...we have just embarked on Descartes' project — Cuthbert

There is very little to compare between Wittgenstein and Descartes. Wittgenstein's ability to do philosophy compared to Descartes is like comparing a high school runner to an Olympic athlete. Moreover, Wittgenstein looks at doubt from the view of what can be known, which is the correct place to start.

And one good way of defending the undoubtableness of these statements is to show, for example, that we know we have hands — Cuthbert

The whole point of Wittgenstein's criticism of Moore is that we can't know we have hands, especially in the context of Moore's proposal.

But I think W is inviting us to put the Cartesian project out of our minds altogether, because he holds that such a project is fundamentally incoherent and that there is no such thing as 'entertaining doubts' in such cases and therefore no such thing as 'knowing' either. — Cuthbert

Yes, this is true, but Wittgenstein isn't looking at this from the Cartesian perspective. The important point to understand is that sometimes what can be coherently doubted in one setting, cannot be doubted in another setting. Thus, statements often times only make sense within the confines of a particular use. For example, doubting that one has hands in rare situations can be coherently understood, this is why one cannot easily fit these statements into a set of statements that cannot be doubted. However, there are some statements that cannot be coherently doubted in any possible world.

there is no such thing as 'entertaining doubts' in such cases and therefore no such thing as 'knowing' either. — Cuthbert

I would reverse this, i.e., "...there is no such thing as knowing in such cases, and therefore no such thing as entertaining doubts either." Doubting follows necessarily from knowing, and epistemology rests on bedrock beliefs, which allows the whole system of knowing and doubting to function.

There is still a problem with using brackets, I tried using brackets in Cuthbert's quote to show where I inserted a word or words, but it left the words out, so I just italicized the words.

Statements which cannot coherently be doubted in one world view can come to be doubted in another. There is no absolute 'beyond doubt' set of statements. — Cuthbert

What about the statement "I cannot doubt my existence," doubting my existence shows my existence. This statement cannot be coherently doubted in any world view. Can I doubt that my words are not changing of their own accord? Can I doubt, in any world view, that objects disappear when I'm not looking at them?

The first example I gave cannot be doubted in any world view, nor can it be doubted in any possible universe in which there are rational humans. Thus it's necessarily the case that if there are rational humans, then they cannot coherently doubt their existence. The second example doesn't seem to be logically possible either, viz., that words could change of their own accord.

In the third example, it's certainly logically and metaphysically possible that objects could disappear when I'm not looking at them, so this would be an example of a statement that would fit into your set of parameters. Now this depends not only on a changing world view, but it also depends on the laws of physics within a particular universe.

There are beliefs and/or statements that cannot be doubted in any possible universe where there are rational humans.

.

They are beliefs, they can be prelinguistic, which are shown in a form of life, viz., one's actions. Here I'm not just talking about prelinguistic man, i.e., they can have this prelinguistic form in us before they are stated. How? We open doors, we pick up objects, we put on clothes, we take showers, we do experiments, we do all sorts of things that show we believe certain things without ever stating the belief. However, when these basic beliefs are stated, in the Moorean sense, they play a different role than most beliefs, and that role is borne out in Wittgenstein's analysis of Moore's claims.

I don't know enough about Heidegger's philosophy to comment intelligently on what he was saying. Maybe one can say that these beliefs reflect a kind of understanding of the world, but I think, at least for me, they are better understood as bedrock, basic, or foundational. You're correct, "...it is simply our way of being in the world." These beliefs are like the chess board and pieces, the chess game is played with the board and pieces, which show our foundational beliefs about the game, viz., that we believe there is a board and pieces. We don't have to state our beliefs about the board and pieces, but our actions show our beliefs without ever taking on the form of a statement.

Note though, how weird it would be if we were playing a game of chess and I stated "This is a bishop," as if there could be a doubt in such a context. We don't doubt these kinds of beliefs generally because of their fundamental nature, and if we don't doubt them, then they are not pieces of knowledge. Doubt plays an important role within the language-game of knowing.

These beliefs do reflect our subjective certainty about the world though, but this certainty is not epistemological certainty.

