Language, language development, language acquisition ....

Although the word “economics” can be used in a variety of ways, unless very obviously differentiated, it refers to money. And when money is used to govern without the other two segments of governing, it degrades into nothing but extortion - modern USA and Europe.

Perhaps “Sociology” would fit better?

Arminius, are you writing this for yourself?
Because almost all posts are yours. it is not to get opinions, or information, I think.

Not really.

I am just trying to make the thread more interesting. Most ILP members are not interested in linguistics - and, by the way, also not interested in demography or in comparison of economics with sociology or psychology. They are not even interested in philosophy.

I agree that a whole lot of people visiting fora are doing so because they want to gain recognition. But still, if you would have stuck to your initial idea, I think I would have understood better what you want here. Could you explain it in a few sentences to one as dull witted as I?

Sociology does not contain all economical aspects, and if we want to know the reasons for e.g. extortion, then we primarily have to accept the economical facts, regardless whether we want to or not.

Yes. That’s how it is.

As far as I remember I started this thread in order to bring more philosophy to ILP by telling about the most important basics of philosophy.

A commendable effort, but I think you are not so good at explaining and making a topic attractive to posters is a skill that I lack as well. Getting posters to look up what they are saying first is what i keep trying to accomplish, but that is a hard thing indeed.

In my job as a private teacher I have to explain very much, and I am pretty sure that I am good at explaining. :sunglasses:

On ILP the situation is a bit different:

Unfortunately ILP has not much to do with explaining, because most ILP members just want recognition and nothing beside it. And unfortunately I have to translate all my thoughts into a foreign language. I am not looking for excuses, because I have to admit that I do not want to address many but merely some ILP members, namely those who are really interested in the topic of the thread.

So actually I am not much interested in making a topic attractive to posters.

They are either interested or not interested.

… The promotion of doubt, suspicion, fear, hatred, and death.

Maturity ≡ knowing that all things in society are done with purpose.
Paranoia ≡ believing one knows who is doing it.

It is not good when people do not know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they know.

Yes, I know.
… emmmm…
I mean I believe it to be true.
Well, I fear it to be true.
Or at least I suspect it.
I doubt that it isn’t true.

Oh hell, what do I know. :confused:

Yea. :wink:

“Ich glaube” in German means “I believe” in English, and “Ich denke” in German means “I think” in English. Since the late 1960s, certain German people have been fighting a “word battle”; the reason for it is the goal that “Ich denke” shall be used instead of “Ich glaube” which shall die out; the people shall believe that they think and shall not notice that they believe and not think; in this way new believers shall be bred, namely those who do not think / know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they think / know.

It is not difficult to find out which of the English speakers use the term “I think” or the term “I believe” how often, in which situations and with or without switching. Until the end of the 1960’s German speakers used the term “ich glaube” very much oftener than the term “ich denke” - maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German speakers have been using the term “ich denke” very much oftener than the term “ich glaube” - maybe this ratio is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to 30). So the ratio of the use of the terms “ich glaube” and “ich denke” has reversed within merely two decades (1970’s and 1980’s).

In the USA during that same period, it was “I feel” that was to replace “I think” … for the same reasons. Thinking was being removed from society so that only the chosen would be able. Neurological diseases were spread so as to help ensure retardation and inability to think. Entertainment drugs were added a little later. The mental illnesses and obvious retardation in the population was due entirely to that endeavor.

Yes. I know.

Of course.

There are many examples for the attempt to replace words:

“Glaube” (“belief”), “glauben” (“believe”), “Wahrheit” (“truth”), “wahr” (“true”), “wahrhaft” (“truthful”), “Wahrhaftigkeit” (“truthfulness”), "Mannschaft (“team/crew of men”), …, and so on.

The anti-religious and feministic globalists are dictating here.

I found this hilarious and intersting. In English I use I believe and I think fairly interchangeably. And they can have a range of meanings. If I consider myself to know something, I would most likely leave out the first person beginning and just state that X is Y. This would not be an assertion of absolute certainty. If I said I know it, I would likely be trying stop some process of disrepect on someone else’s part. I would be implying that I have some expertise or solid grounds based on something thought out and justified. I would generally not mean they should immediately believe me, but on the other hand should stop acting like my position is something to simply dismiss. Take it seriously at least and stop rushing forward in the conversation past it.

I know the trend James is referring to. Since feelings are considered something one cannot challenge - you know what you feel and the problem of other minds precludes someone else denying this is what you feel - many people use I feel because it seems to slide past potential critique. You have your feelings and I have mine (as is this was relevent to which model of truck ran someone over, for example).

I would be more likely to use ‘I believe’ when taking a kind of third person perspective on myself. I believe that X is the case, and this is due to Y, but I have to admit I have not thought much about it. As one example. IOW I am relating what I believe but not really asserting it. ‘I think’ is much more likely to begin assertions.

I am not saying any of this is correct. I am in fact admitting or pointing out that my use of these options is more of interpersonal significance, something dynamic, and not so much semantics. It has to do with what is going on.

I think the JTB model for knowledge is actually a step too far. I tend to work, implicitly, with a JB, justified belief model. Some things are more justified than others. Some things are not justified, things being beliefs.

So this sidesteps the need for a clear semantic scale with these terms. Believe being the weakest, think the next in line and know the best. I suppose I think that is rather silly. Me saying I know and me saying I think amounts to much the same thing for the other person, until at least they are informed about my justification process. So I use the terms in this more situation dependent way.

I feel like this is a good choice on my part.

So you can’t critique it. Only I know what I feel. =D>

Yes, if it is regarded from the one of two points of view, but from the other point of view it is regarded reversely: Know being the weakest, think the next in line and believe the best. :slight_smile: