Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

G. E. Moore

George Edward Moore (1873–1958) was a prominent British philosopher whose work laid foundational stones for twentieth-century analytic philosophy, particularly in the fields of ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.^[1] Best known for his rigorous defense of common sense realism and his critique of ethical naturalism, Moore emphasized the indefinability of key concepts like "goodness" and the certainty of everyday knowledge, influencing generations of thinkers including members of the Bloomsbury Group.^[2] Born on 4 November 1873 in Upper Norwood, London, to Daniel Moore, a physician, and Henrietta Sturge, Moore was one of seven children and received his early education at home before attending Dulwich College from 1882 to 1892.^[1] He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1892, initially studying classics but switching to moral sciences, where he excelled, earning a first-class degree in 1896.^[1] Moore's academic career was deeply tied to Cambridge; he secured a Prize Fellowship at Trinity in 1898, became a university lecturer in moral science in 1911, and served as Professor of Mental Philosophy and Logic from 1925 to 1939.^[1] During World War II, he was a visiting professor in the United States from 1940 to 1944, and he edited the prestigious philosophy journal Mind from 1921 to 1947.^[1] Moore married Dorothy Ely in 1916, and they had two sons; he was awarded the Order of Merit in 1951 for his contributions to philosophy and died on 24 October 1958 in Cambridge.^[1] Moore's most influential work, Principia Ethica (1903), revolutionized ethical theory by arguing that "good" cannot be defined in naturalistic terms—such as pleasure or utility—without committing the "naturalistic fallacy," a conceptual error in reducing moral properties to empirical ones.^[2] Instead, he posited goodness as a simple, non-natural, unanalyzable property, advocating for an intuitionist approach to ethics where intrinsic value lies in states of consciousness, particularly personal affections and aesthetic enjoyments.^[3] This book not only critiqued predecessors like Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill but also inspired ethical non-naturalism and influenced literary and artistic circles through its emphasis on beauty and personal relations.^[2] In epistemology, Moore championed common sense against skepticism and idealism in essays like "A Defence of Common Sense" (1925) and "Proof of an External World" (1939), where he famously held up his hands as "proof" of the external world's existence, asserting that ordinary certainties—such as "here is a human hand"—are more secure than philosophical doubts.^[4]^[5] These arguments reinforced his realism, incorporating sense-data theories while emphasizing direct knowledge of the world, while also identifying "Moore's paradox" in statements like "It is raining, but I don't believe that it is," highlighting tensions in belief and assertion.^[6] Moore's commitment to philosophical analysis and clarity, alongside Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, helped establish the analytic tradition at Cambridge, shaping modern philosophy's focus on language, logic, and precision.^[2]

Biography

Early Years and Education

George Edward Moore was born on November 4, 1873, in Upper Norwood, a district in South London, to Daniel Moore, a physician, and Henrietta Sturge Moore.^[7]^[8] He was the middle child of seven siblings in a family marked by intellectual rigor, with his father having previously fathered one child from an earlier marriage, making eight children in total.^[7] His eldest brother, Thomas Sturge Moore, became a noted poet and illustrator who collaborated with W. B. Yeats.^[8] Moore's childhood unfolded in a strict yet stimulating environment, where his parents provided his initial education at home. His father taught him reading, writing, and music, fostering an early aptitude that led Moore to become a competent pianist and composer, while his mother instructed him in French.^[7] This home-based learning emphasized discipline and intellectual curiosity, setting the foundation for his later academic pursuits within a household of academics and professionals.^[7] At the age of nine, Moore enrolled at Dulwich College in 1882, where he remained until 1892, excelling in classics and studying subjects such as Greek, Latin, French, German, and mathematics.^[1] During this period, his engagement with classical texts, including the works of Plato and Aristotle, sparked an initial interest in philosophical questions.^[7] In 1892, Moore entered Trinity College, Cambridge, on a Major Entrance Scholarship to study classics for Part I of the Classical Tripos, which he completed in 1894.^[9]^[1] He soon shifted his focus toward philosophy, influenced by his reading of Plato and the idealist philosopher F. H. Bradley, and in 1896, he graduated with a first-class honors degree in Moral Sciences, including a starred first, in Part II of the Moral Sciences Tripos.^[8]^[7] This transition was shaped by key figures at Cambridge, such as Henry Sidgwick and James Ward, whose teachings on moral philosophy encouraged his deepening commitment to the field.^[7] Moore's early philosophical development culminated in his 1898 Prize Fellowship dissertation at Trinity College, "The Metaphysical Basis of Ethics," which critiqued absolute idealism and marked his decisive break from Hegelian influences.^[8]^[10] This work, examining the metaphysical basis of ethics and rejecting Kantian and Bradleian idealism, laid the groundwork for his later publications, including the 1899 essay "The Nature of Judgment."^[8]^[7]

