Is it possible to believe strongly in something without action?

Question: Is it possible to believe strongly in something without action?

It would seem to me that belief is an action in and of itself.

What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A private belief, not dispensed to anyone else, at least makes it contingently possible for _X_ to be passive and have no influence on the environment. But such does not entail inertness, since the single person holding that thought orientation can still act upon it by themselves (akin to a mentally ill individual fulfilling the commands of their inner, hallucinated demons).

Obviously the stronger held the belief is, the more difficulty in containing the conception to its figurative bottle. Unless _X_ is trivially silly or superfluous ("I believe there are kobalds residing in the cosmos of Nodd.").

Yet if the holder deems that there are dire consequences for releasing it to others by publication or word of mouth (in terms of either retribution aganist the messenger or conviction that _X_ endangers the world), then there is personal motivation and resolve counteracting that, keeping _X_ quarantined.

But once released to the public, if it is infectious to any degree at all, then others simply discussing, promoting, or criticizing it negatively transforms into a circulating thought virus affecting behavior.

While QAnon articles of faith indicate that even extraordinarily ludicrous proposals can be contagious, they likely serve condemnatory and commending purposes with respect to foe and friend targets. Whereas, again, totally useless foolishness should be largely impotent when it comes to social transmission. Rare exceptions perhaps being those that use earworms, idée fixes, etc, as mediating vehicles to make the nonsensical addictive.
_

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A single held belief by an individual, unless "contagious", is essentially harmless aside from the individual who "contains" it. Otherwise, if it is contagious and stirs the minds of others enough it could essentially be a Hazzard, correct? Action and thought are somewhat synonymous, so even without acting on belief, there is activity, or rather action taking place.

You mention demons. Interesting. How about bigfoot and the loch Ness, or Yetti? There was a show on the other day about bougabu (sp?). A ferrel something I think. I wonder if Bougabu was its name or simply what they called something they didn't understand? The same could be true for bigfoot, demons, yetti, and the loch Ness.

Typically there are reasons some beliefs are "contagious".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unrelated to an individual with a mental disorder acting on conspiratorial voices in their head. (Barring advocates of the bicameral mind hypothesis inclusively entertaining "Bigfoot" as one of the ancient gods dictating commands to the "schizophrenic" population of human zombies it imaginatively projects upon the Aegean civilization era, and earlier.)
_

 

I think this question betrays confusion. Belief has nothing to do with action.

I believe the sun is a star. I believe my wife died of cancer. I believe in the theory of plate tectonics. None of these beliefs implies, suggests, or otherwise relates to any action, so far as I can see.

 

As subjects go, I'd suggest you're correct. Otherwise, they are similar. Beliefs, coupled with "contagions" ... Apparently similar patterns exist in the phenomenon. Schizophrenia "contagiously" viewed to be a mental illness. The reason for the diagnoses, or rather the reason it's applicable to those diagnosed is largely unknown. However, there must be a reason for the condition as well as the diagnosis. The same would be true for "Bigfoot".

 

How do these beliefs effect your actions, and belief itself a mental function and active, so belief and action are synonymous.

 

Whut?

 

A question and statement all in one string of text. Discernment may be in order, or I could separate the question portion from the statement if needed.

 

Is action in this case the mental act of renewing one's existing belief about a particular thing?

Belief being dynamic rather than static.......

Or are you talking about physical actions based on the existing belief?

 

Your belief goes on the back burner until your attention returns to it and then your belief can be either reaffirmed or altered (normally altered as memories fade or as new evidence comes to the fore)

 

Both.

Belief is dynamic and when choices follow the beliefs held, they become physical manifestations of the belief, corresponding to them.

 

Where do those manifestations take place?In the mental or the physical space?

You don't think we can ,like Trump make things exist just by thinking of them, do you?


I would be of the opinion that new beliefs should manifest themselves physically in the structure of the brain but I am no expert

Are you saying that we change the world because our thoughts translate to physical actions (and beliefs are thoughts)?

Are you just saying that we can change the world by our ideas relating to it

Are you just saying that we can change the world by our ideas relating to it

 

Old adage comes to mind, but nevermind that. How could they not is my question?

 

How could they not what,precisely?

 

The original sentence fragment didn't occur in that part of the post exploring communicability. And served a secondary function of merely clarifying what was stated beforehand with an extreme example from a "border-crossing" neighbor category (i.e., the situation of a person suffering hallucinations doesn't necessarily involve a belief that's even poorly organized, but there's some degree of a cognitive stance about the subjective events if they are provoking outward behavior or actions).

Which doesn't make the sentence fragment immune from becoming a triggering springboard (or unintended influence) for jumping off into a viral "monster" fables sub-discussion and their level of infectiousness, but I just want to remind with respect to the initial context/purpose.
_

 

Manifest via beliefs and how people act in accordance to those beliefs. Results being the operative term.

"The results of his beliefs made fed ex a very successful company despite the criticism and doubts of others." Some call this faith, and others call it foresight, but his beliefs in the idea of air mail and overnight delivery were evidenced with substance due to his perseverance.

 

I blame Norman Vincent Peale and his "Power of Positive Thought" for Trump's mindset.

 

Culture and environmental factors tend to shape our mentalities, whether drug related, abuse related, pampered and spoiled related, or trauma related. I would suggest some environments aren't as nourishing as others for adequate development. Big foot and schizophrenia are both believed to be irrational types of thinking, given inconclusive evidence to support the hallucinations and/or sightings of "bigfoot".

Edit: She went to the psychiatrist about the "delusions/hallucination". People were complaining about her speaking to apparently "nothing". After her visit, the Dr promptly begins speaking to a black box with her in the room.

"Maybe he understands me". She thinks to herself as she leaves the room.

 

You are mixing two things here:
1. the act of believing
2. action as a result of the belief

Looking at 1... if the question of this thread is intended to be trivial, then if we presume that believing is itself an action then the question reduces to the question-begging "Is it possible to perform an action without action?"

Rather, the question, assuming that the trivial was not the intention, assumes that we are considering "without action" in the question to be "without action as a result of the belief".
In this regard, I believe action stems from a belief not due to the strength of the belief but the relevance of the belief when it comes to choosing how to act.
I could strongly believe that you are wearing a red hat today, but so what if you are, or if you aren't?