Philosophy 2017 doubts,discussions and answer writing

Vivaan

Moore's refutation of idealism(additions/corrections are always welcome)
Moore was a realist and common sense philosopher. According to him existence of an object is real and what our common sense says is true.In his paper 'Refutation of Idealism',he attempts to refute idealism by refuting their central principle-esse est percipi.To condemn esse est percipi,Moore employs various methods like-
1)analytic and logical method
2)Metaphysical method
Analytic method-
Proposition esse est percipi has following meaning:
a)that existence of a thing is its sense perception-refutes as esse and percipi are identical in meaning.
b)that existence of a thing is one of the basic qualities of perception-though esse and percipi are not identical but are so related that esse is essentially a part of meaning of percipi
Therefore in either in sense of identity or partial identity,esse and percipi are co existent with respect to these two meanngs. So in all propositions, relation is maintained between esse est percipi but all distinctions have been removed which make them synonymous. Such propositions become sterile and non-productive as far as knowledge is concerned.
c)that existence is inferred from perception-here esse is inferred from percipi and they are distinct but they are sometimes true and sometimes false. Such propositions are not self evident. So just like in 'all crows are black' a single white crow is enough to invalidate the proposition similarly a single instance in which 'esse' is not 'percipi' would defeat idealist position.
Metaphysical me thod-
here refutation can be traced in following arguments
a)It is our common sense knowledge that existence of X is different from awareness of X
b)According to idealists even if distinction is made between awareness and its content then also they cannot be separated and hence are indistinguishable. But we know from our experience that when we see blue or red things, our vision our awareness does not become red or blue.
c)To know there must be something to know but if knowledge is wholly mental then it means mind knows but this principle is impossible.
d)there is significant difference between mental images and objective facts.Ex-visual images of wild animals do not create terror which we experience when we actually see in the forests.
PROBLEMS:
1.Robert E.Allinson in 'a non-dualistic reply to Moore's refutation of idealism' says-
a)Moore's argument against idealism rests on dualism of subject-object at every stage which every non dualist calls into question.
b)'Whatever is,is in experience is empty if we assume that experience is experience of objects and then take away all the objects.
c)How could you 'have blue' without knowing it was blue?It means having a blue is discovering 'blue awareness' i.e blue and its awareness are not distinct
2.'Adverbial theory' of experience by Ducasse says someone who has sensation of blue is someone who 'senses bluely'

yoga123

Are G.E Moore's arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory?Give reasons.(2014,15 marks)
Ans-According to common sense position,our ordinary common sense view of world is largely correct.Moore rejected idealist position and accepted realist one which was an affirmation of his belief in common sense.His main arguments in defense of common sense as envisaged in "Defence of Common Sense" can be traced as follows:
1.Certain propositions are certainly true.Single truism is also known with certainty.Eg propositions 'My body has existed continuously on or near the earth,at various distances from them or in contact with other existing things,including other living human beings","i am a human being" are certain.
2.There is a distinction between physical and mental facts. There is no good reason to hold that every physical fact is logically or causally dependent on mental facts.
3.He affirms that neither he has good reason to hold that all material objects were created by God nor common sense give reasons to think that God exists at all or that there is an afterlife.

Hey
The criticism part has novelty. Good job at that. But why not write Moore's arguments with 6 headings whose acronym is DISCUS (Dream, Inconsistencies, Strong conviction, Compulsive acceptance, Universal acceptance, Sense experience) given in patanjali 's printed notes.

Also there is one very impt criticm which is quite simple too. According to G. Ryle, Moore defended commonsense in technical sense amd not in ordinary sense by which he defeated his own project of common sense.
+
According to Moore, CS facts are self evident like I've two hands and there is no deeper analysis required acc to Moore. Then why does he give arguments to defend it at all?


These two points render his defence weak no matter how strong his arguments can be.

Vivaan

Are G.E Moore's arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory?Give reasons.(2014,15 marks)
Ans-According to common sense position,our ordinary common sense view of world is largely correct.Moore rejected idealist position and accepted realist one which was an affirmation of his belief in common sense.His main arguments in defense of common sense as envisaged in "Defence of Common Sense" can be traced as follows:
1.Certain propositions are certainly true.Single truism is also known with certainty.Eg propositions 'My body has existed continuously on or near the earth,at various distances from them or in contact with other existing things,including other living human beings","i am a human being" are certain.
2.There is a distinction between physical and mental facts. There is no good reason to hold that every physical fact is logically or causally dependent on mental facts.
3.He affirms that neither he has good reason to hold that all material objects were created by God nor common sense give reasons to think that God exists at all or that there is an afterlife.

Hey
The criticism part has novelty. Good job at that. But why not write Moore's arguments with 6 headings whose acronym is DISCUS (Dream, Inconsistencies, Strong conviction, Compulsive acceptance, Universal acceptance, Sense experience) given in patanjali 's printed notes.

Also there is one very impt criticm which is quite simple too. According to G. Ryle, Moore defended commonsense in technical sense amd not in ordinary sense by which he defeated his own project of common sense.
+
According to Moore, CS facts are self evident like I've two hands and there is no deeper analysis required acc to Moore. Then why does he give arguments to defend it at all?


These two points render his defence weak no matter how strong his arguments can be.

i havent read patanjali notes..mitra and internet for now...have thought to add later after completing the syllabus...will see it...
thank you for the additions...your mains are over..a blessing for me...:)...i read your analysis of paper...vo b exhaustive tha...
i have a question from you-can we leave some portions to be covered after prelims...i am running short of time..basically i m left with after moore in western and socio and political after democracy...is it doable after prelims...want to finish mains' syllabus now

yoga123

Are G.E Moore's arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory?Give reasons.(2014,15 marks)
Ans-According to common sense position,our ordinary common sense view of world is largely correct.Moore rejected idealist position and accepted realist one which was an affirmation of his belief in common sense.His main arguments in defense of common sense as envisaged in "Defence of Common Sense" can be traced as follows:
1.Certain propositions are certainly true.Single truism is also known with certainty.Eg propositions 'My body has existed continuously on or near the earth,at various distances from them or in contact with other existing things,including other living human beings","i am a human being" are certain.
2.There is a distinction between physical and mental facts. There is no good reason to hold that every physical fact is logically or causally dependent on mental facts.
3.He affirms that neither he has good reason to hold that all material objects were created by God nor common sense give reasons to think that God exists at all or that there is an afterlife.

socio and political after democracy...is it doable after prelims...want to finish mains' syllabus now

It's a good thing that you're sticking to few sources. But I would recommend u go for pantanjali's contemporary stuff. As u said after Moore topics you haven't done, so do them from pantanjali's. The reason is that Mitra sir's notes of contemporary philo lack certain depth but these days we can hardly go soft on that part.
But keep referring to Mitra sir's printed notes too. For example, Topics like "why WG criticised Private language " is given slightly better there. But basis should be pantanjali.

P.S: I'm Mitra sir's pupil. But, Just being scientific in my appraoch

About ur questions, yes some topics are doable after prelims. I almost covered the entire syllabus post prelims only. But just get an idea of the topic that you want to leave so that you are at least accustomed to those before prelims.

upsckamara

Moore problems
1.not defined common sense properly gave only 2 lists ,no elaboration
2. Used common sense in an extraordinary way i.e. not accepted the ordinary dictionary meaning
3. Unable to differentiate between internal and external questions
Treated all questions as internal and therefore unable to explain difference between subjective and objective knowledge
4.According to Wittgenstein common sense does not require any proof, it is self proved.
Moore must have remained silent on this

Rocky_Sultan

@Vivaan why should there not be several substances which are numerically distinct, even though they share the same essential nature-just as, for example, there can be many examples of a particular model of automobile, all sharing the same essential design and structure? Spinoza's answer to this hinges on his remarkable claim that existence is part of a substance's essence:
since a substance is independent and selfsufficient, it is causa sui--its own cause--and hence it 'pertains to its nature to exist' (prop. 7). Now let us suppose, to pursue our modern example, that there are twenty examples of a certain model of car in existence. Spinoza would argue that the reason for this number cannot be contained in the essence or definition of the model in question. 'No definition', he insists, 'involves or expresses any given number of individuals.' He goes on: 'A definition expresses nothing other than the nature of the thing defined. For example, the nature of a triangle expresses nothing but the simple nature of the triangle, but not any specific number of triangles'(prop. 8, schol. 2). It follows from this that the cause or reason why there are twenty, or thirty, or a hundred examples of our model of car must lie somewhere outside the definition or essence of the model in question. But in that case, our plurality cannot be a plurality of substances, since in the case of a substance the cause of its existence must be contained in its very nature or essence. There cannot, therefore, be a plurality of substances sharing the same essence.

Hope it helps.

oh ye to googly thi...seems plausible..thank you for explaining..

Nothing to thank about. Just keep the articles coming here. I see that many people are benefiting from it. Can you commit yourself to write at least one article per week? That would mean a lot.

Rocky_Sultan

@Vivaan @yoga123 @upsckamara how can one explain in samkhya the preposition that three gunas in samyavastha don't bring something into existence?

Quixote

@Rocky_Sultan it can be explained that equilibrium is a state of homogeneous change in the state of dissolution. Nothing new comes out as heterogeneous change is required for that. This happens only in the case of gunakhobha because of coming close of purusa to prakrti. So, proximity to purusa is required for evolution. It's teleological theory of evolution. So, existence is justified on the basis of result rather than on the basis of causes.

Rocky_Sultan

@Quixote that's precise my question : How is it that while in the state of equilibrium the changes are homogeneous? What's the proof?

upsckamara

It is something like that when we are single then condition of our mind is stable no drastic change, only homogeneous
But when a girl comes into our life the equilibrium state is disturbed and gunaksobha occurs
Moreover what u r asking is one of the biggest criticism of samkhya philosophy