Less is Moore

Upon first reading G. E. Moore's "Proof of an External World," I was frustrated. I had expected Moore to finally prove to me that I am not after all a brain confined to Pollock's vat, but instead I am living a real life in an external world where my actions affect real people whose consciousnesses also exist outside of vats. I found Moore's argument to be ridiculous. I embraced the skeptic's objection to Moore's argument, that Moore did not prove the existence of an external world because he did not prove that his hands could not have been an illusion or part of a dream, and thus not exist. Essentially, Moore proves nothing.

However, Moore gives an intriguing counter-argument to my objection. He claims that my skeptical peers and I misunderstand what he means by "an external world." He proves simply that if he acknowledges the existence of his hands, which exist in an external world, then an external world exists. He proves that since he can acknowledge that his hands exist outside of himself, then the world cannot solely exist internally. In fact, he states that he cannot prove that his hands are not an illusion, as I continually assert, but that it is impossible to prove that reality exists in this way.

I have spent countless nights lying awake in my bed trying to prove that the world is not a figment of my imagination, that the people I love exist only within the confines of my mind. In responce to my worries, Moore would state that I must accept my world is not an illusion on the basis of faith, for it cannot be proved. This moves me, and upon reading it I know it to be true. Moore states, "I know things, which I cannot prove."

The power of Moore's argument is derived from its simplicity and brevity. Rather than attempting to reinforce his argument with complexity, which can invite complications, Moore proves that just a few pages of logic can profoundly influence generations of thinkers.

If you are reading this, let me know what you think about Moore's argument!

Adam Nick