'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, March 25, 2010

on certainty 371


371. Doesn’t “I know that that’s a hand”, in Moore’s sense, mean the same, or more or less the same, as : I can make statements like “I have pain in this hand” or “this hand is weaker than the other” or “I once broke this hand”, and countless others, in a language-game where a doubt as to the existence of this hand does not come in?



we cannot know in advance –

what will or will not be questioned –

what will or will not be called into doubt

Moore’s claiming ‘to know’ –

is just ignorance

whether or not any description –

or any part of a description –

is called into question –

will depend on circumstance

i.e. there is the phenomenon of the phantom limb

the fact of it is –

any description can be called into question –

can be the subject of doubt

what exists is what is said to exist –

and what is said

is open to question –

open to doubt


© greg t. charlton. 2010.