The basic argument for skepticism is that if you assert to know something, such as knowing that there is a God, you would need to rule out all of the alternatives.
While you can start ruling out alternatives, the number of alternatives is infinite so you can never rule out all of the alternatives.
In this case, the premise is that in order to know something, one would need to rule out all of the alternatives. This statement we could accept because the number of alternatives is impossible to count, as it is infinite.
Another way to think about this is by making a statement that there is said to be a gold wrapped candy bar somewhere in the world with a special stamp, but that there are so many candy bars in the world and that there are so many candy bars being made.
That if a person tried to count them all and peel open every candy bar they would never reach the end. Of course this is assuming that candy bars will continue to be made as people will continue to want to consume candy bars.
The conclusion to the premise would then be that it is impossible to know something when all the alternatives could not be ruled out.
Cartesians approach to skepticism that if one is in a sensory state of even being entirely deceived and able to hold nothing for certain.
There is still a deep cognizance of the self, that in order to be deceived, in order to think that he is being deceived, he must exist. It is true because even if the alternative, that he is hallucinating he exists were proposed, it is disproved by the very experience of being deceived.
In this case, the premise would be I am and I exist It is supported by the assertion that as long as he thinks that he exists, he must exist even if he is being deceived. As much as he may be deceived, he must exist if he is thinking and is then able to be deceived. In conclusion, something can be substantiated and even instantaneously true. That this something is true even if the alternative that it was just a delusion is true. In the case of a man who believes that he has died, the act of thinking that he has died necessarily imposes upon the man that he should be certain that he exists.
The evidence for the first premise, that a man believes he exists, is that a man is thinking and challenging whether or not he exists which means that he must exist. As someone who does not exist could not be thinking that or having it pass through their mind.
The evidence for the second premise, that a statement of thinking about thinking makes existence instantaneous as it is impossible for the property of existence to exist if there are no people who exist.
Some criticism would be that the I cannot be taken for granted, something can be thinking but it cannot hold the property of the I. That thinking is and can always be thought without a person, an I thinking it.
A dog for example, is not capable of saying I think its raining. However, a dog, with sensory perceptions, can be looking out the window and not go out the door. The owner then, can say, the dog must be thinking its raining so that it is not choosing to go outside.
Moores argument for skepticism is as seemingly simple as extending a hand. There is a hand that is being extended, there is another hand to be extended, therefore, there are at least two external objects in the world.
The Premises would be that there is a physicality, a hand, that a person possessing two hands can extend the other hand. That these two hands constitute to external objects in the world.
If a person extends one hand and knows that they have another, they know that there are two objects in the world.
With two external objects shown to be external to the mind, there is a world in which these two objects are shown. The conclusion must be that there is a world, an external world which exists.
A criticism would be that there may be a world, but that one could be hallucinating the other hand. A person who has had one hand amputated, holds out one hand, it is there, but does not have the other hand.
They may hallucinate the other hand, as its not there, its no longer in the world. But the man is so accustomed to seeing the other hand and cannot bear life without the other hand so the man hallucinates it.
Returning back to my assessment of the long-standing debate on skepticism, I would accept the premises of the Basic argument for skepticism and accept that I am a skeptic.
My issue with Descartes argument is as follows A person could be thinking things about the world but be deceived about who they are. If descartes is thinking that he is descartes but really is stuck in the body of a dog, the dog can be thinking but its thinking says nothing about the world apart from being interpreted by people. If descartes is thinking but he is in the body of a dog, he is not existing anymore. He is a dog, and therefore, it, the dog, exists but not Descates.
My issue with Moores argument is as follows. A man is in the hospital, his hands appear to be gloved. The doctors, in their apparent kindness, have molded a hand out of wax, and placed a glove on it. He says, oh, look at my gloved hands, they must have been cut, and now theyre healing. They exist as an object in the world. But in fact the man has no hands. Once he takes off the gloves he finds that there is no hand but wax, he pulls off the wax, there is still no hand, only a hook placed on wood. The thing is, Moore could know that he has two hands for a long time, if he does no investigating. The doctors could keep telling him that his hands are still healing, as long as he is alive even. He may never know. If he chooses not to investigate there may be hands that he sees but he has no hands, his hands do not exist.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment