The Refutation of Idealism Author(S): G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mind Association The Refutation of Idealism Author(s): G. E. Moore Source: Mind, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 48 (Oct., 1903), pp. 433-453 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2248251 . Accessed: 30/03/2011 03:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Oxford University Press and Mind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mind. http://www.jstor.org NEW SERIES. NO. 48.] [OCTOBER, 1903. MIND A QUARTERLY REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGYAND PHILOSOPHY I.-THE REFUTATION OF IDEALISM. BY G. E. MOORE. MODERNIdealism, if it assertsany generalconclusion about the universeat all, assertsthat it is spiritual.There are two pointsabout this assertionto whichI wishto call attention. These pointsare that,whatever be its exact meaning,it is certainlymeant to assert(1) thatthe universe is verydifferent indeedfrom what it seems,and (2) that it has quitea large numberof properties which it doesnot seem to have. Chairs and tablesand mountainsseem to be verydifferent from us; but,when the wholeuniverse is declaredto be spiritual,it is certainlymeant to assertthat they are farmore like us than we think. The idealistmeans to assertthat they are in some senseneither lifeless nor unconscious,as theycertainly seem to be; and I do not thinkhis languageis so grosslydecep- tive,but thatwe may assumehim to believethat they really arevery different indeed from what they seem. Andsecondly whenhe declaresthat they are spiritual,he meansto include in that term quite a large numberof differentproperties. When the whole universeis declaredto be spiritual,it is meantnot only thatit is in somesense conscious, but that it has what we recognisein ourselvesas the higherforms of. consciousness. That it is intelligent;that it is purposeful; that it is not mechanical; all these differentthings are commonlyasserted of it. In general,it may be said, this phrase 'reality is spiritual'excites and expressesthe belief thatthe whole universe possesses all the,qualities the posses- 28 434 G. E. MOORE: sion of which is held to make us so superiorto things which seem to be inanimate: at least, if it does not possess exactly those which we possess, it possesses not one only,but several others,which, by the same ethical standard,would be judged equal to or betterthan our own. When we say it is spiritual we mean to say that it has quite a number of excellent quali- ties, differentfrom any which we commonly attributeeither to stars or planets or to cups and saucers. Now why I mentionthese two points is that when engaged in the intricacies of philosophic discussion, we are apt to overlookthe vastness of the differencebetween this idealistic view and the ordinaryview of the world,and to overlook the numberof differentpropositions which the idealist must prove. It is, I think,owing to the vastness of this differenceand owing to the number of differentexcellencies which Idealists attribute to the universe,that it seems such an interesting and important question whether Idealism be true or iot. But, when we begin to argue about it, I think we are apt to forgetwhat a vast number of argumentsthis interesting question must involve: we are apt to assume, that if one or two points be made on either side, the whole case is won. I say this lest it should be thoughtthat any of the arguments which will be advanced in this paper would be sufficientto disprove,or any refutationof them sufficientto prove, the truly interestingand important proposition that reality is spiritual. For my own part I wish it to be clearly under- stood that I do not suppose that anythingI shall say has the smallest tendencyto prove that realityis not spiritual: I do not believe it possible to refute a single one of the many important propositionscontained in the assertion that it is so. Reality may be spiritual,for all I know; aid I devoutly hope it is. But I take 'Idealism' to be a wide term and to include not only this interestingconclusion, but a number of arguments which are supposed to be, if not sufficient,at least necessary,to prove it. Indeed I take it that modern Idealists are chieflydistinguished by certain argumentswhich they have in common. That realityis spiritualhas, I believe, been the tenet of many theologians; and yet, for believ- ing that alone, they should hardly be called Idealists. There are besides, I believe, many persons, not improperlycalled Idealists, who hold certain characteristicpropositions, with- out venturing to think them quite sufficientto prove so grand a conclusion. It is, therefore,only with Idealistic argu- mentsthat I am concerned; and if any Idealist holds that no argument is necessary to prove that reality is spiritual, I shall certainly not have refuted him. I shall, however, at- THE REFUTATION OF IDEALISM. 435 tack at least one argument,which, to the best of my belief, is considered necessary to their position by all Idealists. And I wish to point out a certain advantage which this proceduregives me-an advantage which justifiesthe asser- tion that, if my arguments are sound, they will have refuted Idealism. If I can refute a single propositionwhich is a necessary and essential step in all Idealistic arguments,then, no matterhow good the rest of these arguments may be, I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whateverfor their conclusion. Suppose we have a chain of argument which takes the form: Since A is B, and B is C, and C is D, it follows A is D. In such an argument,though 'B is C' and ' C is D' may both be perfectlytrue, yet if 'A is B' be false,we have no more reason for asserting A is D than if all three were false. It does not, indeed, follow that A is D is false; nor does it followthat no other arguments would prove it to be true. But it does followthat, so far as this argumentgoes, it is the barest supposition,without the least bit of evidence. I propose to attack a propositionwhich seems to me to stand in this relation to the conclusion ' Reality is spiritual'. I do not propose to dispute that ' Reality is spiritual' ; I do not deny that there may be reasons for thinkingthat it is: but I do propose to show that one reason upon which, to the best of my judgment, all other arguments ever used by Idealists depend is false. These other arguments may, for all I shall say, be eminently ingenious and true; they are very many and various, and differentIdealists use the most differentarguments to prove the same most important con- clusions. Some of these maybe sufficientto prove that B is C and C is D; but if, as I shall tryto show, their 'A is B' is false,the conclusion A is D remains a pleasant supposition. I do not deny that to suggest pleasant and plausible sup- positions may be the proper functionof philosophy: but I am assuming that the name Idealism can only be properly applied where there is a certain amount of argument, in- tended to be cogent. The subject of this paper is, therefore,quite uninteresting. Even if I prove my point, I shall have proved nothing about the Universe in general. Upon the importantquestion whether Reality is or is not spiritual my argumentwill not have the remotestbearing. I shall only attemptto arrive at the truth about a matter,which is in itselfquite trivial and insignificant,and fromwhich, so faras I can see and certainly so far as I shall say, no conclusions can be drawn about any of the subjects about which we most want to know. The 436 G. E. MOORE: only importance I can claim forthe subject I shall investi- gate is that it seems to me to be a matter upon which not Idealists only, but all philosophers and psychologists also, have been in error,and from their erroneousview of which they have inferred(validly or invalidly) their most striking and interesting conclusions. And that it has even this importanceI cannot hope to prove. If it has this import- ance, it will indeed followthat all the most strikingresults of philosophy-Sensationalism, Agnosticism and Idealism alike-have, for all that has hitherto been urged in their favour, no more foundation than the supposition that a chimera lives in the moon. It will follow that, unless new reasons never urged hitherto can be found, all the most importantphilosophic doctrines have as little claim to assent as the most superstitiousbeliefs of the lowest savages. Upon the question what we have reason to believe in the most interestingmatters, I do, therefore,think that my results will have an important bearing; but I cannot too clearly insist that upon the question whether these beliefsare true they will have none whatever.