Descartes/Moore on whether we have knowledge of the external world
According to Moore, a successful proof must conform to three check points which includes; a premise must differ from conclusion, premises are naturally true, and conclusions are always drawn from premises. Essentially, Moore’s ‘proof of an external world’ offers a common sense resolution to skepticism by proposing three major proofs of an external world. Particularly, Moore proposes that that there is a hand, and if that hand really exists, then an external world exists; and thus it is a must for an external world to be available. As it is observed, there seems to be logic in Moore’s arguments that, his simple inferences seem to be sensible and realistic in everyday’s modes of reasoning. In this regard, based on what many skeptics have already proposed it is clearly evident that Moore is trying to circumnavigate some of the key premises of skepticism.
In conclusion, it seems that we can not just neglect Moore’s premises on the existence of an external world just because he lacks concise and logical shape. Rather, it is more important to get deeper into his underlying motives and language semantics in a more expounded manner in order to better establish the authenticity of his proof. This is because, basing on skepticism, Moore can be considered as starting with an ambiguous premise to lead him easily into his desired conclusion, yet on the other hand Moore can dispute that he is using the materials conditionally agreed upon by skeptics, as skeptical argument is also initiated by a mere assumption.