Is there any real difference between these two statements:
I don't believe in X
I believe that X does not exist
Monday, February 18, 2008
Quick Question
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labels
- Politics (257)
- The Net (147)
- Misc (100)
- It's a strange world (68)
- Religion (68)
- Democracy (58)
- Media (53)
- The Good Doctor (43)
- Secularism (36)
- Meaning of Life (22)
- Iraq (10)
- Animal Rights (8)
- Films (3)
- Blogpower (2)
- Music (1)
- Quick Thought (1)
Blog Archive
8 comments:
Sort of; I don't believe in communism, but I couldn't say that it doesn't exist. But you could argue that it, in fact, doesn't exist because it is an impossible dream.
Right. Or giraffe, to take another excellent example.
I don't believe in communism...
Good point. But aren't you really saying that you don't believe in the viability or value of communism - and is that really different from saying that it's viability or value doesn't exist?
But saying "I don't believe in X" isn't specifically claiming that it doesn't exist - just that you don't believe it does.
It is pretty much semantics, but an important one.
It really depends. Just looking at the statements completely decontextualised I'd say that theoretically there is a difference, but practically there often isn't.
But it just depends on the context either statement is used, the emphasis on particular words, the way your interlocutor interprets them, then any ensuing misunderstandings that may need clarifying.
The joys of communication, eh? Language can be so precise and yet so ambivalent at the same time...
Thunderdragon,
But saying "I don't believe in X" isn't specifically claiming that it doesn't exist - just that you don't believe it does.
But then what's the difference between "I believe X" and simply "X"? Surely if I say that "I have a dog" I'm also saying that "I believe I have a dog".
Turtle,
But it just depends on the context either statement is used, the emphasis on particular words, the way your interlocutor interprets them, then any ensuing misunderstandings that may need clarifying.
Yeah, this is the view I'm leaning towards: it's not so much what's being said, as the way it's being said.
The first phrasing suggests that we might be open to argument, while the second suggests that we've considered the arguments and come to a firm conclusion. But there doesn't seem to be anything actually in the phrasing itself which makes this distinction.
But by saying that you just don't believe rather than claiming that it doesn't exist you aren't directly challenging whether or not it actually exists, just your belief in it.
Post a Comment