'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, April 14, 2010

on certainty 409


409. If I say “I know that that’s a foot” – what am I really saying? Isn’t the whole point that I am certain of the consequences – that if someone else had been in doubt I might say to him “you see – I told you so”? Would my knowledge still be worth anything if it let me down as a clue in action? And can’t it let me down?



the ‘I know’ in ‘I know that that’s a foot’ –

is a claim of authority for the proposition –

‘that’s a foot’

the only authority is authorship  -

and so ‘I know’ –

is irrelevant and unnecessary

if you are certain of the consequences of your statement –

you are a fool –

you can’t know what the consequences will be

fair enough to take a punt –

and you can still say ‘I told you so’ –

if it turns out as you expected –

there is no knowledge here –

there is only expectation

and the ‘ground’ of expectation –

is uncertainty


© greg t. charlton. 2010.