Academic Positions and Teaching

In 1898, G. E. Moore was elected to a Prize Fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, for his dissertation titled "The Metaphysical Basis of Ethics," which critically examined Kant's ethical framework and marked an early break from idealism.^[8] This six-year fellowship allowed him to pursue independent research without teaching duties, during which he developed key ideas in his seminal works like "The Nature of Judgment" (1899). After the fellowship ended in 1904, Moore briefly resided in London and Edinburgh before returning to Cambridge in 1911 as a University Lecturer in Moral Science, a position he held while continuing as a research fellow at Trinity.^[7] In 1925, he was elected to the Knightbridge Professorship of Moral Philosophy, succeeding James Ward, a role that solidified his central influence in British philosophy.^[1] Moore retired from the professorship in 1939 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65, though he remained an emeritus professor and continued supervising students and participating in philosophical discussions at Cambridge until his death.^[8] Concurrently, from 1921 to 1947, he served as editor of the journal Mind, shaping the direction of analytic philosophy by prioritizing rigorous, clear argumentation in published works.^[7] During this period, he also provided leadership to the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club, chairing meetings from the early 1920s until resigning in 1944 due to declining health, fostering a forum for debating philosophical papers that included contributions from emerging thinkers.^[11] As a teacher, Moore supervised or examined several prominent philosophers, including serving as an examiner for Ludwig Wittgenstein's 1929 PhD thesis alongside Bertrand Russell and guiding Frank Ramsey's early work through lectures and discussions.^[8] His pedagogical approach emphasized analytical clarity, common-sense intuitions, and avoidance of speculative metaphysics, influencing a generation of students to prioritize precise language and empirical grounding in philosophy.^[7] Moore's membership in the Cambridge Apostles society from 1894 to 1901 further extended his impact, as the group's intimate discussions reinforced his advocacy for straightforward reasoning against abstract idealism.^[8] Exempt from military service during World War I due to his academic role, Moore focused on lecturing and writing, maintaining philosophical continuity at Cambridge amid wartime disruptions.^[9] In the post-war years, he played a key part in revitalizing the university's philosophical rigor, collaborating with returning scholars like Russell to establish analytic methods as the dominant tradition, thereby rebuilding the Moral Sciences Tripos into a hub for 20th-century philosophy.^[7]

Personal Relationships and Later Life

In 1916, at the age of 43, G. E. Moore married Dorothy Mildred Ely, a former student and Newnham College graduate whom he had met during his lectures.^[7] The couple settled initially in a flat in Richmond before moving to Cambridge, where they raised two sons: Nicholas, born in 1918, who became a noted poet associated with the New Apocalyptics movement, and Timothy, born in 1922, who pursued a career as a composer.^[7]^[2] Moore's family life was marked by domestic stability, with Dorothy managing the household while he focused on his academic pursuits; the family often enjoyed quiet evenings together, reflecting Moore's preference for simplicity in personal matters.^[9] Moore maintained close friendships with several members of the Bloomsbury Group, forged through their shared involvement in the Cambridge Apostles society during the 1890s and early 1900s.^[7] Key among these were Lytton Strachey, with whom Moore exchanged philosophical correspondence from their undergraduate days, and John Maynard Keynes, who credited Moore's Principia Ethica as a formative influence on his ethical and economic thought. Despite these bonds, Moore kept a philosophical distance from the group's more radical aesthetics and bohemian lifestyle, prioritizing his commitment to analytical rigor over their artistic experimentalism.^[12] Moore's personality was characteristically reserved and unassuming, earning him a reputation among colleagues for modesty and moral integrity rather than flamboyance.^[8] He found respite from the demands of academic life in long rural walks around Cambridge, which he described as essential for clearing his mind and appreciating the ordinary beauties of the natural world.^[7] During World War II, Moore served as a visiting professor at several universities in the United States from 1940 to 1944.^[8] In the 1940s, Moore's health began to decline significantly, leading to his gradual withdrawal from public engagements.^[8] He retired from his professorship in 1939 upon reaching the mandatory age of 65 and from editing Mind in 1947, after which he lived quietly with his family in Cambridge.^[9] This period of retirement allowed him to reflect privately, though his condition limited social interactions. He was awarded the Order of Merit in 1951.^[1] Moore died on 24 October 1958 at the age of 84 in Cambridge, following a period of prolonged illness.^[7] He was buried in the Ascension Parish Burial Ground alongside his wife Dorothy, who survived him until 1977.^[13] Following his death, Moore received immediate posthumous recognition for his contributions to philosophy. In 1959, Cambridge University Press issued a reprint of Principia Ethica, underscoring its enduring relevance.^[14] Additionally, his extensive personal and philosophical papers were later acquired by Cambridge University Library, forming the core of the Moore Collection, which preserves his lecture notes, correspondence, and family documents for scholarly access.^[15]

