203. [Everything* that we regard as
evidence indicates that the earth already existed long before my birth. The
Contrary hypothesis has nothing to
confirm it at all.
If everything speaks for an hypothesis and nothing against it, is it objectively certain? One can call it that. But does it necessarily
agree with the world of facts? At the very least it shows us what “agreement”
means. We find it difficult to imagine it to be false, but also difficult to
make use of it.]
* Passage crossed out in MS.
What does this agreement consist in, if not
in the fact that what is evidence in these language games speaks for our
proposition? (Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus)
you can’t know if everything speaks
for a proposition and nothing against it –
all you can know is what has been said for
it – or against it
if you find it difficult to imagine it to
be false –
your problem is imagination
Wittgenstein asks –
what does this agreement consist in?
his answer is –
‘that what is evidence in these language
games speaks for our proposition’
if it speaks for the proposition –
then it is a reassertion of the proposition –
and its only value will be –
rhetorical
