I guess if we expand our definition of 'reason' then yeah you're right. But that would render the saying kinda pointless because then people are 'reasoned' into every belief that they hold
Edit: that -> they
The major difference is that you were not indoctrinated into your belief in santa. When your only data points were those presented by your parents and others you had no reason, or even capability, to distrust you had an understanding of Santa Claus moreso than a belief. An entirely reasonable one at that. As that understanding changed you ultimately reasoned that it was actually a baseless belief so you altered your understanding to conclude nonexistence
This dude reasons.
/r/askphilosophy is leaking
How are people not indoctrinated into Santa? Parents, school, and media all push the belief of Santa at early ages of our lives. With your definition I don't think there is any belief someone could have that doesn't fall under having been "reasoned" into
I'd beg to disagree. Alot of childish beliefs are completely unreasonable, but held onto more out of hope. Heck, I still make birthday wishes after years of for no evidence based reason.
What understanding? Kid is told santa exists, kid believes it. The kid doesn't understand anything. He merely held a belief. Later in life he examined that belief using reason which caused him to stop believing in it. His parents taught him to believe in Santa uncritically so of course it's indoctrination, just becuase only his parents did it does not mean it isn't indoctrination.
Premise 1: Parents say Santa brings presents to good children.
Premise 2: Child behaves well.
Premise 3: Child receives presents from parents presented as Santa's.
Premise 4: Given the age of the child, it's a logical assumption to make that the parents aren't lying.
Therefore it makes logical sense that a child comes to the conclusion that Santa is real.
It is in no way indoctrination but merely a logical fallacy made by the child due to underdeveloped critical thinking skills. And per the development of critical thinking skills, the child will reason that Santa is not real based on the newfound skills.
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically
It is indoctrination.
It is in no way indoctrination but merely a logical fallacy made by the child due to underdeveloped critical thinking skills. And per the development of critical thinking skills, the child will reason that Santa is not real based on the newfound skills
Just because the child can't think critically doesn't mean it isn't indoctrination. The lack of critical thinking skills simply makes indoctrination easier. Indoctrination isn't always bad and parenting always involves indoctrination to some degree.
I think both of you are right. The difference is the perspective of the issue. In the case of a child just hearing "Santa brings presents to good children" then he behaves well and gets his presents, is not the parents forcing the believes in the child, is just the child using reasoning that if its happening then it must be true; In the case of the parent telling the child "Santa exists" in direct indoctrination because the parent is actively training the child's mind to believe this.
On another note, I found really funny this argument is happening in this particular thread.
They are obiously wrong. Santa exists. Source: am parent. It's in the handbook.
get laid already
I like this guy
i like you both
Also, your parents eventually confess about Santa Claus, and the rest of the world backs that up beyond a certain age. This age is generally young enough that the revelation isn’t permanently earth-shattering.
I'm not sure there's any practical difference between "indoctrination," and being told something without evidence at an impressionable age by a trusted authority figure.
I mean, that’s a pretty good definition of indoctrination.
Indoctrination is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Of course, it's indoctrination.
If only people could do the same to religion. A bearded man bringing presents is unrealistic, but an invisible power in the sky isn't?
So then what’s the difference between that and someone being brought up by some fundamentalist Christian where they’re constantly affirmed in their beliefs and censored from information that contradicts it?
In the Netherlands we have St. Nicolas, who santa is based on. They broadcast him arriving by steamboat at some city in the country, yet at the same time have him arrive in every other major city with different actors. When I was 4 and watching the procession on TV one of my parents asked if I’d like to go see him arrive in our city, as he was currently there. I asked how he could be in another city and in our city at the same time, my parents didn’t try covering up as they don’t believe lying even about something like santa is right, they only ever answered my questions of if he’s real with “many people believe so”.
So anyways, I put one and two together and concluded it was just not possible and that he must be fake. Thinking back on it now I’m surprised I didn’t think just one was fake.
Pssh... Can't believe y'all actually think there isn't a Santa.
you had an understanding of Santa Claus moreso than a belief.
As that understanding changed you ultimately reasoned that it was actually a baseless belief
Are these not in contradiction? Did I, or did I not believe in Santa?