Ethical Theory

The Nature of 'Good'

In Principia Ethica (1903), G. E. Moore posits that "good" is the most fundamental concept in ethics, denoting a simple, non-complex property that cannot be broken down into constituent parts or defined in terms of other qualities.^[3] He compares "good" to the color "yellow," arguing that just as one cannot explain what yellow is by analyzing it into simpler elements, "good" resists any such reduction because it is a basic, indefinable notion known directly through intuition.^[3] This simplicity implies that ethical terms like "good" are unanalyzable predicates, and any attempt to define them—such as equating "good" with "pleasant" or "desired"—results in equivocation, where the defining term shifts meaning and fails to capture the unique ethical quality of "good" itself.^[3] Moore distinguishes between intrinsic good, which is valuable for its own sake, and instrumental good, which derives value only as a means to an end.^[3] Intrinsic goods, he contends, include states like personal affections—such as love between individuals—and aesthetic enjoyments, like the appreciation of beauty in art or nature, which possess value independently of their consequences.^[3] Instrumental goods, by contrast, encompass actions or objects like wealth or knowledge that are good only insofar as they promote intrinsic goods.^[3] This distinction underscores Moore's view that ethical evaluation must prioritize ends over mere means, focusing on what is inherently worthwhile rather than expedient.^[3] Central to Moore's analysis is a critique of hedonism and utilitarianism, particularly their reduction of "good" to pleasure alone.^[3] He argues that identifying "good" exclusively with pleasurable experiences commits a category error, as pleasure may be an intrinsic good but cannot encompass all such goods—claims to the contrary are, in his view, self-evidently false upon reflection.^[3] This rejection of pleasure as the sole measure of value highlights the inadequacy of naturalistic accounts that collapse ethical properties into sensory or experiential terms.^[3] Moore's emphasis on the indefinability of "good" thus paves the way for his broader critique of attempts to identify it with natural properties.^[3]

The Naturalistic Fallacy

In Principia Ethica, G. E. Moore identifies the naturalistic fallacy as the erroneous attempt to define the ethical property of "good" in terms of any natural property, such as pleasure or evolutionary adaptation, thereby conflating normative concepts with descriptive or empirical ones.^[16] This fallacy arises when philosophers derive "ought" statements from "is" premises without acknowledging the distinct nature of ethical predicates, leading to a reductionist view that undermines moral reasoning.^[16] Moore specifically targets Herbert Spencer for committing this fallacy by equating goodness with evolutionary fitness or the preservation of life, arguing that such definitions fail to capture the essence of good unless it is treated as something independent.^[16] Similarly, he critiques John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, where good is identified with pleasure, as an instance of the same error, since pleasure is a complex natural phenomenon that cannot exhaustively account for moral value.^[16] These historical examples illustrate Moore's broader contention that attempts to naturalize ethics overlook the irreducibility of ethical properties. The logical structure of Moore's argument rests on the claim that "good" is a simple, non-natural predicate that cannot be synonymous with any natural one; if one defines good as, say, pleasure (X), the question "Is X good?" remains open and meaningful, demonstrating their non-identity.^[16] This persistence of inquiry reveals that ethical judgments are not reducible to empirical analysis, as natural properties are analyzable in scientific terms while good is primitive and indefinable.^[16] In metaethics, the naturalistic fallacy has profound implications, establishing ethics as an autonomous domain separate from science and preventing the reduction of moral truths to empirical facts or evolutionary processes.^[16] By exposing this error, Moore safeguards the objectivity of ethical inquiry against scientistic overreach.^[16] Moore's own position posits good as a unique, supervenient property that is non-natural and inaccessible to empirical methods, existing as a fundamental quality apprehended through rational intuition rather than sensory observation.^[16] This view underscores the fallacy's danger in distorting our understanding of moral reality.^[16]

