'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.




Tuesday, May 25, 2010

on certainty 480

8.4
480. A child is learning to use the word “tree”. One stands with it in front of a tree and says “Lovely tree!” Clearly no doubt as to the tree’s existence comes into the language-game. But can the child be said to know: ‘that a tree exists’? Admittedly it’s true that ‘knowing something’ doesn’t involve thinking about it –  but mustn’t anyone who knows something be capable of doubt? And doubting means thinking.



there is no doubt expressed in –

‘lovely tree’ –

but the description is open to question –

and therefore uncertain

the child learns to use descriptions –

to operate with uncertainty –

can it be said to know?

only if – ‘to know’ –

is to use descriptions

mustn’t anyone who describes –

be capable of doubt?

yes –

description is a response to –

uncertainty

and yes –

doubting means –

thinking


© greg t. charlton. 2010.