on certainty 367

367. Isn’t it the purpose of constructing a word like “know” analogously to “believe’ that the opprobrium attaches to the statement “I know” if the person who makes it is wrong?

As a result a mistake becomes something forbidden.

this notion of the mistake – is a red herring –

if you hold with the idea of certain knowledge –

there will be no mistakes –

how could there be if your knowledge is certain?

on the other hand –

if you hold with uncertainty –

there are no mistakes –

what you deal with is – uncertainties

the reality is uncertainty –

and therefore any so called ‘opprobrium’ –

is just rhetoric –

and – get your chops around this –

nothing is forbidden

NB

Wittgenstein presents ‘mistake’ as a key philosophical notion

when it is really just a term of common parlance –

that when analyzed is shown to have no philosophical basis at all

now either he really thinks he’s on to something –

or he is playing a disingenuous game –

the point of which is what?

it looks to me as if the idea is to con you into thinking –

there is something to the idea of certainty

‘mistake’ is the bait

© greg t. charlton. 2010.