The Open Question Argument

In Principia Ethica, G. E. Moore presents the Open Question Argument as a linguistic test to demonstrate that the ethical concept of "good" cannot be reduced to any natural property or predicate. The core of the argument is that if someone proposes a definition such as "good means pleasant," the question "Is pleasure good?" remains open and meaningful, rather than being a trivial tautology like "Is pleasure pleasant?" This openness indicates that "good" is not analytically equivalent to "pleasant," as the former introduces a distinct evaluative inquiry that competent speakers can intelligibly debate. Moore illustrates this by noting that one's state of mind when pondering "Is this good?" differs fundamentally from asking "Is this pleasant?" or "Is this desired?"^[3] Moore applies the argument to various naturalistic reductions, showing that "good" resists identification with predicates like "desirable," "useful," or "conducive to survival." For instance, equating "good" with "desirable" fails because "desirable" itself presupposes "good" (meaning what ought to be desired), leaving the question "Is the desirable good?" open rather than closed. Similarly, proposals linking "good" to evolutionary utility or pleasure (as in hedonism) encounter the same issue: "Is what promotes survival good?" or "Is pleasure good?" elicit substantive ethical reflection, not mere conceptual redundancy. Through these examples, Moore argues that no natural property captures the simple, non-natural nature of "good," thereby undermining attempts to analyze ethics in empirical terms.^[3]^[17] The philosophical method underlying the argument relies on ordinary language intuition and shared linguistic competence among speakers. Moore contends that if a proposed definition renders a question closed and uninformative, the terms are synonymous; conversely, an open question reveals non-synonymy. This approach assumes that ordinary ethical discourse provides reliable evidence against reductionism, as the intelligibility of such questions reflects the distinct conceptual role of "good." The argument thus serves as a diagnostic tool for the naturalistic fallacy, the broader error of conflating ethical properties with natural ones.^[3]^[17] Moore acknowledges limitations in the argument, noting that it presupposes a common understanding of ethical terms but does not establish the existence or ontological status of "good" itself. He emphasizes that the test reveals conceptual irreducibility without addressing epistemological questions about how we know what is good. Critics have since pointed out that the argument may only challenge certain analytic naturalist views and assumes a sharp concept-property distinction, though Moore's defenders maintain its force against reductive definitions.^[17] The Open Question Argument profoundly influenced twentieth-century metaethics, particularly by prompting non-cognitivist responses such as emotivism. Thinkers like A. J. Ayer and Charles Stevenson argued that moral terms like "good" express emotions or attitudes rather than descriptive properties, thereby avoiding Moore's critique of naturalism while preserving the open, non-factual nature of ethical questions. R. M. Hare further developed this into prescriptivism, viewing moral statements as action-guiding imperatives that evade analytic equivalence to natural facts.^[17]

