Graduate studies at Western
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):271–287 (2006)
|Abstract||I argue that Moore's arguments have anti-skeptical force even though they beg the question against skepticism because they target the skeptic rather than skepticism directly. Moore offers two arguments which are usually conflated by his interpreters, namely, his proof of an external world and a reductio argument. I explain why the anti-skeptical force of the latter has to be derived from that of the former. I consider an objection to Moore that is based on distinguishing between the everyday and the philosophical contexts. I argue that the objection fails even on the most plausible understanding of the distinction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Montminy (2008). Can Contextualists Maintain Neutrality? Philosophers' Imprint 8 (7):1-13.
Kevin McCain (2013). Two Skeptical Arguments or Only One? Philosophical Studies 164 (2):289-300.
Brian Hutchinson (2001). G.E. Moore's Ethical Theory: Resistance and Reconciliation. Cambridge University Press.
John Greco (2002). How to Reid Moore. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):544-563.
Jonathan Schaffer (2005). Contrastive Knowledge. In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1. Oxford University Press.
Wai-hung Wong (2009). Internalism About Justification and the Skeptic's Dilemma. Erkenntnis 71 (3):361 - 375.
Tim Willenken (2011). Moorean Responses to Skepticism: A Defense. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 154 (1):1 - 25.
Charles Landesman (1999). Moore's Proof of an External World and the Problem of Skepticism. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:21-36.
Ron Wilburn (1998). Epistemological Realism as the Skeptic's Heart of Darkness. Journal of Philosophical Research 23:165-217.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #58,108 of 754,610 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,372 of 754,610 )
How can I increase my downloads?