Re: BHA: Santa, God, kneeling

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tobin,

Puzzled. Yeah me too.

Anyway, you write:

>
>Despite your disbelief in Santa, "he" is clearly having material effects
>upon you, in the form of presents etc that cost a fortune, yes?

Er, no he isn't, but my willingness to placate my son is - among other
things. I don't see the problem here. My sons's belief in Santa is having a
causal effect on me, not Santa. Let's straighten this out. I don't believe
in santa yet I still play the Xmas game. But do I do this because of some
power Santa possesses? No, of course not, I do it because of the power the
DISCOURSES of Santa. Still, if I were Laclau and mouffe there would be no
point in making this distinction. But to a CR'er it is crucial. What has
the causal power, the discourses (encompassing concepts/beliefs/practices
etc.), or the white bearded old man?)


>Is it necessary for *anyone* to believe (or to have ever believed) in the
>real existence of Sherlock Holmes or Lady Macbeth for them still to have
>causal powers?

Sorry Tobin my tiny brain can only handle so many examples at once and what
with santa, society and god, I'm having trouble keeping up. I don't see the
point here. If good old Holmes and the dear Lady did not really exist AND
(AND AND, just so no one can claim I am oversimplifying the power of
beliefs) if no one ever thought/believed/had knowledge of them, then yes I
would be tempted to say they would have no causal power. I don' believe in
the real existence of Santa, but I still play the game. However, i would
even object to even this formulation (since like Santa I don't believe they
exist) hence I wouldn't say they had no causal power, but rather, if they
were no beliefs about them then these beliefs would have no causal power
(Ruth must really be having a good laugh at this point).

Hence I fail to see how the claim I am:

>seems to me you're
>oversimplying a bit about the importance of belief for the existence of
>entities like Santa.

Since what I am claiming is that although Santa doesn't/hasn't ever really
existed the belief in him causes things to happen - or pehaps it's just the
wish for an excuse for a good P***-up. How is this simplifying the
importance of matters? Surely it is highlighting the importance of beliefs.

Lets clear this up. I ARGUE.....

1.	Santa does not exist (there is no white bearded old man that delivers
presents around the globe via a rather cute transport system consisting of
X numbers of......and so on). There are people that dress up in this
manner, and doubtless some of them probably do think they are santa, still,
I absolutely reject that they can fufill the other criteria.

2.	Some people know that santa does not exist yet buy presents and carry
out material practices, which on a "strict" wittgensteinian reading would
seem to suggest that we need not concern ourselves of Santa's existence -
'these language games are played' (so much the worse for Wittgenstein and
behaviouralism).

3.	Some people do indeed think that santa does exist and go to bed thinking
that some bearded old bloke is going to come down the chimmney bearing
presents (let's leave aside the problematic point that in some houses in
which don't even have chimmneys this is still believed. Jeez how
philosophically sophistcated do you expect a 6 year old to be?)

I'm quite prepared to quibble over the detail of 2 & 3, but defy anyone to
provide a good argument for 1 which doesn't and can't be subsumed under 2 &
3. Beliefs are CRUCIAL in the social world. How can anyone think that i am
oversimplifying their role. Everything I have said points to the importance
and very complicated nature of them

Thanks,



>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---