194. With the word ‘certain’ we express
complete conviction, the total absence of doubt, and thereby we seek to
convince other people. This is subjective
certainty.
But when is something objectively certain?
When a mistake is not possible. But what kind of possibility is that? Mustn’t
mistake be logically excluded?`
you are either certain – or uncertain –
subjective / objective – are really
irrelevant characterizations
if you are certain – a ‘mistake’ – is not
possible
and if you are uncertain – there are no
mistakes –
what you have is uncertainties
the point being – this notion of the
mistake –
has no role at all to play – in this debate
it’s a red herring
NB
let’s assume –
Wittgenstein wants to hold on to the idea
of certainty –
but to have an out
the idea being you can be certain –
but yes – mistakes are possible
and this perhaps accords with a common usage
the thing is –
if you say you’ve made a mistake –
presumably you are certain about it –
and if so –
then you weren’t certain to start with –
so when are you certain?
can you be certain about this?
not if you allow mistakes
and so –
the idea of the mistake –
is shown to be an argument – against certainty
what you are actually left with is uncertainty –
and this notion of the mistake –
proves to be the result of either sloppy
thinking –
or – assuming Wittgenstein is not a sloppy
thinker –
philosophical fraud
perhaps by On Certainty –
Wittgenstein had given up on logic and
truth –
and was in the business of just playing
philosophical games
for what reason?
who’s to say?
perhaps his own perverse amusement
another other option is –
that Wittgenstein is actually arguing
against certainty –
but if so –
then the ‘mistake’ – is an ‘uncertainty’
and the concept of the mistake –
is shown to be redundant and irrelevant
there is another possibility –
and that is that Wittgenstein –
was just elucidating the issue for us –
giving us food for thought –
the only problem with this view is –
he never seriously questions the notion of
the mistake –
one can’t say that he ever explains it
either –
he simply assumes its validity –
and plays with it
