The argument
George Edward Moore, an English philosopher, is well known for his “philosophical argument, “Here is a hand,” in which he criticizes philosophical skepticism in favor of common sense. His argument takes three dimensions: (1) Here is a hand, (2) Here is another hand (3) There are at least two external objects in the world” (Moore, 10). Moore’s argument has been named the “proof of the external world.” Moore claims that for one to say that there is an external world in existence; he/she should provide evidence of things in space and also external things that control their minds apart from one another.
He says that the proof must be out of common sense and not philosophical skepticism. Moore demonstrated his argument by lifting one hand then hid it, he lifted the other and also hid it, and concludes by showing the hands again, that human beings have two hands. He then goes ahead and says that there are two external objects in the world, a fact that made him conclude there is an external world. Moore says; “The conclusion concerns the existence of objects, which can be encountered in space, despite the fact that they are not currently perceived, and therefore exist independently of our mind” (Moore, 16). To prove his argument, Moore used the philosophical standards applied in such scenarios. Scientifically, for proof to be considered precise three things must be considered: “(1) The premises must be known; (2) the conclusion must be different than the premise(s); and (3) if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true” (Moore, 22).
Moore’s proof of the conclusion
Moore argues that the first is considered in his argument because he is aware that he held one hand then did the same with the other. He also knew that he was standing there doing an action and it was clear on what he was doing; showing his hands. Moore also argues that he has met the second part requirement because he concludes that there is a hand and in the premise he shows the hand. Many people have argued that the conclusion and the premise are the same but Moore says that they are different because the conclusion could be true even when the premise is not hence the two are not similar. Finally, he says that the third part is true because if the premise is there and it is real then the conclusion must also be true. Moore therefore says that if his argument is precise then there are many others that can be established.
Conclusion
However, Moore was certain that his fellow philosophers would not support his argument because they needed something more concrete but it was difficult to exactly know what it is. He also knew that they wanted a better premise but Moore said he could not give one, nor did he think one exists because to prove that he raised his hands would demand that he ascertain that he was not in a dream which is not possible to prove. Philosophers require that for a proof to be precise the premise must be proved and if not, then the proof is void and ambiguous. But Moore (28) argues; “To say that something might be proven to exist (or be true) is to say that that thing might be certain to exist or be true.” He also says that although people believe that if something cannot be proven the only other option is to have faith in it, if one believes then there is a possibility to know it even if he/she cannot prove it. The proof is therefore successful because there is no other way to prove it is not.
Works cited
Moore, George. Proof of an external world. Michigan: H. Milford, 1939. Print.