on certainty 35

35. But can’t it be imagined that there should be no physical objects? I don’t know. And yet “there are physical objects” is nonsense. Is it supposed to be an empirical proposition?

And is this an empirical proposition: “there seems to be physical objects”? 

any description is first and foremost a response to the unknown –

the point of any such description is to provide a basis or ground for action –

if a description does this – it has function –

if it doesn’t it is of no use

can it be imagined that there are no physical objects?

is to ask could the description ‘there are no physical objects’ be of use?

this is an empirical question

and the description – ‘there seems to be physical objects’ –

again is that of use?

and if it is – it is an empirical proposition

if it is usable – it is testable

one thing is obvious –

these descriptions have a use for Wittgenstein –

right here

                                                                                                                                  

 © greg t. charlton. 2009.