Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world. We find this belief ready in ourselves as soon as we begin to reflect: it is what may be called an instinctive belief. We should never have been led to question this belief but for the fact that, at any rate in the case of sight, it seems as if the sense-datum itself were instinctively believed to be the independent object, whereas argument shows that the object cannot be identical with the sense-datum
The first sentence of Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy expresses his skeptical roots: "Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" (Russell 7). His answer to the question is clearly no, and before we come to the end of the second page he claims that "anything. . . may be reasonably doubted" (Russell 8). He questions everything from the existence of the table to whether other minds exist. He asserts that reality is not what it appears and that "even the strangest hypothesis may not be true" (Russell 16). Regardless of this fact, Russell proceeds to explain which things are self-evident truths for him; i.e. that which is certain knowledge for him. He claims that the most certain kind of self-evident truths are the "principles of logic" (Russell 112). The only other kinds of self-evident truths for Russell "are those which are immediately derived from sensation" (Russell 113). These are what Russell calls sense-data. Examples of sense data are things like "brown colour, oblong shape, smoothness, etc." all of which are associated with external objects (Russell 12). The immediate perception of a patch of blue is, therefore, intuitively certain according to Russell. Despite all this certain knowledge, Russell still admits that the possibility "that [the] outer world is nothing but a dream and that [I] alone exist…cannot be strictly proved to be false" (Russell 17). I find it astonishing that he concedes that all knowledge is ultimately uncertain and then goes on to proclaim some semblance of certainty for himself. Also, he concludes by saying that it is the process of asking skeptical questions that is important to philosophy, not whether an answer can be found. Thus, Russell’s doubt is not evidently driven by the sense of separateness that Cavell refers to. He is by no means despairing.
When looking at a particular discourse community, one can come across a number of genres that are appropriately applied to articles geared toward the discourse community. Looking at the discourse community of the stock market, the two genres that appear the most often are news articles and analysis articles. Both of these genres can be written with an intended audience of either people within the discourse community, or people on the outside of the discourse community. The key point of differentiation, is the language that is used throughout the writing. It can be written using terminology that only people within the discourse community understand, or in a way such that everyone will understand exactly what is meant by the author. In comparing these two genres and two types of audiences, we can better understand exactly how the stock market discourse community is portrayed not only among its insiders, but to everyone else as well.
In his “Proof of an External World”, Moore puts forth several supported hypotheses in regards to the nature of the existence of things outside the self. Primarily, Moore discusses hands; his argument is that if he can produce two hands then it follows logically that two hands must exist. Furthermore, Moore puts forth the theory that if hands exist then this alone is proof of an external world. In opposition to Moore’s opinions will be found three main arguments: firstly that all of Moore’s evidence is based upon sensory input, secondly that the truth of one fact based on the truth of another fact forms an Epistemic Circle in this case, and finally that the evidence out forth by Moore, even if proved, does not necessarily prove the fact that he is attempting to prove.
... matter to forms of existence in the mind, for example to argue along with Berkeley (1710) that material events only exist in so far as they are perceived to exist (idealism). Idealism has its modern defenders, for example in some interpretations of the observer effect in quantum mechanics (the view that the Shrodinger wave equation only collapses into an actuality once an observation is made). In the macroworld it may also be true that the world as-perceived only exists if there are perceivers (Velmans 1990). However, as a general theory of the ontology of macroevents this position has its own well-known problems. It might be that the material world cannot have an appearance without perceivers, but it seems counterintuitive that its very existence is similarly vulnerable. Closing one's eyes, for example, does not seem to be enough to make unpleasant events go away.
Langston Hughes was born in Joplin, Missouri into an abolitionist family. Hughes hated his father and he was passed around between his different family members and family friend. Hughes began writing poetry in the seventh grade and when he graduated he was selected as the Class Poet. His father did not believe that he could make a living out of being a writer but he paid his tuition to college so his son could be an engineer. Langston continued to write poetry however and he dropped out of college with a B+ average.
