The argument is more complex than that. It's essentially a plausibility comparison against skeptical arguments that lead to bizzare conclusions.
You can have a 10 step skeptical argument that "proves" the external world doesn't exist, and you may not be able to find the logical flaws in the argument. But if you compare that with an extremely simple argument like Moores, what's more plausible? Some crazy shit like the matrix, simulations, evil demons, or just that the hands we have are real?
That hinges on the idea of plausible in the sense of familiarity. Is familiarity something you should trust enough to consider something familiar more believable?
The continental traditon of philosophy somehow does the same thing at this time.
Just read Husserl.
As far as I informed, event the Buddhistic teaches are just skeptical about the existence of a being outside the human mind.
They doesn't claim that the world is a pure spirituel one.
Please tell me there is some additional context that makes this argument seem at least a tad bit more intelligent. Something like >an external world requires at least two things, the world and me >therefore an external world is possible
OR SOMETHING!
I've listened to stoner ramblings more coherent than this bongslop.
>here's a hand >there's a dick >if the external world doesn't exist then I can give arbitrary men a handjob and it's not gay because I'm only jerking off myself
This is one of the many reasons why I hate GE Moore. Not only are all of his philosophical ideas either moronic or unoriginal, but his writing style is like a sandpaper condom. Just try reading his paper "A defense of common sense" without wanting to hang from your ceiling fan. It's a shame that he ever stood alongside such philosophers as Russell and Wittgenstein. Thank God he's almost completely forgotten today, outside of analytic phil circles.
yeah, it's too complex for you tiny kraut brain, I know. not everyone can be an anglo analytic chad. maybe obscurantist pseuds like that hiding eggs guy or neetscha will be more up your speed
you will never unbomb dresden btw
Can you morons stop saying this to any slightly political comment you don't agree with. You have no problem with some incels ranting about wages inequality and workers democracy but draw the line at this? Please contribute something or shut up you fricking parrot
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I dont care about hitler or the joos or socialism or anything of the sort I don't want to see this on a fricking literature boars.
true, modern England is a shithole. all true anglos pissed off to New England in the 17th and 18th centuries. we still hate gerrys and love merry old England though
>'ere's a 'and
>'ere's anothuh 'and
>'ere's two 'ands
>luv me the external world
>simple as
>the moon is a finger
hmm doesnt seem like a very good argument
The argument is more complex than that. It's essentially a plausibility comparison against skeptical arguments that lead to bizzare conclusions.
You can have a 10 step skeptical argument that "proves" the external world doesn't exist, and you may not be able to find the logical flaws in the argument. But if you compare that with an extremely simple argument like Moores, what's more plausible? Some crazy shit like the matrix, simulations, evil demons, or just that the hands we have are real?
>just stop thinking, that's what philosophy is about
Anglo philosophy, everyone.
That hinges on the idea of plausible in the sense of familiarity. Is familiarity something you should trust enough to consider something familiar more believable?
Ontological argument is the only argument I need
I don't care about this hand nonsense
The continental traditon of philosophy somehow does the same thing at this time.
Just read Husserl.
As far as I informed, event the Buddhistic teaches are just skeptical about the existence of a being outside the human mind.
They doesn't claim that the world is a pure spirituel one.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_Meditations
atheists are really pathetic people : the pinnacle of their thoughts is that that they are real but living in an a unreality.
Please tell me there is some additional context that makes this argument seem at least a tad bit more intelligent. Something like
>an external world requires at least two things, the world and me
>therefore an external world is possible
OR SOMETHING!
I've listened to stoner ramblings more coherent than this bongslop.
>here's a hand
>there's a dick
>if the external world doesn't exist then I can give arbitrary men a handjob and it's not gay because I'm only jerking off myself
What if you only have one hand.
This is one of the many reasons why I hate GE Moore. Not only are all of his philosophical ideas either moronic or unoriginal, but his writing style is like a sandpaper condom. Just try reading his paper "A defense of common sense" without wanting to hang from your ceiling fan. It's a shame that he ever stood alongside such philosophers as Russell and Wittgenstein. Thank God he's almost completely forgotten today, outside of analytic phil circles.
yeah, it's too complex for you tiny kraut brain, I know. not everyone can be an anglo analytic chad. maybe obscurantist pseuds like that hiding eggs guy or neetscha will be more up your speed
you will never unbomb dresden btw
The only problem with allied bombing campaigns on German civilians is that Heidegger never died in one of them.
in hindsight it's a small price to pay to see every major english city turned into a bizarro islamabad + calcutta urban sewage ruled by colonials
Please frick off leave
Can you morons stop saying this to any slightly political comment you don't agree with. You have no problem with some incels ranting about wages inequality and workers democracy but draw the line at this? Please contribute something or shut up you fricking parrot
I dont care about hitler or the joos or socialism or anything of the sort I don't want to see this on a fricking literature boars.
If that makes you feel better about every German city becoming an Ottoman outpost, good for you.
true, modern England is a shithole. all true anglos pissed off to New England in the 17th and 18th centuries. we still hate gerrys and love merry old England though