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 which form part of "common sense," but what is important is M's claim that he knows it, and that so does virtually everyone else know similar things about themselves] This statement was common sense to all and true because it could not be refuted.[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. [Descartes' dream hypothesis is put forward by the skeptic as a way to doubt that beliefs based on sensory experience reveal an objective world existing apart from one's perceptions. But for M this is a decidedly non-ordinary use of "doubt.
             ...