Books on Amazon
|Moore s Hands||I 83
Moore's hands/existence proof/Stroud: Moore has misunderstood Kant that he doubted the existence of our outside world. - ((s) only our knowledge of it.) - StroudVsMoore: this is only possible in response to a specific question - VsMoore: false evidence: error that the premises are known to be true - ((s) there are hands doubted) - (He is not wrong if he is not VsSkepticism) - MalcolmVsMoore: no answer to skepticism - does not say what is wrong with his doubts - instead of hands, he could not take "that tree there" and prove by clear view on him - (but that is what he seems to do).
AmbrosVsMoore: insufficient as direct empirical position.
Malcolm: Moore argues linguistically.
AmbroseVsMoore: he thinks, the special case of the hands can be distinguished from other things of the outside world - but they cannot.
Wittgenstein: if you succeed in the proof of the hands, we will give you the rest.
Moore himself: considered his evidence not linguistical but empirical.
Moores hands/skepticism/Stroud: the skepticism does not state anything that Moore proves to be false - that is the importance of Moore's proof - there must be a general sentence that there would be no external things, which Moore refutes - then the skepticism would be much more complex and difficult.
Moores hands/skepticism/Stroud: "I know that here is a hand": one cannot deny that there are questions to which this is a response. - VsMalcolm: Moore also knows what he is doing - he just does not answer skepticism. - A deficiency in Moores proof is only there if there is a general question about knowledge, which makes it impossible for Moore to answer. - Outside world/Stroud: unlike skepticism: here Moore has revealed the existence of external things - (as we know). - Skepticism
/(s): concerns then also our external world: this could be dreamed?
Stroud: in the questions of the existence of the external world no particular philosophical problem is answered - E.g. direct question: were there apples in Sicily BC? - Then we have an idea how we (ask historians) can find out. - Scepticism: but that does not work, if you do not know anything about the world - Knowledge/(s): if knowledge questions are answered, existence is already implied.
Skepticism/Stroud: can only be refuted from the "distanced position" (external knowledge, philosophical, not scientific) - then I cannot rely on certain things like hands. - External knowledge/Stroud: is not a more general form of knowledge - (believing that was Moore's mistake) - the philosophical question cannot be expressed by a common form of words - Pro Moore: especially his refusal to take the external position shows the importance of his remarks. Skepticism/Stroud: does not only ask what is known, but how it is known.
StroudVsMoore: his evidence is not empirical.
General/Special/Moore's hands/skepticism/Stroud: there is nothing wrong with Moore's approach (that he provides the general questions of philosophy with certain answers - how else should you answer general questions?
Premises/proof/Moore's hands/Stroud: Moore was aware that he has not proven his premises - but premises must not be proven anyway - many things can be known directly without proof.
The Significance of philosophical scepticism Oxford 1984