'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Saturday, October 10, 2009

on certainty 119


119. But can it also be said: Everything speaks for, and nothing against the table’s being there when no one sees it. For what does speak for it?



what speaks for it –

is whatever argument –

is advanced –

and any argument advanced –

will be open to question –

open to doubt

Wittgenstein asks –

is it the case that nothing speaks against it?

it depend who you listen to –

George Berkeley for one –

put up arguments –

that cast doubt on such a view

I make the assumption

that the table is there when no one sees it

the assumption –

is uncertain and finally baseless –

but I use it


© greg t. charlton. 2009.