"To doubt "doubt" requires doubt.".....yes it does require doubt to doubt something. What was your point?
Uh... that was the point. Recall that I was responding to "can you doubt even doubt itself?"
. The question is employing or indicating dependence on the very thing it is inquiring as to whether or not it (or we) can do without, thus making the question moot or irrelevant. A bit like asking if you can run up the hill without a run up the hill. Or flipped on its head: A bit like asking if one can ride a horse while one is riding a horse.
and the next thing about the language of an elimanitive materialist I did'nt quite get, sorry. Was it so say you require the right language to express sureness of something?
Sorry, it was a needless add-on. Just a round-a-about way of leaving the door slightly open to the possibility that maybe "doubt" could be replaced by an alternative conception belonging to a different framework in the future, which could disentangle it from the circle of To doubt "doubt" requires doubt
. While at the same time I was deprecating such a tad. That is, it's not even a possibility I'm optimistic about, was just donning devil's advocate garb for a moment.