'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.




Tuesday, October 27, 2009

on certainty 143


143. I am told, for example, that someone climbed this mountain many years ago. Do I always enquire into the reliability of the teller of this story, and whether the mountain did exist years ago? A child learns there are reliable and unreliable informants much later than it learns facts which are told it. It doesn’t learn at all that the mountain has existed for a long time: that is, the question whether it is so doesn’t arise at all. It swallows this consequence down, so to speak, together with what it learns.


                                                                                                                                   
whatever is put to you –

whatever is proposed –

is open to question –

open to doubt

the so called ‘reliability’ of an informant –

is logically irrelevant –

and reliability 

is really just about pretence –

a pretence that holds up –

when questions are not asked

do children ‘swallow down the consequence’?

hard to say –

some probably do get conned by the rhetoric –

however –

you will find children –

who question


© greg t. charlton. 2010.