea still needs work though... =(

[Renegnicat]

Well. You could say that "belief" connotes a certain partial view of the universe or anything in it, while "aggrement" might be best seen as "believing" in the equivalency of one's own "belief" and the "belief" of another. Eh? EHH???  

[AlP]

I like your new avatar image.

One might conclude that "belief" is, in your words, a partial view of the universe. I think belief is an illusion. I think it's reification error. I think that "belief" is simply agreeing with oneself on what reality is.

[zandurian]

One might conclude that "belief" is, in your words, a partial view of the universe. I think belief is an illusion. I think it's reification error. I think that "belief" is simply agreeing with oneself on what reality is.

Your reification link led me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... ncreteness

"when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality"

Sounds a lot like my schizophrenic "friend"   (I put "friend" in quotes only because with those folks you never quite know where you stand - really, no joke!)