'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.




Thursday, February 11, 2010

on certainty 284


284. People have killed animals since the earliest of times, used the fur, bones etc. etc. for various purposes; they have counted definitely on finding similar parts in any similar beast.

They have always learnt from experience; and we can see from their actions that they believe certain things definitely, whether they express this belief or not. By this I naturally do not want to say that men should behave like this, but only that they do behave like this.



who’s to know whether ‘they counted definitely’ or not?

might there not have been people who regarded –

‘finding similar parts in any similar beast’ –

a gift from the gods –

something not guaranteed –

or indeed to be expected?

and what is it to say –

‘they have always learnt from experience?

who’s idea of ‘learning’ –

and who’s idea of ‘experience’ –

are we talking about here?

we don’t see –

‘that they believe certain things definitively’ –

we hoist this interpretation onto their actions –

with the idea that it will suit our purposes

the point is this –

any behaviour –

in the absence of interpretation –

is unknown

yes we interpret behaviour –

to make it known

and any interpretation that we but forward –

is no more than a proposal

open to question –

open to doubt


© greg t.charlton. 2010.