'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.




Sunday, May 09, 2010

on certainty 453

453. I do indeed say: “Here no reasonable man would doubt.” – Could we imagine learned judges being asked whether a doubt was reasonable or unreasonable?



a doubt is a doubt –

‘reasonable ‘ here – is just another term for acceptable –

someone is asserting an authority –

and deciding whether a doubt is to be allowed or not –

saying that a doubt is unreasonable –

is effectively saying –

the doubt is not allowed –

for all intents and purposes –

it doesn’t exist

so the reasonable / unreasonable distinction –

is really just a  ruse to circumvent doubt –

to deny it –

when the plain reality is –

if a  doubt is raised –

it is raised


© greg t. charlton. 2010.