Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!demon!news.demon.co.uk!longley.demon.co.uk!David
Subject: Re: TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE?
References: <921@desc.dla.mil>
Organization: Myorganisation
Reply-To: David@longley.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 29
X-Posting-Host: longley.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:32:16 +0000
Message-ID: <799090335snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <921@desc.dla.mil> erw2164 "Henry Freeman" writes:
> 
> To whom it may concern,
> 
>  Why not just let people believe whatever they want to believe.  If
>  person A does believe in God - fine.  If person B doesn't believe 
>  in God - fine, great. If person C believes that tiny bits of green paper 
>  is king master of the universe - even better.  Everyone has their own 
>  personal beliefs.  The keyword here is *personal*!  It doesn't make you 
>  any less of a human being if you have views/beliefs different than anyone 
>  elses.  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Henry Freeman
> (hfreeman@desc.dla.mil)
> 

Wittgenstein doesn't get much of a look  in here on these pages, but....his
'private language argument', seems worth alluding to here. One step removed
(Quine), the reason it does matter  is  that we all claim to share a common
language (if we want to speak to each other). We accept that tyranny as and
when we open our mouths. Am I right in saying that in so doing  we  are all
asking for 'expert' clarification (confirmation/refutation) when we speak?
If so, are we not agreeing along with Skinner, that language can not be used
to discuss privately held beliefs (and with Quine, that they do not exist?)
 
-- 
David Longley
