running with harlots drunk or naked: on certainty 590

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

on certainty 590

590. At most one might speak of recognizing a state, where what is said is “I know what that is”. Here one can satisfy oneself that one really is in possession of this knowledge.

so called ‘recognizing a state’ –

is just giving an account – or an explanation –

of an assertion –

of a proposition

it is – as it were –

underwriting the proposition

there might be reasons for doing this –

but in any case –

saying ‘I know what that is ‘ –

is doing more than this –

more than underwriting the proposition –

to use ‘I know’ –

is to claim an authority

the only actual authority is authorship –

and that does not need to be asserted –

it’s irrelevant – if you make the assertion

if by ‘I know’ –

you are claiming some other ‘authority’ –

then your claim is false and deceptive

by all means underwrite your assertion –

put up an explanation of it -

if that suits your purpose –

but the ‘I know’ – has no logical value –

if it has any value –

its value is rhetorical –

and rhetoric here is irrelevant to –

‘recognizing a state ‘

so – forget about – ‘I know …’

all you need to say here –

if you want to say anything at all –

and you want to be –

to be logically on the money –

is – ‘that is’