Why call them "beliefs" then, when the word 'belief' is usually understood to have a propositional sense, when beliefs are generally truth apt, and thus right or wrong? It seems all the more odd in that you have stated a few times that you don't like Wittgenstein's term "hinge proposition" for this very reason.

Why not call these "hinge propositions" or "bedrock beliefs" 'hinge understandings' or 'bedrock understandings'. I anticipate you might say that understandings can be wrong too; but I think generally it is more the case that they are adequate or inadequate, rather than right or wrong. The understanding that I have hands seems to be eminently useful and not at all inadequate. — Janus

It's true that we philosophers talk about beliefs in terms of language, and in terms of being either true or false. However, Wittgenstein's hinge-propositions are not propositions in the normal sense, he seems to be speaking of these kinds of propositions (basic beliefs) as outside our epistemological constructs. And he talks about these beliefs as being separate from language, which I think is important to the understanding of what they are. The reason I do not like Wittgenstein's term hinge-proposition, is that this term still carries with it the idea of being true or false (because proposition is still part of the name).

He has talked about these Moorean statements in many different ways. He is searching for a way to talk about them, which is why he talked about them as being bedrock, foundational, hinge, etc. Also I would not characterize them as understandings, for me at least, this does not capture Wittgenstein's intent.

I've talked before about the idea of these beliefs being prelinguistic, and Wittgenstein hints at this when says that they tend to be animalistic in their function (paraphrasing), which I take to be basic, and it is why my tendency is to think they are causally formed quite apart from reason or linguistics. They seem to be subsumed or absorbed as part of the functioning of our minds, i.e., in many cases we do not even think about it, we just find ourselves with the belief when the need arises. This comes out in my example of walking into a room and noticing pens, paper, clothing, etc., we do not even think about much of what we see, but our sensory impressions simply imprint (for lack of a better word) the information upon the mind. There seems to be a causal relationship between the world and the mind, which is linked by our sensory inputs. It is almost like a video camera which picks up information and then stores it on a disk or other device.

Wittgenstein characterized the use of "I know..." in terms of Moore's statements as "...[a] comfortable certainty, not the certainty that is still struggling (OC 357)." And still further he states, "Now I would like to regard this certainty, not as something akin to hastiness or superficiality, but as a form of life. But that means I want to conceive it as something that lies beyond being justified or unjustified [outside epistemology]; as it were, as something animal (OC 358, 359)"

You have to listen more carefully, because that's exactly what he's singing.

All Moore is doing is stating one of many bedrock beliefs. Similar to someone announcing that this is a bishop in a room full of chess players.

It isn't.

Yes, argument, inference, and proof is one of the ways we justify a belief, but keep in mind that there are other language-games that justify beliefs. This is where many people go astray with regard to knowledge claims, i.e., they limit the language-games, but the language-games of justification are much broader in scope than simply argument, inference, and proof (inductive and deductive arguments).

Just because one claims that what they believe is a piece of knowledge, that surely isn't the end of the matter. And of course the claim that you know X, doesn't mean that you indeed do know X. We often make claims to knowledge that later turn out to be false (to your point). This is why there is a connection between saying that one knows X, and the doubt, the two are linked at the hip. Moreover, this is why Wittgenstein not only attacks Moore, but also attacks the skeptic, both are making the same linguistic mistake.

Yes, to say that one knows X, is to be justified in believing X, and as such, one can claim it as a piece of knowledge, but the claim doesn't necessarily mean it is knowledge; which goes back to my point about the difference between a claim to knowledge, which isn't necessarily knowledge, as opposed to the definition of knowledge.

To be justified in believing X is varied, i.e., there are various language-games in which it is appropriate to to state that we are justified in believing X. We can be justified in various ways, viz., argument, inference, and proof; by the testimony of others; by linguistic training; and by sensory experience; to name a few.

And yes given the context of Moore's statement, it is not a piece of knowledge, which is Wittgenstein's point.

