'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, September 07, 2010

on certainty 648


648. I may convince someone else that I ‘can’t be making a mistake’.

I say to someone “So-and-so was with me this morning and told me such-and-such”. If this is astonishing he may ask me: “You can’t be mistaken about it?” That may mean: “Did that really happen this morning?” or, on the other hand: “Are you sure you understood him properly?” It’s easy to see what details I should add to show that I was not wrong about the time, and similarly to show that I hadn’t misunderstood the story. But all that cannot show that I haven’t dreamed the whole thing, or imagined it to myself in a dreamy way. Nor can it show that I haven’t perhaps made some slip of the tongue throughout. (That sort of thing does happen.)



perhaps you can convince others of your statements –

but can you ever really know that?

and can you be sure – if you have convinced them –

just what it is you have convinced them of?

convincing is a matter of persuasion – of rhetoric –

I think better to forget about it altogether –

say what you have to say – and leave it at that –

there will always be doubt –

even with the so called ‘slip of the tongue’ –

doubt is a sign of philosophic health –

your proposition has a 50/50 chance –

run with it


© greg t. charlton. 2010.