Non-Natural Properties and Intuitionism

In Principia Ethica, G. E. Moore developed a form of metaethical realism known as non-naturalism, positing that ethical properties such as goodness are objective and real but irreducible to any natural properties describable by the physical or psychological sciences.^[17] These properties are sui generis, meaning they form a distinct category of non-natural facts that cannot be analyzed or defined in terms of empirical concepts like pleasure or utility, yet they possess genuine existence independent of human minds.^[18] Moore emphasized that while goodness does not "exist" in the spatiotemporal sense of physical objects, it has "being" as an abstract, substantive quality inherent in certain states of affairs.^[17] Central to Moore's ethical epistemology is intuitionism, which holds that knowledge of these non-natural properties is acquired through direct, non-inferential apprehension, analogous to perceiving primary qualities like color or shape in the sensory world.^[17] Intuitions provide immediate insight into simple ethical truths, such as the intrinsic goodness of certain personal affections or aesthetic experiences, without requiring empirical verification or deductive reasoning from non-moral premises.^[18] This method is particularly reliable for straightforward cases, where the self-evident nature of the proposition allows for unmediated recognition of its truth.^[17] Moral knowledge, according to Moore, arises from such intuitions, enabling us to discern that specific intrinsic goods—like the pleasure derived from affection between friends—are objectively valuable in themselves.^[17] However, applying these intuitions to complex real-world situations introduces challenges, as conflicting considerations may obscure the precise degree of goodness or rightness involved.^[18] Moore rejected ethical skepticism by arguing that intuitions, though not infallible, offer prima facie justification for moral beliefs, serving as a foundational source of knowledge that can be refined through reflective comparison rather than dismissed outright.^[17] He viewed ethical propositions as synthetic a priori truths, knowable independently of experience yet expanding our understanding beyond mere definitions or tautologies.^[18] This intuitionist approach contrasts sharply with coherentist theories, which derive moral justification from systemic consistency, and empiricist accounts, which seek to ground ethics solely in observable natural facts.^[17]

Organic Wholes and Value Asymmetry

Moore's doctrine of organic unities posits that the intrinsic value of a whole cannot be assumed to equal the sum of the values of its parts, a principle essential to understanding how complex states achieve emergent ethical significance. This concept, introduced early in his ethical framework, underscores that values arise holistically rather than additively, challenging reductive analyses of goodness. For instance, the value of a beautiful painting derives not merely from the additive merits of its colors and forms but from their integrated composition, which produces a greater intrinsic good than the isolated elements could.^[3] In ethical applications, organic unities explain the heightened value of states involving appreciation of beauty or personal relations, where consciousness plays a pivotal role in enhancing or diminishing the whole. The pleasurable contemplation of beauty, for example, possesses far greater intrinsic value than the mere existence of the beautiful object or the pleasure alone, as the combination forms an organic unity of cognition and emotion. Similarly, personal affections, such as love between individuals, gain emergent value through their relational whole, exceeding the sum of isolated affections or interactions. Consciousness of a beautiful object amplifies this value, whereas awareness of an ugly or evil one may render the whole intrinsically bad, illustrating how mental states can transform the ethical character of wholes.^[3] Moore's asymmetry thesis further delineates the distinction between intrinsic good and right action, asserting that states of good are valuable in themselves irrespective of their causal origins, while right actions are defined solely by their tendency to produce the maximum possible good—an ideal utilitarian criterion. Thus, a good state, like the enjoyment of beauty, retains its intrinsic worth regardless of whether it arises from a right or wrong action, but an action qualifies as right only if it causally maximizes overall good, demanding empirical and ethical scrutiny of consequences. This asymmetry supports Moore's view that duties are context-specific applications of rightness, varying with circumstances to achieve the best outcomes, rather than fixed rules.^[3] Complementing this, Moore conceives virtues not as intrinsically good dispositions but as stable tendencies to perform right actions, thereby serving as reliable means to the greatest good without independent ethical status. This framework critiques overly aggregative forms of consequentialism by insisting on the non-additive intrinsic goods embedded in organic wholes, prioritizing the qualitative richness of states like aesthetic or relational harmony over simplistic summations of individual values.^[19]^[3]

