NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Scepticism is an ability to place in antithesis, in any manner whatever, appearances and judgements, and thus because of the equality of force in the objects and arguments opposed to come first of all to a suspension of judgment and then to mental tranquillity. (Maxam, 2002) Introduction: The major point of skepticism is to doubt secured knowledge as well as to represents a grand problem of the theory of knowledge. The problem with skepticism is the philosophical provocation, whose discussion requires an exact analysis of its motives and facets particularly around the refutation. From the investigation of such critical arguments with respect to G. E. Moore one can see that the problem cannot only be won, but also to be formally developed in paradigm tables as represented in argumentation forms of the challenge to skepticism refutation. In the following essay I am going to speak about the Moores challenge to skepticism, present various aspects of philosophical approaches, as well as present my personal opinion on the given matter.
Body: At the beginning of this century GE Moore famously defined Good as a simple, non-natural property which all things that are good possess, but not in the same way in which other properties are possessed (Maxam, 2002). Hence, any attempt to know about moral facts could only proceed by searching for this non-natural property, and any attempt to define it in term of natural facts in the world was committing the Naturalistic Fallacy or Skepticism. In the middle of the century, Thomas Blum moved against this naturalistic skepticism, claiming good not to be such a property, but rather something which is within the thing which is good - there being no such thing as good, only a good thing. Good is attributive rather than a predicative adjective, so is not used in isolation but modifies the subject (Blum, 2002).
At the end of the century, Judith Jarvis Thomson is developing a theory where just as there is no such thing as being just good, there is no such thing as being just a good K (Pederson 2002, p 300). Instead, the focus is on being good in a way, and it is in that way (for something, at something, for use in something etc. ) that shows goodness. If moral goodness can be derived from these ways of being good, it will be possible to elucidate moral goodness from natural facts, i. e. whether something is good in the way required.
What should be noted is the fact that G. E. Moore was a radical innovator in the philosophical challenge to skepticism by trying to make a different claim about the essence of knowledge. In saying things like, I know that this is an apple and that is a pen, he wanted to give an example of a knowledge-claim that no one could currently question.
Also, many of his works are taken up with an effort to show why Moores attempt to refute skepticism certainly erroneous (Jonathan, 2001). Moore gives us a wonderful as examples of knowledge, or we might do so at most in very unusual circumstances (Kinney, 2002). At the same time many philosopher challenge Moores approach by saying that Moore never gives the reader the argument about the things he actually knows such as that for instance in New York there is some house on 34 th street and Broadway in which lives some person who is known only to him and to everyone of us. If used, the example about things that do not constitute a common knowledge to humanity, thus challenging the existent claims on various given matters (Jonathan, 2001). Here is a situation in which something may actually depend on how the issue is resolved, and where people have some idea of what would be relevant arguments in favor of the claim or against it (Blum, 2002, Pederson, 2002).
Thus, any reader might envisage a counter-intelligence unit trying to break a communication in which the name occurs; or a group of historians trying to identify a reference in an old document, etc. Also it certainly should be noted that if used in practice such challenge certainly would justify the knowledge claim that Moore on the other hand failed to reveal (Maxam, 2002). Yet it is worth mentioning that Moore in making his point against the skeptics is any claim that could not turn out false regardless of the possible situation. If Moores knowledge-claim is only conditionally or hypothetically valid, it is not strictly speaking a knowledge-claim according to the common definition, which still isnt a counter-case to the skepticism.
However, Moore appears to be confusing the requirement that a claim should be unconditionally valid with its validity being independent of its context, a very confusing challenge that Moore provided for skepticism (Blum, 2002, Pederson, 2002). From the point of view of formal logic the sentence context is not something that conditions that claim. When a new context is presented, it is almost always means that a different claim is made (Jonathan, 2001, Kinney, 2002). In other words, if someone agrees to a given claim without any conditions, then the same person should not worry about the validity same claim or its analogy if restated in different words under different timeframes. The only rush force for the concept of skepticism is the hypothetical knowledge claim that represents a constant truth despite its own context. Yet because nobody on this earth knows about such a claim they have to admit the skepticism case existence; while at the same time, the concept of knowledge become ambiguous that consequently leads to the skepticism existence.
