'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, June 08, 2010

on certainty 500


500. But it would also strike me as nonsense to say “I know that the law of induction is true”.

Imagine such a statement in a court of law! It would be more correct to say “I believe in the law of…” where ‘believe’ has nothing to do with surmising.



to say you know anything –

is nonsense –

but you can say –

‘the law of induction is true’ –

for this is just to give your assent to it –

for whatever reason

to say you ‘believe’ or that you ‘surmise’ –

is to recognize –

that the proposition in question –

and any response you have to it –

i.e. ‘true’ or ‘false’ –

is uncertain

these terms ‘believe’ and ‘surmise’ –

amount to the same thing –

and they really only have function –

in a context –

where you are responding to –

or battling –

claims of certainty

where uncertainty is understood –

they are irrelevant


© greg t. charlton. 2010.