And If I have@Sam26 correct, we can be certain but since this entails there being no doubt, and hence no need for a justification, we do not know what it is we are certain of. — Banno

That's not quite what I'm saying Banno. :wink:

The problem with this is that one is confusing the definition of knowledge as JTB, with a claim to knowledge that may or may not be true. They are two different things.

To call it a belief suggests that it could somehow be wrong — Janus

I would say not, i.e., these beliefs can't be wrong in the epistemological sense. In what sense could Moore be wrong about having hands, especially in the context of the statement? If one makes a genuine knowledge claim, doubt plays a role against such knowledge claims. Otherwise we could infer the truth of a knowledge claim simply by making the statement. But with Moore's propositions, note that it doesn't make sense to doubt the statement "Here is a hand." This lack of sensible doubt tells us something about that particular belief, viz., that it has a special role in our belief system, outside, apart, and quite separate from our epistemological language-games.

The temptation is to think it's a piece of knowledge, but it's not. In fact, it's the same mistake that Moore makes, and that Wittgenstein criticizes. One does have a subjective certainty about these bedrock beliefs though, and Wittgenstein points this out. However, one's subjective certainty is not knowledge, but it's a very powerful intuition that causes us to react with certainty, which makes us want to claim it's knowledge.

There are at least two kinds of certainty going on in Wittgenstein's notes, a subjective certainty reflected in the way we emphasize or gesticulate; and there is the certainty that is used as a synonym for knowledge. We tend to confuse these two uses of the word certainty. The confusions lies in equating our feelings about pens, pillows, clothes, with having knowledge. Knowledge is JTB, so does one justify to oneself that one is seeing pens, pillows, etc? Of course not, it's a basic belief that is part of the background information, like the chess board and chess pieces are the background to the game of chess.

Another problem with trying to explain this, is that some of you have a strange view of what knowledge is. I'm sticking with the definition of knowledge as justified true belief. It's a good working definition that I find invaluable. I find no good reasons to give up this definition.

I agree Baden.

I understand. Thanks.

I hope this last post clarifies some of the problems.

Banno the belief is not justified, nor is there a choice involved. I don't make some kind of justification for these kinds of beliefs, that's Wittgenstein's point. Moore justifies "here is a hand" through a proof, an argument (look at my last posts in A Wittgenstein Commentary where I quote Moore), but Wittgenstein refutes this idea. There would be a justification involved if you asked me how I know that there are pens, paper, clothing, etc. in the room, and I replied with, "I saw them." Note that now this is taking place within language, which is where justification takes place. Justification is linguistic.

Think about it this way: You walk in the room and see the objects, as a result of seeing the objects you have the belief, there is no choice, and there is no justification needed. Do you justify the belief to yourself? No. The only time a justification would be needed is if a discourse takes place between you and someone else, i.e., you are asked, "How do you know...?" Also note that this e.g. is different (in terms of justification) from Moore's e.g., in that everyone sees Moore's hand, Moore holds up his hand to the audience and says, "Here is a hand." "Here is a hand" is bedrock, there is no need to justify this belief to the audience. Wittgenstein's point is that these statements are bedrock, they are the hinge on which justification occurs. The epistemological door wouldn't swing without these beliefs.

There is also something that is the same in my e.g. and Moore's example. Everyone in the room with Moore is having the same sensory experience that you have when you walk into the room (my e.g.) and see the objects I mentioned in my e.g. Where Moore goes wrong is that he is using a justification where no justification is needed, just as in my room e.g. Do all the people in the room need a justification that that is a hand? No. Do you need a justification when walking into a room that has x, y, and z objects? No.

You need a justification where a doubt might arise. So if I'm not in the room, where either e.g. is taking place, I might ask, "How do you know?" This is perfectly legitimate, and it's within your epistemic rights to ask "How do you know?" Then, of course you can give your justification, "I saw..." The justification is a sensory justification, which is one of the ways we justify some of our beliefs. Thus it would be a piece of knowledge.

