85. And what goes into someone’s knowing
this? Knowledge of history, say? He must know what it means to say: the earth
has already existed for such and such a length of time. For not any
intelligent adult must know that. We see men building and demolishing houses,
and are led to ask: “How long has this house been here?” But how does one come
on the idea of asking this about a mountain, for example? And have all men the
notion of the earth as a body, which may come into being and pass away?
Why shouldn’t I think of the earth as flat, but extending without end in every
direction (including depth)? But in that case one might still say “I know that
this mountain existed long before my birth.” But suppose I met a man who didn’t
believe that?
the point
is that the claim to know is irrelevant –
we use
propositions that we regard as useful –
and if
others think as we do – so be it
much of
what we do use –
we use
because it is ‘commonly accepted’ –
and this
just may be the source of its usefulness –
if I meet
some one who has different beliefs –
uses
different propositions –
again –
so be it
any
proposition put forward is open to question –
open to
doubt –
is
uncertain –
the claim
to know – to know with certainty –
is
nothing more than rhetoric
and the
problem with rhetoric
is that
it crates a smokescreen –
a
smokescreen to the truth –
the truth
of straightforward – unadulterated –
assertion
assertion
that stands or falls –
only on a
yea or a nay
this is
logical reality –
this is
clarity
© greg t. charlton. 2009.
