This is not true. Wittgenstein does not answer this question with "No". It is very clearly implied that the answer here is "Yes". And that's why he replaces "objective certainty" with "objective certitude" at 270. If the answer were "No" he wouldn't need to replace "certainty" with "certitude". It is only because the answer is yes that he is forced to seek something other than "certainty", and that is "certitude". — Metaphysician Undercover
The way I'm using the term indubitable, is in the sense of being undoubtable, which is exactly what Wittgenstein was getting at with Moore's propositions. Now whether you agree with this or not is up to your interpretation, but it's not just my interpretation, but many other philosophers believe these bedrock propositions are indubitable. I don't see how this cannot be the case. — Sam26
When he talks about objective certainty and objective certitude, it's basically the same thing. — Sam26
He wouldn't, but that's exactly what doubt is, being unsure. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps talk of absolute truth lead philosophers astray, so that they threw out good old plain ordinary truth along with absolute truth. — Banno
But that's not really the issue, is it. — apokrisis
Wittgenstein's claim is that there are propositions that lie beyond questions of knowledge and doubt. That's my interest. — Magnus Anderson
The first, which he refers to as OC1, is found in the sort of refutation of scepticism with the foundationalist arguments found in this thread. The second, OC2, is the relativist claim that truths are dependent on history, language, perspective and so on. — Banno
Notions of absolute truth were laid to rest at the start of last century, with Moore and Russell's criticism of Absolute Idealism. — Banno
The world is too complex for one Grand Scheme to provide us with The Truth. — Banno
Pragmatism says nothing of the truth of love, beauty, courage, respect. It is a philosophical sideline. — Banno
But what am I to think of you if refuse to acknowledge that you have hands, if you claim to genuinely doubt that, and yet continue to type your responses on your keyboard? Do you really want to claim that I should take you seriously? — Janus
I think a distinction needs to be maintained between the idea that truth is dependent on "history langauge, perpective..." and the idea that expressions of truth are so dependent. — Janus
What I am saying is merely that the reason I don't doubt that statement is not because it is impossible or non-sensical to doubt such a statement but because I choose, for one reason or another, not to do so. — Magnus Anderson
While non impossible, it is, I submit, nonsensical to doubt that you have hands while you are engaged in typing.
OR can you provide a sensible account of how tis might come about? — Banno
I think I have to state this in order to make my position crystal clear. I do not refuse to acknowlede that I have hands. I do have hands. I don't doubt that. What I am saying is merely that the reason I don't doubt that statement is not because it is impossible or non-sensical to doubt such a statement but because I choose, for one reason or another, not to do so.
You appear to be arguing that it makes no sense to doubt our memories. I don't understand that. You think it's impossible for us to wake up one day and realize that we've been dreaming all along?
Again, I share Banno's sentiment that we should not take such possibilities seriously. It's possible that I am a centaur who's dreaming of being a human but that does not mean that I should take such a possible seriously. I personally don't. I think I am a human and that I will remain so for the rest of the eternity. — Magnus Anderson
Indeed, as you were so forthcoming when asked if it is true that Paris is the capital of France. — Banno
I also agree with what you say about taking such possibilities seriously. Really, that is the whole point. I guess where we disagree is that you seem to believe that otherwise reasonable people are capable of genuinely doubting the kinds of things we have been discussing (which would mean taking such possibilities seriously) whereas I see no reason to believe that they are any more capable of doing that than I am. — Janus
That's as close as can be got, and I have said it to the point of tedium. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.