'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, June 28, 2010

on certainty 534


 534. But is it wrong to say: “A child that has mastered a language-game must know certain things”?

If instead of that one said “must be able to do certain things”, that would be a pleonasm, yet this is just what I want to counter the first sentence with. –But: “a child acquires knowledge of natural history”. That presupposes that it can ask what such and such a plant is called.



yes – so called knowledge presupposes questioning –

presupposes doubt

and the result of any questioning –

will be open to question –

open to doubt


greg t. charlton. 2010.