Essay Assignment Two: Proof of an External World Introduction to Philosophy 110A: By: Farah Husain ID: 20421272 11/30/2011

Knowledge and Reality

In his Proof of an External World, Moore puts forth several supported hypotheses f or the nature of the existence of things outside the self. Mainly, Moore discuss es hands in his argument. His argument is that if he can show two hands then it follows logically that two hands must exist. Also, Moore gives the theory that i f hands exist then that alone is proof of an external world. In this paper, mult iple examples will be provided to prove that Moore failed to successfully provid e proof to justifiably believe in an external world. In opposition to Moores Proof of an External World this paper will argue, firstly, that all of Moores evidence is based on ones senses and that the evidence that Moore puts forth, even if pro ved, does not necessarily prove the fact that he is trying to prove. Moores Proof of an External World is based on the fact that he has two hands. In th e argument, Moore gave a common sense argument against scepticism by raising his r ight hand and saying "Here is one hand," and then raising his left and saying "A nd here is another," then finishing the argument by discussing that there are at least two external objects in the world, and therefore that he knows that an ex ternal world exists. Moores evidence for the existence of hands is based on what his senses are allowi ng him to sense, yet Moore does not in any way give any proof in that supports t he fact that his senses are working right, and are not really deceiving him. Man y philosopher put forth complaints against Moores argument saying, the premise here is one hand, and here is another, has not been proven. In defense of the argument Moore says that the proof itself was not his main point to the argument and he was arguing against a certain view of what knowledge requires. In order for Moor e to prove the premise he has to prove that hes not dreaming, which Moore says, ca nt be done! Descartes puts forth an example that says I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon o f the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment. I shall consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or fle sh, or blood or senses, but as falsely believing that I have all these things. In his Meditations Descartes studies the possibility of knowledge by asking if o ne can tell the difference between what is real and what is unreliable in our sys tem of common sense beliefs. Descartes method of doubt asks one to put everything he thinks he believes in under a close analysis. Descartes argument goes through th ree stages of increasing scepticism. Descartes firstly questions the evidence of his senses in the argument from illusion. One can be deceived by his senses some of the time, he reasons, but not all of the time. Next Descartes asks if all of ones experience could just be part of a dream. My impressions while dreaming are i

n most respects identical to the same experiences while awake. Finally, while the re could be an external world, its nature may be entirely different from our con ception of it due to distortion at the mind-body interface. Because we can only investigate the nature of the world through a part of the world itself, the trut h of the situation is impossible to resolve by empirical methods. The main point is that, like Descartes said, if one cannot prove that a given si tuation is not really the reality, then one must recognize it as a possibility, t hus one cannot prove anything that requires facts contrary to the given possibil ity. In other words, if it cannot be proved that a person is not being deceived b y their senses, it cannot be proved that the persons senses are really showing th e reality correctly or not, which is supposedly surrounding the person. We can also see that Moores argument begs the question. Moore could only be justi e d in believing the premises of his argument if he is antecedent justi ed in believ ing the conclusion: that is, in order to be justi ed in believing the premises, on e needs rst to be justi ed in believing the conclusion. It seems reasonable to say that any argument which ts this model is guilty of begging the question. According to Moore, the knowledge of the outside world is based upon knowing tha t there are objects outside of the self. He states that I can know things which I cannot prove; and among the things which I certainly did know, even if (as I t hink) I could not prove them, were the premises of my two proofs. Basically this statement is saying that we know there is an outside world because we know there is an outside world. The evidence one uses to prove a point cannot be the actua l point itself, for any given proof. In this case, Moore states that it is. Moores theory is clearly impossibility, because if one is trying to prove that th ere is an outside world, then it makes sense that one does not already know that there is an outside world, otherwise one would not be trying to prove that the external world does exist. So, one cannot state that there is an outside world to prove that there is actually an outside world, because one would be using a b elief to prove something that is real. If one was to prove that something real actually existed, one would have to provide proof that is based on real informat ion. Otherwise, one wouldnt have any sort of strong base for knowledge of anythin g. Finally, the question that needs to be addressed is that even if it is proven th at hands exist, that is not necessarily proof of an external world. For example, if Moore somehow in some way has proven that the hands exist without any doubt. The fact that hands exist now does not need neither that they existed before it was proved that they exist nor that they will keep on existing after this proof has been made known. So, it may be proved that at the time that hands exist there may be an external world, but this is still a fact that is uncertain. Also, the fact that time is only a measurement of that was created by man for comparison; we cannot determine that any two actions can occur at the same time. Therefore, we cannot prove even that when hands exist at that same time an external world exists. Therefore, the most critical error on the part of Moore is that his conc lusions do not even without doubt follow from his premises. In conclusion, Moores Proof of an External World, he has failed to really prove the fact that an external world exists. Looking at the evidence provided in the pap er, such as the fact that Moores evidence is based on ones senses and the fact th at the proof Moore tried to prove did not necessarily prove that certain fact. T herefore, George Edward Moore has failed to provide us with proof that successfu lly justifies belief in the external world.

References

Steven M. Cahn (2003). Philosophy for the 21st Century: A COMPREHENSIVE READER. New York: Oxford University Press.