There is a further point however that seems to be confusing, viz., that there are two kinds of bedrock beliefs. First, there are those that take place within language, as in Moore's statements. Second, there are bedrock beliefs, which I'm identifying, and which Wittgenstein alludes to in On Certainty, that occur quite apart from language. These bedrock beliefs are the ones I've given when talking about pre-linguistic man, but also note that they do occur in my e.g. above, viz., if Banno walks into a room and sees x,y, and z objects, then you have these beliefs; and although Banno can state the belief (something pre-linguistic man cannot do), they are not stated until they are stated. They are not stated in your mind, you have them quite apart from any statement, a statement is not required in order to have these beliefs. If you want to share the belief, or justify the belief, you can, but that's not a necessary ingredient to having the belief. This is why pre-linguistic man can also have the belief quite apart from language. He could walk into the room and see the same objects you see, and as a result have the same beliefs you have. The only difference is that he cannot share the belief, he doesn't have the linguistic ability, the same is true of an animal.

That's the question: is it legitimate to cal something a belief if it is caused - if there is no choice involved? — Banno

While it's true that some beliefs are a matter of choice, it's also true that some beliefs have nothing to do with choice. For example, let's suppose that I walk into a room and observe certain objects in the room, do I make a choice to believe there are pens, paper, clothing, pillows, etc, or do I just believe it without a choice being made at all. In fact, this may support the idea that the belief is causally formed quite apart from any decision. My sensory observations about what's in the room have become part of what I believe, quite apart from a choice to believe.

.

Thanks ssu.

Wow Tiff that's nice to know, thanks for the info, and thanks for the comment. Do you have any pics of what he restored?

Nice Benkei, you can take the whole family in that. Unfortunately for me I can only have one other passenger. Hope you get many enjoyable miles. :smile:

.

I think it's important to understand Moore papers (Proof of an External World, 1939; and A Defense of Common Sense, 1925) in relation to Wittgenstein, so it's not a distraction at all.

I like that Toyota.

It's a used 2017 Corvette. I bought it because I got, I believe, a good deal. The color was the color of my 2014 Corvette, which I liked, so that was a bonus. The color is called 'long beach red metallic tintcoat.'

No it's not the Z06, but after I put the P1X procharger on, it will have about the same hp as a Z06 for much less money. I can put the procharger on for about $6500, which is a good price.

How's that?

Well, this is what I ended up buying...

I wouldn't choose the word certainties or certainty because these words also have epistemological implications, although not necessarily. Also, I don't like Wittgenstein's use of the term hinge-propositions, because a proposition is a linguistic phenomena. I would say that some beliefs, especially those that are pre-linguistic have a causal explanation, which I explained in other threads.

And I'm not talking about instincts. :smirk:

.

I think the question is a misunderstanding. The rules for justification don't need to be justified, no more than the rules for chess need to be justified. They're simply the rules that make the game of epistemology work.

Ya, there are those who think that Wittgenstein missed the boat about Moore's conclusions. My tendency is to agree with Wittgenstein's interpretation of Moore. Although in a larger sense it doesn't matter, because Wittgenstein's ideas have an importance that goes beyond what Moore is saying.

I've also been thinking about how difficult it is for people to give up a belief, especially if it's something they've been working on for a long time (mainly thinking of academics). They have so much invested in the idea that it becomes psychologically difficult to admit their conclusions are wrong. It's also true of people who have a religious world view; their friends and family have the same world view, so it becomes very difficult to break that line of thinking.

I guess much of this has to do with the psychology of belief, which I've been interested in for quite some time.

I agree with your comments about humility and arrogance. One can possess these character traits whatever one believes, rational or not. I'm mainly talking about attitudes, and attitudes really have little to do with correct conclusions.

I think a tinge of skepticism might be healthy. So as I look at my world view, I'm always asking myself if I have it right, what am I missing; and I do this with much of what I believe. I'm not advocating complete skepticism or anything close, but I do think there is a healthy skepticism if balanced correctly. Although I'm not quite sure what that balance might be. It' very easy to cross the line into irrational skepticism.

I agree with that perspective.

Another pet peeve, people who make up their own definitions.

My pet peeve is to all who think they know something, including myself. We don't know shit!! I'm still wondering why I'm not a skeptic.

.