- Moore’s argument for the existence of an external world is both laughable and apparently incontrovertible. Explain both of these intuitions by reference to features of the argument.
- Moore says a requirement for proof is that the premises be different from the conclusion. Why should this be necessary?
- Identify Moore’s argument for an external world by explicitly listing the premises and conclusion.
- What would Moore say if Descartes said: “Your premise is illegitimate. How do you know those hand impressions are not dreams?”
- In some ways Moore’s argument provides a reply to Descartes’ dreaming argument. In other ways it does not. Identify and explain one of each.
- Why does Moore think he does not need to prove his premises (in the philosopher’s sense of prove) in order to achieve his goal?
- Suppose it’s true that we know nothing better than that we have hands. Does that mean that we know we have hands? Is it a reason to think so?
- Make a list of things you think Moore’s argument does and does not achieve. Include obvious things, and explain all of them.
- At the end of his essay, Moore appears to agree with Descartes’s claim that in order to prove that here is one hand and here is another I would have to prove that I am not now dreaming, and admits that the latter would be very hard to do. Yet, earlier Moore insisted that he had proven that two human hands exist. Explain.
Sample Solution
