'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.




Wednesday, December 02, 2009

on certainty 178


178. The wrong use made by Moore of the proposition “I know” lies in his regarding it as an utterance as little subject to doubt as “I am in pain”. And since from “I know it is so” there follows “It is so” then the latter cannot be doubted either.



‘I am in pain’ – may be a good description –

of your state of being –

at a certain time and place

but it is not the only possible description –

and in any case who’s to say for certain –

what it means?

the point being –

this assertion – like any assertion –

is open to question –

open to doubt

‘I know’ – is a claim to an authority –

the only authority – is authorship

to claim authorship of your assertion –

is irrelevant and unnecessary

‘I know’ – is irrelevant and unnecessary

it might have a use in persuasion –

but that is rhetoric not logic

‘I know it is so’ –

without the useless preface – ‘I know’ –

comes down to – ‘it is so’

‘it is so’ – is just another assertion

open to question –

open to doubt –

uncertain


© greg t.charlton. 2009.