Here is one hand

[Anonymous No.19234106]

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

By George Moore. I get that he's NOT just sacking off the argument, but I don't get it and I'm sure I'm missing something (I know jack shit about philosophy basically). I understand he was arguing against "idealism" and turned the logic around to say that your argument that there is a brain in a vat is no better, and has far less assumptions, than his argument of not having hands. Inverting one of the premises. I may have garbled the subtlety of the argument.

But what if he said feet, or chairs, or tables, or drainpipes or trees?
Unless there;s something special about hands, isn't he just saying "the external world exist, why? well here it is"
I've had a quick look on *ddit but haven't got much further so I was wondering what the patricians over at /lit/ thought

[Anonymous No.19234125]

>>19234106
>your argument that there is a brain in a vat is no better, and has far less assumptions, than his argument of not having hands. Inverting one of the premises

>your argument that there is a brain in a vat is no better, and has far MORE assumptions

[Anonymous No.19234126]

>>19234106
Hands, in addition to self-evidently being external objects themselves, are clearly made to manipulate external objects.

[Anonymous No.19234145]

>>19234106
There's nothing more to it. It's just stfu and think about something more useful for a change.

[Anonymous No.19234188]

>>19234145
Lighten up and have some wine Georgius. It must be more than that.

[Anonymous No.19234218]

I think it's because it's easy to see in your minds eye, as if at a speaking engagement, him gesturing with his hand as he speaks. I think visualizing adds another layer to his point: what use is visualization if the world is immaterial?

[Anonymous No.19234220]

>>19234126
As far as I'm aware he wasn't drawing attention to human appendages as such, except that were more believable as existing if you have to take a punt. Otherwise it might've branched off into another stance?

[Anonymous No.19234266]

>>19234218
Oh I get that, it's a gesture to easily convey his idea. But there's no difference between arms, apples, aardvarks or even atoms. The idea: well I have just as much reason to entertain the idea that atoms exist than the idea that you're a brain in a vat.
"The brain could be in a vat - i disagree - why - well look at the world...."
Like I said, I'm likely misunderstanding at least somewhat, or missing subtleties

[Anonymous No.19235517]

Peter Hitchens

[Anonymous No.19235525]

>>19235517
What a rare image.

[Anonymous No.19235599]

>>19234106
That's analytic philosophy for you. Of course those idealist idiots never considered the possibility to just define reality as whatever we perceive to be the case, we needed this smartass for that.

[Anonymous No.19235617]

>>19235525

[Anonymous No.19235846]

>>19234106
Moore argued against idealism, but in this case he was arguing against solipsism.

[Anonymous No.19235934]

>>19234106
Philosophical arguments (almost always) ultimately come down to intuitions. Hence the reductio form of argument where you show that accepting certain premises leads to an intuitively unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.

Moore's argument is a reductio where you have to reject either that there are two hands in front of you or the premises of the brain in a vat argument.

Nothing special about hands.

[Anonymous No.19236457]

>>19235599
It's not that they did not consider it. It's that it is a fucking retarded thing to consider in the first place, since it's literally turn philosophy into a rethorical device used to justify whatever your current intuition is (which is to say, it turns philosophy into pure sophistry).

[Anonymous No.19236490]

>>19235934
>Philosophical arguments (almost always) ultimately come down to intuitions.
Almost always? If it's "almost always" why shouldn't we stick to those arguments that do not rely on intuitions?
>Hence the reductio form of argument where you show that accepting certain premises leads to an intuitively unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.
If should first be proved that 1) all arguments boil down to intuitions, and then 2) that intuitions are necessarily truth-conducive, and if not, then 3) that philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit (- if its only goal is to validate my subjective intuitions, then I dont think it is: in fact it would be sophistry! An activity with no theoretical validity or utility!)
>Moore's argument is a reductio where you have to reject either that there are two hands in front of you or the premises of the brain in a vat argument.
That's not the real choice, apparently. Instead you have to chose between a) being a brain the vat (or any other skeptical scenario), or b) having two hands+none of your thoughts being truth conducive or grounded in anything but what you like to cluelessly believe at the moment. If I were to go with my intuition, as Moore wanted, I would go with the brain in the vat option. Of course the dichotomy is bunk anyway (you dont really have to choose between naive skepticism and Moore's terrible argument, but if these were to be the only two options, then the former option would be far more intuitive than the latter, since the latter is essentially self-refuting).