G.E. Moore addresses the idea of philosophical skepticism. His counter argument implements the use of common sense and the idea of a premise that requires no proof as it is "known" to be true. However this means that Moore begs the question when he arrives at his conclusion.
Moore explains he can rigorously prove the existence of two hands, by simply holding up his two hands. He mentions that as he makes a certain gesture saying "Here is one hand" (G.E Moore 197) and then by simply mentioning "here is another"(G.E Moore 197), he has proven the existence of such external things. Describing his proof as a perfectly rigorous one, he mentions that it is "perhaps impossible to give a better or more rigorous proof of anything whatever" (G.E Moore …show more content…
This however contradicts himself and leads him to beg the question. The problem with the debate of Moore vs the philosophical skeptic is they both believe in different worlds. Moore believes in what could be called the "realistic world" whereas the philosophical skeptic believes in the "doubtful world". Intuitively, it goes against all of our senses to believe that such an external and "realistic" world does not exist. Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,
Moore explains he can rigorously prove the existence of two hands, by simply holding up his two hands. He mentions that as he makes a certain gesture saying "Here is one hand" (G.E Moore 197) and then by simply mentioning "here is another"(G.E Moore 197), he has proven the existence of such external things. Describing his proof as a perfectly rigorous one, he mentions that it is "perhaps impossible to give a better or more rigorous proof of anything whatever" (G.E Moore …show more content…
This however contradicts himself and leads him to beg the question. The problem with the debate of Moore vs the philosophical skeptic is they both believe in different worlds. Moore believes in what could be called the "realistic world" whereas the philosophical skeptic believes in the "doubtful world". Intuitively, it goes against all of our senses to believe that such an external and "realistic" world does not exist. Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,