If we take the above definition of belief as an axiom, I find it hard to reconcile the idea that somebody could in fact be happy but not believe himself to be happy (or vice versa: be sad but believe to be happy). This is because with this definition of belief implies a state of being!

I assume you are of sound reasoning, however. Perhaps I misunderstood what you had said earlier about belief, or perhaps you are merely using the term differently in this case (e.g. perhaps you mean by believe: “would profess belief that ‘I am happy’”). In either event, I would very much like to get to the bottom of this.

I should like to say that I do not think that believing you are happy is all there is to being happy. I do not know what conditions it would take for a person to be happy (i.e. believe he is happy), and the conditions seem to vary from person to person. Thus for one person, happiness is not the same as happiness for another person.

If we take the above definition of belief as an axiom, I find it hard to reconcile the idea that somebody could in fact be happy but not believe himself to be happy (or vice versa: be sad but believe to be happy). This is because with this definition of belief implies a state of being!

I assume you are of sound reasoning, however. Perhaps I misunderstood what you had said earlier about belief, or perhaps you are merely using the term differently in this case (e.g. perhaps you mean by believe: “would profess belief that ‘I am happy’”). In either event, I would very much like to get to the bottom of this.

I should like to say that I do not think that believing you are happy is all there is to being happy. I do not know what conditions it would take for a person to be happy (i.e. believe he is happy), and the conditions seem to vary from person to person. Thus for one person, happiness is not the same as happiness for another person.

If the point you are making is worth making, then it needs to be expressed in simple, accessible language.

There is no excuse for using terms like “inviduate” and “functionalist”, or for cramming loads of abstract terms into a single sentence.

Where is the sense in writing in this needlessly impenetrable style? We are not code breakers. We are flesh and blood human beings.

With a bit of care and thought you could express the same ideas using short accessible sentences and everyday words.

I assume you are trying to communicate rather than to impress. In that case please rewrite this article in a form that makes sense to ordinary human beings. Use simpler language and give concrete examples of what you mean.

There are a lot of people out there I am sure who would be interested in the point you are making.

Unfortunately, the language you use and your over reliance on abstractions are placing your message out of their reach.

Best wishes

Rhodes

If the point you are making is worth making, then it needs to be expressed in simple, accessible language.

There is no excuse for using terms like “inviduate” and “functionalist”, or for cramming loads of abstract terms into a single sentence.

Where is the sense in writing in this needlessly impenetrable style? We are not code breakers. We are flesh and blood human beings.

With a bit of care and thought you could express the same ideas using short accessible sentences and everyday words.

I assume you are trying to communicate rather than to impress. In that case please rewrite this article in a form that makes sense to ordinary human beings. Use simpler language and give concrete examples of what you mean.

There are a lot of people out there I am sure who would be interested in the point you are making.

Unfortunately, the language you use and your over reliance on abstractions are placing your message out of their reach.

Best wishes

Rhodes