@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Quote:I think know what your saying .certainty can only be observed in terms of relativity in local observations.
No. Certainty is not "observed". It is a word used with respect to agreement.
You're right that certainty is not observed, but agreement is not the only context in which the word is used. In fact, the word "certainty" is most often used in the diametrically opposed context. It is often used to represent an observer's commitment to their position/report despite opposition.
The only agreement necessary to support one's "certainty" is the agreement between one's observation and one's ability to report and support it. Certainty, or "certainty", if you like, is not a sign that indicates "agreements" or "provisional truths", it's a sign of trust. Trust in whatever...
And Bee Tee Dubs:
You can't deny the existence of an event based on a combination of spoken ignorance and certainty, and pretend that you're not making an epistemological and/or ontological statement.
fresco wrote:2. A philosophy forum such as this, is an artificial context with respect to normal verbal transactions. I am making claims here about the normal situational usage of the word "certainty". I am not making epistemological or ontological generalizations (except perhaps to follow Rorty in his iconoclastic stance with respect to such claims on the part of philosophers). Thus I argue that no non-baseball follower would ever question the "certainty" of an assertion made by baseball fans about their common interest. That point is a significant aspect of the meaning of the word "certainty" (Wittgenstein "meaning is use")
In fact, a non-baseball follower is questioning the certainty of an assertion made by a baseball fan. You are doing it, and in an annoyingly, passive-aggressive way -- by doubting the verity, and actually the very existence of the event, reported to you by your baseball-following associate.
Frankly, i'm going to start calling your position the Frank Apisa/ fresco accord: the "This forum doesn't count as real life so everyday conditions don't apply, and i can make statements here that i could never justify with someone i actually have to deal with on a daily basis, and wouldn't even dare to try" argument.
This forum is an "artificial context", in that, it allows persons ("thinkers", "observers") the room to monologue their thoughts in a way that is often unavailable to them in non-artificial environments -- but it is not an otherwise exceptional environment in which the everyday rules of discourse do not apply.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Rather than solipsism, I call that sloppyism.
Dude, don't...i am nothing if i am not a sloppycist...
