Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T11:24:47.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Belief and the Will

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Anthony O'Hear
Anthony O'Hear
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article, we will consider how far we might be said to be active in forming our beliefs; in particular, we will ask to what extent we can be said to be free in believing what we want to believe. It is clear that we ought to believe only what is really so, at least in so far as it lies in our power to determine this, but reflection shows that, regrettably, we do not confine our beliefs to what we have evidence for, nor do we always believe in accordance with the evidence we do have. So it is natural to conclude that non-intellectual factors may be at work here; such, at least, was the view of Descartes, who attributed error to the influence of our will in leading us to assent to judgments which go beyond the evidence presented by our infallible intellect. This view has some initial plausibility when we think of cases in which emotional considerations lead people to take up and genuinely believe things they have no evidence for, but it is not a view which has received much support from modern philosophers. So, in Part 1 we will look at criticisms levelled against Descartes' view by J. L. Evans, and in Part 2 we will see how far Descartes can be defended. Our conclusions here will lead us to give in Part 3 a general account of the influence of the will in beliefs. We will suggest that we are always responsible for our explicit beliefs, even though it is not true that we can simply believe what we like. Thus we will reject the idea that a man can consciously know something, and at the same time, by will power, believe the opposite. Belief is not then totally free, but we will argue that people do sometimes form beliefs which go against what they should and could believe, and that this can in a way be put down to the influence of the will. Finally we will consider some of the ways in which it is possible to influence our beliefs by willed acts over a long period of time, though this is not the way that we clami that the will might be said to play a part in every judgment that we make.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy , Volume 47 , Issue 180 , April 1972 , pp. 95 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In ‘Error and the Will’. Philosophy, Vol. 38, 1963, pp. 136–148Google Scholar. AU references to Descartes in this article will be made to the two volume edition by Haldane, and Ron, of The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Cambridge, 1969 and 1967Google Scholar, given as ‘H & R’ together with the appropriate volume and page number.

2 De Genesi ad Litteram, lib 12, cap 14, no. 29.

3 For a discussion of the cogency of such a hypothesis, c.f. Miller, Leonard G.'s article ‘Descartes, Mathematics and God’, Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, 1957, pp. 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 cf. H & R, Vol. 1, pp. 174–9.Google Scholar

5 p. 138.

6 H & R, Vol. 1, p. 236.Google Scholar

7 p. 138.

8 H & R, Vol. 1, pp. 235–6.Google Scholar

9 p. 139.

10 p. 139.

11 On how they could be false, cf. Miller, op. cit.Google Scholar, who is rightly critical of the whole programme.

12 cf. Fourth Meditation esp. at H & R, Vol. 1, p. 177.Google Scholar

13 p. 140.

14 H. & R., Vol. 1, p. 220.Google Scholar

15 p. 143.

16 p. 141.

17 In Values and Intentions, London, 1961, p. 131.Google Scholar

18 H & R, Vol. 1, p. 175.Google Scholar

19 cf. p. 145.

20 p. 146.

21 p. 147.

22 cf., e.g. Part V of Discourse on the Method, H & R, Vol. 1, pp. 106–118.Google Scholar

23 pp. 147–8.

24 ‘Belief and Constraint’, PAS, Vol. 64, 1963–1964, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar

25 Principles, 1. XXXIIGoogle Scholar, H & R, Vol. 1, p. 232.Google Scholar

26 cf. Principles, 1. XXXIVGoogle Scholar, H & R, Vol. 1, p. 233.Google Scholar

27 H & R, Vol. 1, pp. 221 and 235.Google Scholar

28 To the Seventh Objection, H & R, Vol. 2, p. 267.Google Scholar

29 H & R, Vol. 1, p. 176.Google Scholar

30 H & R, Vol. 2, p. 42.Google Scholar

31 cf. Replies II, H & R, Vol. 2, p. 39.Google Scholar

32 Principles, 1. XLIIIGoogle Scholar, H & R, Vol. 1, p. 236.Google Scholar

33 H & R, Vol. 1, p. 92.Google Scholar

34 Paris, 1930, pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

35 H & R, Vol. 2, p. 224.Google Scholar

36 In ‘On Belief’, PAS, Vol. 63 (1962–1963), pp. 167–186.Google Scholar

37 In Thought and Action, London, 1959, pp. 155–8.Google Scholar

38 Descartes' liberty of indifference.

39 SPAS, Vol. 28, 1954, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

40 p. 19.

41 Op. cit., p. 155.Google Scholar