What are the main arguments put forward by Moore in his paper "A Defence of Common Sense" to prove that there are possible propositions about the world that are known to be true with certainty? Do you think Moore's arguments provide a sufficient response to objections presented by the sceptic against the possibility of knowledge? Give reasons in support of your answer.
← all philosophy optional previous year questions
The following answer addresses the question "What are the main arguments put forward by Moore in his paper "A Defence of Common Sense" to prove that there are possible propositions about the world that are known to be true with certainty? Do you think Moore's arguments provide a sufficient response to objections presented by the sceptic against the possibility of knowledge? Give reasons in support of your answer.".
Introduction to Moore's "A Defence of Common Sense"
G.E. Moore's paper "A Defence of Common Sense" is a seminal work in the philosophy of knowledge, where he argues for the possibility of certain knowledge of the external world. Moore contends that there are propositions about the world that are known to be true with certainty, and he presents several arguments to support this claim. This essay will delve into the main arguments put forward by Moore, analyze their sufficiency in responding to skeptical objections, and provide reasons for the assessment.
Moore's Argument from Intuition
The Nature of Intuition
Moore's primary argument is based on intuition, which he defines as a form of immediate awareness or perception. He believes that certain propositions can be known with absolute certainty through intuition. For instance, when we assert that there is a hand in front of us, we do not need to rely on inductive reasoning or empirical evidence. Instead, we have a direct, immediate grasp of the proposition's truth.
The Argument
Moore argues that intuition provides us with a direct, non-inferential grasp of certain truths. He contends that when we intuitively believe a proposition, we are not merely aware of our belief but also of the proposition's truth. This direct awareness is not subject to doubt or error. For example, when we intuitively believe that we are seeing a hand, we are not just aware of our belief but also of the hand's existence.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from intuition is a direct response to skeptical challenges. Skeptics often argue that our knowledge of the external world is uncertain due to the possibility of illusion or deception. Moore counters this by asserting that our intuitions provide us with a form of knowledge that is immune to such doubts. He argues that the skeptic must also have intuitions, and if the skeptic's intuitions are reliable, then so are ours.
Moore's Argument from the Possibility of Error
The Nature of Error
Moore's second argument is based on the possibility of error. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then we could not know anything at all. This argument is rooted in the idea that knowledge requires not only true belief but also the absence of error.
The Argument
Moore contends that if we cannot know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from the possibility of error is a powerful response to skeptical challenges. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge
The Nature of Knowledge
Moore's third argument is based on the possibility of knowledge. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then we could not know anything at all. This argument is rooted in the idea that knowledge requires not only true belief but also the absence of error.
The Argument
Moore contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from the possibility of knowledge is a powerful response to skeptical challenges. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge
The Nature of Knowledge
Moore's third argument is based on the possibility of knowledge. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then we could not know anything at all. This argument is rooted in the idea that knowledge requires not only true belief but also the absence of error.
The Argument
Moore contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from the possibility of knowledge is a powerful response to skeptical challenges. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge
The Nature of Knowledge
Moore's third argument is based on the possibility of knowledge. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then we could not know anything at all. This argument is rooted in the idea that knowledge requires not only true belief but also the absence of error.
The Argument
Moore contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from the possibility of knowledge is a powerful response to skeptical challenges. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge
The Nature of Knowledge
Moore's third argument is based on the possibility of knowledge. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then we could not know anything at all. This argument is rooted in the idea that knowledge requires not only true belief but also the absence of error.
The Argument
Moore contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Moore's Response to Skepticism
Moore's argument from the possibility of knowledge is a powerful response to skeptical challenges. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He contends that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt. He argues that if we could not know with certainty that we are not being deceived, then our beliefs about the external world would be subject to doubt.
Conclusion
Moore's arguments in "A Defence of Common Sense" provide a robust response to skeptical challenges regarding the possibility of knowledge. His arguments from intuition, the possibility of error, and the possibility of knowledge collectively demonstrate that there are propositions about the world that can be known with certainty. While Moore's arguments are compelling, they are not without their limitations. Skeptics may argue that Moore's intuitions are themselves subject to error or that his arguments rely on unexamined assumptions. Nevertheless, Moore's work remains a foundational text in the philosophy of knowledge, offering a powerful defense of common sense and the possibility of certain knowledge.