'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.




Monday, May 31, 2010

on certainty 492


492. “Do I know or do I only believe…?” might also be expressed like this: What if it seemed to turn out that what until now has seemed immune to doubt was a false assumption? Would I react as I do when a belief has proved to be false? or would it seem to knock from under my feet the ground on which I stand in making any judgments at all? – But of course I do not intend this as a prophesy.

Would I simply say “I should never have thought it!” – or I (have to) refuse to revise my judgment – because such a ‘revision” would amount to annihilation of all yardsticks?



what seems to be the case – is what is the case

what seems to be the case –

it is all we have to go on at any time

the ground of our perception is uncertainty –

therefore nothing is immune from doubt

no belief is ever proved to be false –

a belief is false if you dissent from it –

for whatever reason

which is to say – if you decide against it –

and all decision – all judgment –

is uncertain

uncertainty is the very reason for judgment

and all one’s yardsticks –

are uncertain


© greg t. charlton. 2010.