'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 15, 2010

on certainty 513


513. What if something really unheard-of happened? – If I, say, saw houses gradually turning into steam without any obvious cause, if the cattle in the fields stood on their heads and laughed and spoke comprehensible words: if trees gradually changed into men and men into trees. Now was I right when I said before all these things happened “I know that that’s a house” etc., or simply “that’s a house” etc.?



forget about claiming to know –

that is just pretense and rhetoric

if ‘that’s a house’ – worked for you –

prior to the strange occurrences –

then you were right to use it –

however this is not to say that –

‘that’s a house’ –

was the only description –

you could have used –

there are any number of ways –

of describing any state of affairs

as to why you use 

the description that you do?

any answer given –

will in any final sense be –

speculation


© greg t. charlton. 2010.