'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 16, 2009

on certainty 196


196. Sure evidence is what we accept as true, it is the evidence we go by in acting surely, acting without any doubt.

What we call “a mistake” plays a quite special part in our language games, and so too does what we regard as certain evidence.



there is no sure evidence – there is no certain evidence –

 all evidence is unsure – all evidence is uncertain

what we accept as true – is what we give our assent to –

for whatever reason

if we act surely – we act without thinking

what we call a ‘mistake’ –

has no ‘special’ role  in our language-games

in fact it really should be tossed out

if you hold with certainty – there can be no mistake

if on the other hand you hold with uncertainty –

there are no mistakes – only uncertainties

in ‘ordinary’ – unreflective  language –

it’s there –  but so what?

‘ordinary’ unreflective language –

is where philosophical analysis begins –

not where it ends


© greg t. charlton. 2009.