At the same time there exists a problem with skepticism as well for the fact that without a context a knowledge claim removes the existence of skepticism and ambiguity (Jonathan, 2001, Pederson, 2002). However, Moore does not realize skepticism; rather he wants to rise to the skepticism challenge, finding an example of a knowledge-claim for which we can imagine no context in which it could be doubted (Kinney, 2002). Nevertheless, in an attempt to find the optimal challenging statement that would disprove skepticism, Moore ends up with a legitimate from the logical point of view claim for which on reasonable user can find practical application. I would also like to add that the things that certainly make Moores examples logically practically invulnerable to the concept of theoretical skepticism at the same time make such Moores knowledge statements very poor examples with zero content in any practical applications (Maxam, 2002). Here I should concentrate on the Moore challenge to skepticism with regard to the knowledge claim context. The disturbing element of context is the comparison between the contexts and the question if these contexts indeed mention one thing.
This question would be pertinent if it were thought to be the task of philosophical inquiry to decide which matters can be known with certainty. A reader, according to Moore prior to evaluating the knowledge claim should put forward and adjudicate in various ways the knowledge claims by actual people in actual situations. Therefore, when a person claims that I am certain about that! which further represents a valid statement in a conversation and is similar to I know that, It is a well-known fact, or even extended You are incorrect, or Are you certain? The question of what we do or do not have a right to say is raised and settled in those particular situations, while the meaning remains the same in all occasions (Blum, 2002). I would like to add that although from the ethical point of view there might be some standard in the use of various expressions as to whether or not use statements of the offensive nature, it justifies the notion that many expression can be almost identical in similar contexts.
Therefore the G. E. Moores philosophical challenge to skepticism is to make us recognize that there was nothing there that we wanted to say (Maxam, 2002). The main challenge with the skepticism's examples as well as with Moores response is such notions they halt our imagination (Jonathan, 2001, Kinney, 2002). I would also draw the readers attention to the fact that the more narrowly we examine actual English language; the sharper becomes the conflict between the language and our requirement. The conflict between the speakers so of the same language ultimately becomes intolerable while the only way to remove any skepticism is by using context free knowledge claims (Pederson, 2002).
We have got on to slippery ice with such statements of G. E. Moore at present where there is absolutely no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, they are unjust and in particular we are unable to walk: so we urgently need friction. Therefore the rough ground is needed for the expression as well as for giving ground to skepticism.
Another aspect that draws our attention is the fact that Moore is bothered with a circumstance possibly can be a work-related exposure with many analytical philosophers: the concept I would like to call operational deafness. By this I do not simply mean that Moores insensitivity to differences in nuance between various closely related expressions is present on a daily basis, but also I believe that Moores failure to consider the radical difference his skepticism challenge makes whether we try to recall the role of an expression in actual conversation, or whether we simply, as it were, test the word on our tongue in the solitude of our study (Kinney, 2002). At the same time, many of Moores most ardent opponents fail to think about the way words are used by people who utter them because they have something to say, and about the bearing what they are saying will have on how their words are taken (Maxam, 2002, Pederson, 2002). The operational deafness I was speaking about previously is similar to the notion of friction and the ability to walk and that certainly causes numerous contradictions (Blum, 2002). The challenge to skepticism is oftentimes compared to one-sided diet that corroborates the given notion (Moores challenge to skepticism) with only one valid example that in fact is useless. In other words, in philosophy examples are used for the purpose of presenting and showing arguments necessary to corroborate ones opinion in expression of the philosophical thoughts.
