Part of a series which began with Fake news and the ethics of belief.
I was talking last time about 9/11, religious belief and fake news in relation to William Clifford’s 1877 evidence principle:
…it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
Clifford’s principle has come in for a lot of stick over the years from those who saw it as too ‘scientistic’ – ie coming from ‘an exaggerated belief in the principles and methods of science’.
Our subject last time was the legend of the ride across Lake Constance. But why did Peter Handke name his play after it?
Not an easy question, as in many respects the play seems incomprehensible. I remember being quite bewildered when we performed it. Any attempt to summarise the plot hits an immediate obstacle in that there is hardly any plot to summarise.
Instead you get occasional patches of apparent clarity which, just as in a dream, seem to change into something entirely different, with an entirely different meaning. Sorry – apparent meaning.
