Moore's Argument For The Proof Of The External World

One of the main questions surrounding the academic of Philosophy is in relation to the external world and its existence. Ever since Descartes Meditations, philosophers have long been engaged in discussion regarding whether the existence of the external world can be proven. On one hand, skeptics’ claim that one cannot know for certain whether the external world exists given that there is no proof thereof. Skeptics’ declare that one cannot begin to know anything about the external world as there is no way of distinguishing between reality and dreams. On the other hand, however, Philosopher G.E. Moore argues that there is a way to prove the existence of the external world, and that just because one cannot prove something, that necessarily doesn’t
mean that they do not know it. Therefore, this paper will consist of four main parts: an in depth explanation of Moore’s argument and how he defends his argument to be rigorous and legitimate, the objection of skeptics in regards to Moore’s proof of the external world, a response to the objections posed by critics, and finally a section explaining why Moore’s argument is credible and how Moore has shown that it is possible to know facts about the external world.
G.E.
Moore’s argument for the proof of the existence of the external world is as follows: (P1) here is one hand, (2) here is another hand, (C1) there now exists two hands, (C2) therefore, external objects exist (Citation needed). Moore states that this argument of his isn’t just a proof of an external world, but a rigorous proof. Now, for an argument to be categorized as a rigorous proof, Moore states that it has to satisfy the three following criteria: (1) the premise has to be different from the conclusion, (2) if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true as well, (3) one has to know the premise to be true (Citation needed). When one examines Moore’s argument, it is vividly clear the premises are different from the conclusions, given that in his premises, he refers to hands specifically by stating “here is one hand”, “here is another hand”, whereas in the conclusions he merely states that “two hands exist at this moment” (Citation needed). Thus, it can be seen that, in this case, even if the premises were to be false, the conclusion would still hold true given that there still exist many hands therefore making the premises and the conclusion distinct. Furthermore, he also states that his argument meets the second criteria since he is holding both hands and he knows at that moment that he is holding both hands given that he utters the word “here” twice, and therefore making it impossible to be any more certain. Finally, he states that his argument meets the last
criteria as if the premise ‘here is a hand’ is true, then the conclusion ‘a hand exists” must also be true, therefore proving that external objects exist. (Citation Needed).
Although Moore is very certain of his proof for the existence of the external world being conclusive, skeptics are not very convinced of Moore’s argument and claim that he has failed to show the certainty of his premiss (1) and (2). Skeptic’s argue that Moore can be deceived by his perceptions given that he is unable to distinguish between reality and hallucinations, preventing Moore from being able to separate reality and dreams. Therefore, the Skeptics’ argument is as follows: imagine there are two worlds – reality and a dreamland. In the real world, external objects exist, whereas in the dreamland, external objects do not exist with the exception of the individual. However, everything in the dreamland seems exactly the same as it would in the real world. Therefore: (P1) if an agent cannot distinguish between two situations, then that agent cannot know which of those two situations obtain, (P2) We cannot distinguish between reality and dream-world, (C1) Therefore, we cannot know whether reality or dream-world obtains, (C2) since there are external objects in reality but not in dream-world, we cannot know whether there are any external objects either (Citation Needed).
Additionally, skeptics are also dissatisfied with Moore’s proof of an external world as they state that given that Moore cannot provide ‘extra proofs’ (proof of his P1 and P2), then the evidence provided by Moore is not conclusive. Simply put, they argue that “If you cannot prove your premiss that here is one hand and here is another hand, then you do not know it. But you (Moore) yourself have admitted that, if you did not know it, then your proof (is) not conclusive. Therefore, your proof was not, as you say it was, a conclusive proof” (Citation Needed) However, in response to the former argument, in order for one to be able to firmly provide any evidence for an argument, the skeptics would have to construct their criteria for the validity of an argument to something, that is within this realm, achievable. If one makes their criteria for evidence to something that is impossible to prove, then it’s clear that there is no way of proving an argument with evidence, given that it is impossible to achieve. This is the case with their argument of Moore not being able to distinguish between reality and dream. It is vividly clear that one cannot prove that the individual is not dreaming. However, what the individual can do is provide strong reasoning as to why they are not dreaming. For instance, when one compares dream and reality, in most cases, an individual is unable to remember most, if any, of his and/or her dreams. Whereas in reality, you have control over your actions and you have the consciousness to say that you are not dreaming, and this in fact is reality. On top of that, during the duration of the dream, individuals do not feel pain as there is no awareness of the sense. For instance, if you were to walk over a fire in a dream, you would accomplish that with no difficulty. However, if one was to attempt that in real life, you would have marks all over body, where you would feel the terrifying pain as well. In regards to the latter argument of the skeptics, skeptics are relying upon the assumption that if an individual cannot prove something, then that necessarily results in them not knowing. However, the issue here is that they disregard the possibility of an individual being able to know something, but being unable to prove it. For instance, imagine there are three individuals in a room. We’ll name them A, B, C. Individual A murders individual B, where individual C escapes. Individual C reports to the police that individual A killed individual B but he has no evidence. There is no way that he can prove that individual A killed individual B as there were no cameras or a device that he can use to demonstrate this knowledge to the cops. However, what he does possess is good reasoning. Reasoning such as there are hand prints of individual A in the gun. Although this doesn’t necessarily prove that individual A killed individual B, it is within good reason to believe that individual A in fact did commit this murdering given that his hand prints are on it. The point I am trying to get across is that in come some circumstances, one needs to use his and/or her common sense in order to be able to move forward.
In other words, let’s say there is a pen across the room and you are trying to prove that there is a pen.
Now, your argument is that there is a pen. The skeptic however argues you do not know that there is a pencil with certainty: (1) You do not know that ‘there is a pencil’ immediately, (2) That ‘there is a pencil’ does not follow logically from anything you do know, (3) If (1) and (2) are true, then if I know that ‘there is a pencil’ it is only through analogy or inference, (4) What is based on analogy or inference cannot be certain knowledge. In light of this argument, which of these argument is to be more likely; that there is a pencil right in front of you or knowing the four assumptions made by skeptics? It is extremely clear that the former is obviously likelier based on common sense. Similarly, with Moore’s argument of “here is one hand” “here is another hand”, Moore knowing that there is hand in front of him is much likelier than Moore not
knowing.