'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, May 19, 2010

on certainty 468


4.4
468. Someone says irreverently “that’s a tree”. He might say this sentence because he remembers hearing it in a similar situation; or he was suddenly struck by the tree’s beauty and the sentence was an exclamation; or he was pronouncing the sentence to himself as a grammatical example; etc., etc. And now I ask him “How did you mean that?’ and he replies ”It was a piece of information directed at you”. Shouldn’t I be at liberty to assume he doesn’t know what he is saying, if he is insane enough to want to give me this information?



you can assume

whatever you like –

bear in mind though –

your assumption –

is uncertain –

is open to question –

open to doubt


© greg t. charlton. 2010.