Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
Moore argues that there exists an external world by giving a simple, believable situation that makes the existence of an external world seem obvious (this will be clarified in the next section). He then demonstrates that it satisfies the three conditions that ensure a rigorous, legitimate proof: that the premiss and the conclusion are different, that the premiss was something he knew was true, and that the conclusion
logically follows from the premiss (GSC 359). Moore even asserts that this kind of proof can answer many different questions that deal with issues that are surrounded by doubt. For example, Moore creates a scenario whe...
... middle of paper ...
...ue that the “father” of modern skepticism, Rene Descartes, wrote in his First Meditation that “firmly rooted in [his] mind is the longstanding belief that there is an omnipotent God” (GSC 353). Because of how legitimate of a justification that faith is, Moore sufficiently responds to skeptics’ criticisms to his proof.
In “Proof of an External World,” Moore convincingly proves the existence of external objects by giving a simple example of holding up his hands and showing that it satisfies the three conditions of a rigorous, legitimate proof. He successfully combats potential criticisms from skeptics by attributing his knowledge that he is holding up his hands and saying “Here is my hand” (the premiss of his proof) to his faith, something
that Descartes, whose First Meditation sets up the argument for modern skepticism, has in the existence of God.
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
In order to understand the concept of Moore’s Paradox, we must first assess and understand the behavior of logical and performative contradictions. Credited for devising and examining this paradox, George Edward Moore, a British philosopher who taught at the University of Cambridge and studied ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics describes the paradox in its omissive and commissive forms in which we will discuss thoroughly. I will then express my standpoint on which solution is the most optimal choice for Moore’s Paradox in order to analyze and explain why I believe my solution is superior to other solutions. I will also discuss any issues that arise
The problem I hope to expose in this paper is the lack of evidence in The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds supporting that A, a thought or feeling, is the only cause of B. Russell believes that there are other minds because he can see actions in others that are analogous to his own without thinking about them. He believes that all actions are caused by thoughts, but what happens when we have a reaction resulting as an action of something forced upon one’s self? Such as when a doctor hits your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer to test your knee-jerk reflex. Russell does not answer this question. He is only “highly probable” that we are to know other minds exist through his A is the cause of B postulate.
In his “Proof of an External World”, Moore puts forth several supported hypotheses in regards to the nature of the existence of things outside the self. Primarily, Moore discusses hands; his argument is that if he can produce two hands then it follows logically that two hands must exist. Furthermore, Moore puts forth the theory that if hands exist then this alone is proof of an external world. In opposition to Moore’s opinions will be found three main arguments: firstly that all of Moore’s evidence is based upon sensory input, secondly that the truth of one fact based on the truth of another fact forms an Epistemic Circle in this case, and finally that the evidence out forth by Moore, even if proved, does not necessarily prove the fact that he is attempting to prove.
This argument follows from the belief that there is an external world that exists independently of ourselves, and does not seem to be contradictory to our experiences. Devitt argues that this belief, despite it not being certain, is easily explained along Darwinian lines, because any species that did not assume the external world exists would be presumably killed off by natural selection. While there may be other objections to this argument, I will focus on two more predominate objections. The first will be that it does not deal specifically with reality, or if objects exist, and will hence be susceptible to objection by an idealist, who would argue that the innate belief in the external world comes from us perceiving ideas in Gods mind. However, I would argue that this is not the intention of the argument, and can be challenged the same way as the sceptic’s argument.
The mind is what provokes Descartes to have these doubts about certainty. He turns to God as if He is the cause for this thinking (Descartes, “Meditation II”). After realizing God is not at fault, he determines his mind must exist ...
The first argument to be discussed is that of conceivability, which aims to disprove that the mind and
In the second meditation, Descartes is searching for an Archimedian point on which to seed a pearl of certainty. By doubting everything in his first meditation, Descartes consequently doubts his own existence. It is here that a certainty is unearthed: “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed”(17). However, Descartes “does not deduce existence from thought by means of syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind,” or in other words, by natural light (Second Replies:68).
Moving up the tower of certainty, he focuses on those ideas that can be supported by his original foundation. In such a way, Descartes’s goal is to establish all human knowledge on firm foundations. Thus, Descartes gains this knowledge from the natural light by using it to reference his main claims, specifically the existence of God in Meditation III, and provide an explanation to his radical thoughts. In Meditation III “The existence of God,” Descartes builds his foundation of certainty in the natural light through the examination of God’s existence.
In that, the sceptic can only dispute the second condition by exclaiming that Moore may be dreaming, or that Moore might be controlled by an evil demon – it would be far more reasonable to accept that although we can prove the existence of the external world, we can never know for certain if it indeed exists. Believing otherwise is contentious and an extremely debatable philosophical assumption. Whereas, like discussed earlier, Moore has exceptional grounds for his proposition: that he is looking right at his hands. When Moore’s argument is put under the microscope, he can be associated to a sceptic, but at the same time he is not. Rather, Moore transcends the sceptic, as he claims proof is possible without true knowledge. We cannot, under any circumstances, know for certain if material things exist, but we can certainly have proof of it, which can lead the individual towards the idea of knowing that it does
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.
In Descartes “Meditations on First Philosophy” he gives his reasons for belief in a higher being aka God. He
The subsequent reconstructs George Edward Moore’s argument for Proof of an External World (G. E. Moore, 228-231):
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?