Introduction
Over time, philosophers have been grappling with the idea of unraveling the mystery behind the existence of the physical world and, if indeed, human beings have a body. The views of philosophers are various and include a great number of assumptions as well as prejudices. Either of those is practically evidenced due to the theoretical nature of the current dispute. One of those who argue that the world and, indeed, he himself does not physically exist is Descartes. This great thinker had conducted a research on the issue and stood on the idea of physical inexistence due to the fact that is clearly detailed in his Meditations, in which he sought to establish that scientific knowledge subsists in the mind rather than senses, and that religion and science are compatible (Descartes, p. 79). The Certainty by Moore suggests a contrary view that is debatable as well as all other philosophical ideas and hypotheses.
The problem of the external world
Doubts and certainty. The universality of doubt is one of the most applicable evidences suggested by Descartes. He posits that human comprehension of the world is based on sense perception and other doubtful methods of acquiring information on the external world. Descartes claims that all facts are doubtful due to impossibility to prove those and the knowledge about the world can be false in terms of its primary doubtfulness. Moore suggests the idea that the certainty is the most applicable issue in this dispute because no one can provide people with efficient evidence on genuine nature of things in the world and knowledge on world events lack certainty (Moore, p. 29).
The power of dreaming. The idea of a deceiving God and the malevolent demon arguments are used by Descartes to support the position of certainty in the world cognition. The philosopher argues that he usually had perceptions which were similar to the sensations he had while dreaming. He further argues that there is no clear distinction between what is experienced in dreams and wakefulness. He therefore asserts that what was experienced in dreaming is similar to the wakeful experiences. He interestingly concludes that there is the possibility of one being in a dream now, and if that is the case, then all his perceptions could be false (Descartes, pp. 79-80).
Responding to Descartes’ argument, Moore opines that if one does not know that he is dreaming, he cannot know that he is standing, even if he is and thinks that he is. He however holds a view contrary to this, that if he knows that he is standing, then he could also be sure that he is not dreaming. In this respect, each of the arguments is true regardless of the approach while considering those unless Descartes gives more convincing reasons for his argument (Moore, p. 29). According to Moore’s suggestion, it is possible for one to dream that he is standing while he actually is, because it is possible for one to fall deeply asleep while standing, and dream in this position.
A cheating God. Descartes secondly comes up with the argument of a cheating God. He holds the view that all humans believe in a God who is all powerful and under whose influence all beings were created. This God has the power and ability to cause human beings to get cheated on various things, including those that are mathematical, and which can be clearly seen. This leads him to hold the view that it is probable that God who is influential exists and through his influence, man is deceived in what he knows. The knowledge about the world’s basic structure is part of this deception (Descartes, p. 86). On the other hand, Moore agues that there is no good reason why people should believe in God or life after death as these are not based on certainty. Any such beliefs are expression of an attitude of the mind.
Descartes’ next argument relates to the malevolent demon. If it is assumed that God is not the author of deception, then it can be assumed that there is malevolent demon that has the ability to deceive people the same way it was believed God did. Faced with the dilemma of the improbable fact that all source of human knowledge is based on deception, Descartes explores the possibility of rebuilding knowledge based on material that could easily be found within what is contained in the mind.
Descartes argues that even if it is possible to deceive somebody about his physical existence, the possibility of deceiving him about the reality of his physical existence and perception of objects with certain characteristics is remote. What the body claims to feel is essentially what the mind communicates to it (Descartes, pp. 81-82). What is seen as light, for example, is what will have been taken up by the eyes and transmitted to the brain which gives it meaning as light and sends it back to the eyes. Moore posits that people do not know for certain propositions are anal used, leading to the possibility of many selves.
Conclusion
Moore’s response has been faulted by those who believe in Descartes arguments. In the first place, his position about the hands is based on sensory input with no clear proof that the senses functioned correctly and did not deceive him. Moore holds the view that evidence of the existence of an external world is found in the objects seen within the individual’s external environment. This is akin to arguing that knowledge about the existence of an external world is based on the knowledge that there is an external world, which is rather tautological. Such an argument cannot be used to explain a position. Moore uses a factual position to prove another factual position. Similarly, conceptualizing time in terms of the past, present and future is not absolute, but relative. This argument further cements Descartes’ position that it is not possible to prove that the external world exists.
Works Cited
- Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
- Moore, G. E. “Certainty,” in Philosophical Papers. New York: Collier, 1962.