G.E. Moore's Common Sense and Use of Language
Brackets iclude professors comments: Moore sought to show that ordinary language contained the truth of common sense by advocating that the words in the language be taken at face value. [The expression "face value" doesn't signify anything exact enough for philosophical purposes; what you meant to say is that for M propositions such as those he lists as common sense are the very model of clear propositions which anyone who speaks English will understand; they are not to be reinterpreted into some artificial language, allegedly more exact, which will provide some deeper insight into what we mean when we say we know props such as these. One might say they provide the "touchstone" for determining whether any analysis is or is not on target. In other words if some philosopher should produce an analysis in which he claimed their meaning was not perfectly and/or that we don't know these statements to be true, then so much the worse for that analysis!] Moore wrote in his Defense of Common Sense, that "My body has existed continuously on or near the earth, at various distances from or in contact with other existing things, including other living human beings".[The important thing is not this statement, it is only one of a bunch w
So they are guilty of self contradiction. Moore held that the truism stated above, is wholly truth true under the usual interpretations. the belief that these truisms are false is not necessarily contradictory, it is simply wrong because the truisms are true. But if the philosopher tells me "I doubt that there really is a world external to my mind. This shows Moore to be extremely logical yet not so full of him self as to claim near omniscience like his predecessors (Kant etc. Moore believed in being grounded in common sense, [see my comments above about common sense being the touchstone for an analysis; that's what you want to say here. So these critics hold two incompatible views when they assert these beliefs are common sense but false. [no, M doesn't claim the latter clause] If a Kantian [I believe you're confusing Kant with Descartes???] view was argued that he was is a dream the[n] Moore would argue that he was still near the earth dreamlike or not. ] Although Moore new knew his beliefs to be true, he did not in fact know the analysis of them to be true. There cannot be contradictions in truth or it wouldn't be true. " He's using that word in a funny, non-ordinary way, which for M. Moore meant that these men refuted a philosophers claims when they thought there were no other philosophers. ] To those philosophers who denied only that we do not know the beliefs of common sense, Moore argued that their position was self-defeating, because we knew the truths of the beliefs, which we could not have been arrived at, had we not known the beliefs themselves. They hold this because they deny the reality of material objects (including human bodies), or conscious selves (minds), or of space, or of time, or of any combination of these.
Common topics in this essay:
Kant Descartes,
,
Common Sense,
common sense,
beliefs common sense,
beliefs common,
moore's truisms,
common sense moore,
common sense true,
sense moore,
moore extremely,
ordinary language,
artificial language,
false beliefs,
philosophers denied,
sense true,
|
Acceptance Essays