I'm no longer high. Will philosophy more this evening
But I actually thought that Santa existed, if that's not belief then I'm not sure what is
I think this LPT is about you lol. He answered it completely
ask yourself the following: if belief in Santa qualifies as a belief held through faulty/lower reasoning (which I concede), then what beliefs aren't come to by way of reasoning?
If all beliefs we hold are the product of some reason, however faulty, then what's the point of saying that you can't be reasoned out of a belief not arrived at by reason?
Gotta admit tho, that was a burn I'll never recover from lol
I think because one is a learning and growing child and the whole issue of reason is talking about adults. Really read those other guys reply’s he kinda answered it all
In trying to craft a response I realize your original point was pretty much right. You're ultimately reasoned into any "belief" you ever hold. My demarcation would be that it's more of an understanding than a belief as long as it fits observed data. It becomes a belief when it's held in absence of corroboration or in spite of contradictory information
You're right, he concedes my point and then clarifies that his definition of 'belief' only applies to positions held in willful ignorance.
Am I correct here, u/Green_Toe?
I'm no longer high. Will philosophy more this evening. Gotta do yard work today
Yeah, it was such a clear explanation, but this dude is either wilfully ignorant, or is a literal example of OPs point lmao
The problem though is that it presupposes that children can reason the existence of Santa when they are first introduced to the concept.
You guys don't even know what the word belief means and you're calling someone dumb because a guy wrote big words that you think make sense
Definitions of words are hard. I say that with all honesty. The fact that we learn basically every word we know through context alone means there's bound to be misunderstandings, especially if we don't think about it.
I agree but the context of this thread is incredibly hilarious judging by the upvotes of a rant that literally doesn't make sense. It sounds good so people pile on board instead of thinking about what it actually says.
We also now get the "reddit effect" of more people upvoting it because they assume other upvoters know what they're talking about.
The consistency of the "reddit effect" always scares me. Especially since said consistency makes it incredibly exploitable.
Me too. A lot of people's cynicism only lasts as far as clicking into the comments and immediately accepting the most upvoted post with no further thought.
That's a Very Good Opinion
Thank you Green_Toe, respect to you for immediately conceding your slip up to the OP in that other comment and continuing a conversation
I mean I understood the understanding completely so I figured everyone else could
If you understand what Green_Toe wrote you would realize it makes absolutely no sense
I edited my original comment response to make my point clearer
The same authorities that told you about Santa also eventually told you he’s fictional, and did so at a young enough age as not to traumatize you.
It was your understanding at the time
You have a point, but this is some part nitpicking semantics.
What he's really talking about is willful stupidity. You were not willfully stupid to believe in Santa when you were 5, you were just 5.
So then we'd revise the statement into "one can't be reasoned out of a position that one is willfully stupid about"
Which sounds good to me
Yeah you werent capable of higher reasoning at that age, if a 30 yr old starts believing in santa, theres no way they reasoned into it
Well you followed the evidence, that evidence was just being tampered with.
Presents appeared. You were told a magic man did it. You checked with other trusted sources (teachers, friends, other parents etc) and everyone agreed. Adults said they met him or worked for him. He even had a representative working at the mall, and what you told that guy showed up at your house. The news even tracks his progress... In fact it might be the only story they all agree on.
Conclusion: Santa must indeed be real.
The only alternative would be that all of human society has collectively agreed on a conspiracy. They would need to put millions of dollars worth of effort into gaslighting for no obvious gain, which is totally absurd on the face of it...
Alright, I'll concede that belief in Santa can be described as reasonable given my circumstances. However, if this is the case, the what beliefs can be held that aren't arrived at by reason? If there are none, then the saying is rendered pointless, isn't it? Edit: the->that
I think you've got a good point. The key in the way I think "believe" is being used here is in the idea of absolute belief. Belief despite reason.
When you caught your parents putting out presents, you didn't concoct some story about how Santa really is real but it's acting through your parents somehow. You accepted what you saw and revised your world view.
Contrast that with flat earthers or religious folks. I don't think all of them throughout history were absolute believers—many today have their information controlled so they don't have the chance to form a reasoned set of beliefs. But many do have that info, and choose to continue believing in something which had huge amounts of evidence against it.
A subreddit for sharing those miniature epiphanies you have that highlight the oddities within the familiar.
All content must be original. Unoriginal or reposted content will be removed.
The text box cannot be used for any reason, including edits.
You should be reporting reposts and nothing else. Don’t comment! Don’t do it.