'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.




Saturday, August 28, 2010

on certainty 622


622. But now is it also correct to use “I know” in the contexts which Moore mentioned, at least in particular circumstances. (Indeed, I do not know what “I know I am a human being” means. But even that might be given a sense.)

For each one of these sentences I can imagine circumstances that turn it into a move in one of our language-games, and by that it loses everything that is philosophically astonishing.



‘I know’ is a claim to authority in any context – in any circumstance –

the only authority is authorship and it is unnecessary and irrelevant to assert the authorship of your assertion –

as for ‘I know I am a human being’ –

‘I am a human being’ – is all that is required –

if indeed that is ever required

if you claim an authority beyond authorship –

your game is deception

‘I know’ has no philosophical significance

if it’s a move in a language game –

it’s a rhetorical move


© greg t. charlton. 2010.