The problem I hope to expose in this paper is the lack of evidence in The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds supporting that A, a thought or feeling, is the only cause of B. Russell believes that there are other minds because he can see actions in others that are analogous to his own without thinking about them. He believes that all actions are caused by thoughts, but what happens when we have a reaction resulting as an action of something forced upon one’s self? Such as when a doctor hits your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer to test your knee-jerk reflex. Russell does not answer this question. He is only “highly probable” that we are to know other minds exist through his A is the cause of B postulate.
Before I begin to prove my thesis I would like to give a little background about skepticism and external world (material world). In this paper, skepticism argues that there is no way that we could know anything and that we live in a place where “knowing” is not possible. Additionally, the material world refers to something that can be perceived, in addition, being the world that we currently interact with. You might ask yourself, “What are the things that are in this certain world?” Well, basically everything that is not the mind is considered to be part of this world. Lastly, skepticism are against the idea that you can know things from the material world, therefore they believe that you cannot be sure about anything that you perceive.
...ves that our senses will determine our existence, how does having the ability to see or touch determine that we currently exist without thinking about it? It is the mere fact that we have thought about how we can see and touch determines our existence, because we used our minds doubting our senses as proof.
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
...ideas of sense reinforce that belief. However, if we could truly realise our being as the Absolute then the objective world would cease to appear real.
... So following all of this, if the 'sensible objects' that we perceive are of the mind, then we can not claim that there is an external world (class, lecture) (James, 2).
After reading Berkeley’s work on the Introduction of Principles of Human Knowledge, he explains that the mental ideas that we possess can only resemble other ideas and that the external world does not consist of physical form or reality but yet they are just ideas. Berkeley claimed abstract ideas as the source of philosophy perplexity and illusion. In the introduction of Principles of Human Knowledge,
Bertrand Russell explains in his article that the value of philosophy is not in the definite answers, but in the questions and possibilities that it raises. He states that “The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.” This can relate to the Milesians, the answers they came up with weren’t important, but the process used to get them. He says that the more we practice philosophy the more we begin to question everyday things in our life, and we come to find that the answers are only bigger questions. These questions lead to limitless possibilities, broadened horizons, and freedom from what we “know”. Russell hints that philosophy can help you see things in a different light, in a sense taking off the rose colored glasses and seeing the world for what it is.
The knowledge that individuals make reference in the sphere of everyday life is dominated by a kind of thinking ( natural attitude ) capable of suspending the doubt that this reality is something different from what you see .
Mediation is commonly understood as an informal process whereby a neutral third party person helps the conflicting parties try to reach a mutual settlement and does so with no power to impose a resolution. The mutual settlement between two parties is often viewed as the primary or sole value and benefit of going through a mediation process (Baruch & Folger, 2005). Mediation is also seen as a voluntary method of resolving disputes with others. A mediation session is usually a confidential meeting and a safe place to air differences where the mediator or third party person helps participants communicate information and develop resolutions to address their conflicting views (Butler, 2004). Within mediation there are four main approaches: win/lose solution, hopelessness, war, and a win/win solution. The win/lose solution occurs when only one party benefits...
The doubting of the observer. If we consider our own awareness to be fundamentally true, we still have to doubt our style of thinking. We cannot prove the viability of logic, since this is using logic to back up logic. The best way to go about doubting our own thinking, it would seem, is to examine that structure in the brain which deals with logic ( if it is not the entire brain, and if logic is not a part of our awareness itself, and thus separate from the brain ). Since logic seems to allow us to understand the universe, this section of the brain might have some fundamental structure to it that mimics the order and chaos of the universe: this structure might be the embodiment of truth itself. If not, then the structure which allows us to think must mimic the universe in full, and be in fact a simulation of all the laws of the universe. If this is so, logic is an illusion, and conclusions are reached by experimentation and simulation.