'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, July 19, 2010

on certainty 558

558. We say we know that water boils and does not freeze under such-and-such circumstances. Is it conceivable that we are wrong? Wouldn’t a mistake topple all judgment with it? More: what could stand if that were to fall? Might someone discover something that made us say “it was a mistake”?

What may happen in the future, however water may behave in the future, – we know that up to now it has behaved thus in innumerable instances.

This fact is fused into the foundations of our language game.

        
                                                                                                                       
there are no mistakes –

only uncertainties

there is nothing to topple –

but pretence

what may happen in the future is unknown

and we don’t know –

that up to now water has behaved thus –

presumably the ‘basis’ of any such assertion –

is observation reports –

‘innumerable’ as these might be –

they do not add up to a certainty


© greg t. charlton. 2010.