Synthesizing the metaethical aspects of George Lakoff’s conception of Strict Father Morality(SFM)and Divine Command Theory(DCT)helps us to have a better understanding of the Trump phenomenon,US President Trump regula...Synthesizing the metaethical aspects of George Lakoff’s conception of Strict Father Morality(SFM)and Divine Command Theory(DCT)helps us to have a better understanding of the Trump phenomenon,US President Trump regularly deviating from accepted facts and his supporters having no problem with this practice.We misunderstand the situation if we presume that Trump5s mendacity and his supporters,credulity fully account for this situation.More specifically,I argue that the authoritarian thread that runs through SFM/DCT provides Trump with the justification,in his view as well as in the eyes of his supporters,to dictate the meaning of key concepts,for example,truth,fairness,and justice.As a result,when Trump says something that seems plainly false,I argue that we better understand the situation if we regard Trump as taking himself to be defining what the term in question means.This situation has far-reaching ramifications,from destabilizing the meaning of key moral terms to all issues becoming partisan issues to the loss of expertise.展开更多
That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actio...That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actions do not conform with each other, presents just such a situation. The idea that cognitive dissonance, by strict evidentialist standards, compromises our epistemic integrity since cognitive dissonance causes us to hold beliefs for which we do not have evidence, recalls the exchange between William Clifford and William James in which they discuss evidentialism, the idea that we should hold no beliefs for which we do not have evidence. In this paper I draw upon extant published research concerning cognitive dissonance theory and religion. I also survey the Clifford-James debate, applying considerations from their exchange to cognitive dissonance and （religious） belief. I conclude by showing how cognitive dissonance can have ambiguous results as concerns the justification of beliefs and that philosophy could benefit from attending to factors impacting empirical aspects of belief formation such as cognitive dissonance.展开更多
文摘Synthesizing the metaethical aspects of George Lakoff’s conception of Strict Father Morality(SFM)and Divine Command Theory(DCT)helps us to have a better understanding of the Trump phenomenon,US President Trump regularly deviating from accepted facts and his supporters having no problem with this practice.We misunderstand the situation if we presume that Trump5s mendacity and his supporters,credulity fully account for this situation.More specifically,I argue that the authoritarian thread that runs through SFM/DCT provides Trump with the justification,in his view as well as in the eyes of his supporters,to dictate the meaning of key concepts,for example,truth,fairness,and justice.As a result,when Trump says something that seems plainly false,I argue that we better understand the situation if we regard Trump as taking himself to be defining what the term in question means.This situation has far-reaching ramifications,from destabilizing the meaning of key moral terms to all issues becoming partisan issues to the loss of expertise.
文摘That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actions do not conform with each other, presents just such a situation. The idea that cognitive dissonance, by strict evidentialist standards, compromises our epistemic integrity since cognitive dissonance causes us to hold beliefs for which we do not have evidence, recalls the exchange between William Clifford and William James in which they discuss evidentialism, the idea that we should hold no beliefs for which we do not have evidence. In this paper I draw upon extant published research concerning cognitive dissonance theory and religion. I also survey the Clifford-James debate, applying considerations from their exchange to cognitive dissonance and （religious） belief. I conclude by showing how cognitive dissonance can have ambiguous results as concerns the justification of beliefs and that philosophy could benefit from attending to factors impacting empirical aspects of belief formation such as cognitive dissonance.
