Certainty of Opinion

"Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side" (26).

I like Mill's claim that nothing should be held certain; it allows for a skeptical culture that can unveil falsity. The question it raises, however, is the following: what are the criteria for a correct claim? What of different claims that have their basis on different modes? For example, would empirical and affective truths be incompatible?

0 comments:

Post a Comment