Nevertheless, their attitudes towards the use of examples may vary a great deal. The illustrative purposes are used for main exemplary purposes (Jonathan, 2001). Therefore, a little story example usually is a wonderful way to reduce the amount of explanation, while conveying all the proper messages to stimulate abstract thinking (Blum, 2002). While some philosophers like stories Moore did not like their use in presenting his challenge to skepticism (Maxam, 2002).
It should be noted that as a rule most stories are a matter of stylistic preference, and it does not have any great bearing on the thinking itself. Stories in explaining the challenge to skepticism show that the notion can be delivered much faster without going into profound detail (Kinney, 2002). However, there is another way of using examples in which reflecting on the example becomes part of the work of clarification itself. Therefore, this is the case when we do not know where we are going, or when we think we know but the example takes us ultimately by great surprise.
In fact, I believe the ability to take up this attitude is tremendously important in philosophy (as expressed by Moore), and very hard too, because we must understand that oftentimes the opinion of ours can be wrong and we would have to accept the fact that someone is more correct then us. When people write about philosophy, all they do is stop for a moment and look at various examples in front of them and then express what they see. Thus, it is only from examples that we can make our statements regarding various matters. Nevertheless, what we see is also influenced by our opinions, impulses and emotions that interfere with proper understanding of the things around us we want to talk about.
In other words at some point of time when looking at the same tree we can see how beautifully its leaves are colored, while at another point of time we can see only how ugly the tree is compared to other trees around (Jonathan, 2001). A similar attitude is sometimes expressed by writers of fiction who insist that they cannot control or predict what their characters will do but rather they look inside of themselves and feel the emotions. Writers who say this are not necessarily being coy, but are rather expressing an insight that is connected with the kind of importance literature can have (Pederson, 2002). Moore also believed that that something very similar was certain for philosophy: in response to the idea that all events must have something in common he said: dont speculate, but observe (Blum, 2002). I believe that if we are locked in our thoughts, our only chance of freeing our mind would be to ponder over things. Conclusion.
In conclusion I would like to say that in challenging skepticism, Moore is seen as both a revolutionary and as a conservative. His revolutionary impulse is his desire to break with the philosophical tradition that has committed the naturalistic fallacy. His conservative impulse is his desire to retain the simple truths of common sense. Moores attempt to defend an objectivist ethics backfires and leads to eroticism. Moore blames the open-question argument for this challenge as that of a destroyer. He argues that by playing down this aspect of his own ethics, his overall view will be far more attractive.
Moore rejects Regans interpretation of Moore as offering a quasi-existentialist ethics. If skepticism challenge is indefinable, then no algorithm can be provided to prove one ethical judgment against another. But, Moore argues, this does not mean that each individual must make up their own mind on evaluative questions; at least not if this is thought to imply some sort of relativism. I believe that Moores great aim in ethics is to expose and expunge philosophy's reversionary impulse in order to defend the things we know to be irreplaceable in any sane way of life. It is true that some things philosophers must simply accept for theories not to be too complex for understanding. But promulgating such a position within philosophy appears to undermine it.
In his works regarding the ideal, Moore claims that once again his conservative position, defending the na&# 1087; ve view about what is good and what is bad as an expression of challenge shows that the world is very deficient. Yet I would like to note that Moore does not regard the world as deficient or skeptical in this way and has no need to offer some form of redemption. G. E.
Moore wants to deliver us from is a horrible conception of the cruel unjust world that requires heavenly redemption. This seems to me to be a philosophically interesting way of Moores approach to skepticism challenge that surely leads Moore to paradox, because to reject the philosophical revision of the world requires him to make sense of the philosophers view of the world, but in doing this Moore must lose his innocence, and the simple insights that go along with this that certainly disprove his empty messages he used to challenge skepticism. Finally I would like to note that I do not think Moore is, or aims to be, the sort philosophical innocent that stays without any defenses, while his works certainly present great interest to the philosophical community and contribute to the worlds literary philosophical heritage.
Free research essays on topics related to: skepticism, point of view, moore, moral goodness, g e
Research essay sample on Point Of View Moral Goodness