Epistemological Views

Refutation of Idealism

In 1903, G. E. Moore published "The Refutation of Idealism" in the journal Mind, a seminal paper that directly challenged the dominant British idealist tradition, particularly the views of George Berkeley and F. H. Bradley. Moore focused on the core idealist premise esse est percipi—the notion that "to be is to be perceived"—which posits that the existence of objects is dependent on their being perceived by a mind. He argued that this doctrine erroneously conflates the act of awareness with the object of awareness, leading to an untenable mind-dependent ontology. By dissecting this conflation, Moore aimed to restore a realist understanding of reality, where objects possess intrinsic qualities independent of perception. Central to Moore's argument is the distinction between the act of consciousness and the content or object of that consciousness. He contended that in experiences of sensation, such as seeing a patch of blue, the blue itself—the sense-datum—exists as an independent entity, not reducible to or identical with the mental act of being aware of it. As Moore explained, "It seems to me that we have here got the clue to the true solution of the puzzle as to what it is that we are directly aware of, when we see a material thing." The quality of blueness, he emphasized, has an intrinsic nature that persists regardless of whether it is being sensed; thus, its existence (esse) cannot be equated with being perceived (percipi). This separation undermines Berkeley's subjective idealism, which treats objects as collections of ideas in the mind, and Bradley's absolute idealism, which dissolves distinctions into a holistic unity of experience. Moore extended this analysis to refute phenomenalism, the view that physical objects are analyzable into bundles of actual and possible sense-data. He demonstrated that relations between sense-data and acts of awareness are external, meaning the sense-datum retains its identity apart from any relational tie to perception. For instance, the temporal relations in sensations—such as the succession of blues—cannot be reduced to the content alone but involve an objective structure independent of the mind's awareness. This critique highlights how idealism overlooks the plurality and autonomy of objects, forcing a monistic interpretation that distorts everyday experience. The paper drew from Moore's 1898 Cambridge fellowship dissertation on Kant's ethics, which had already begun his departure from Hegelian influences under J. M. E. McTaggart toward a more analytical realism.^[20] This work marked Moore's decisive break from idealism, paving the way for empirical philosophy by dismantling metaphysical absolutism and affirming the reality of common-sense distinctions.

Proof of an External World

In his 1939 lecture "Proof of an External World," delivered to the British Academy and later published in its proceedings, G. E. Moore presented a straightforward argument to establish the existence of an external world, countering philosophical skepticism.^[21] Moore began by holding up his hands and declaring, "Here is one hand, and here is another," from which he inferred that at least two external objects—hands—exist, thereby proving the reality of things independent of the mind.^[22] This gesture served as both premise and demonstration, emphasizing that such ordinary perceptual knowledge is self-evident and requires no further justification beyond direct observation.^[23] Moore's method targeted skepticism, including Cartesian doubt and idealist positions, by arguing that it is self-defeating to deny knowledge of everyday propositions like "I have hands."^[21] He contended that these common-sense assertions are more certain than the abstract premises of skeptical arguments, such as the possibility of dreaming or systematic deception, which cannot undermine perceptual certainty without circularity.^[22] For instance, Moore noted that if one knows anything at all, one knows the truth of "there is a human hand here," rendering elaborate skeptical hypotheses less probable than the direct evidence of external objects.^[23] This approach echoed his earlier anti-idealist stance but focused specifically on providing a tangible proof rather than analytical refutation.^[24] Moore explicitly rejected the need for an elaborate proof, asserting that his simple demonstration meets the criteria of a valid argument: the premises are distinct from the conclusion, known to be true, and logically entail it.^[21] He dismissed demands for additional verification of the premises—such as proving one is not dreaming—as absurd, since such requirements would apply equally to all knowledge claims, including the skeptic's own.^[22] In response to verificationist challenges that true propositions must be constantly verifiable, Moore maintained that knowledge of external facts persists without ongoing empirical checks, as the initial certainty of perception suffices.^[21] The implications of Moore's argument bolster naive realism, defending the view that we directly perceive external objects like hands without reduction to mind-dependent intermediaries.^[23] By prioritizing perceptual immediacy over theoretical doubt, the proof underscores that philosophical skepticism fails to dislodge the foundational reliability of ordinary experience.^[22]

Common Sense Philosophy

G. E. Moore's common sense philosophy centers on a firm commitment to the evident truths embedded in ordinary human experience, positing that philosophers frequently err by denying these self-evident realities, such as the existence of the external world and the reality of time. Moore contended that such denials arise from misguided philosophical theories, but proper analysis of concepts should clarify rather than overturn these foundational beliefs, thereby avoiding skepticism. In this view, common sense propositions are more certain than the abstract arguments that challenge them, serving as a bulwark against revisionary metaphysics.^[4] This approach is most explicitly articulated in Moore's 1925 paper "A Defence of Common Sense," where he lists several indubitable propositions known with absolute certainty by ordinary people. Among these are: "There exists at this moment a living human body which is my body"; "This body was born at some time in the past, and 'has' existed continuously from that time until now"; "The earth has existed for many years past"; and "Many human bodies have at all times been in contact with the earth." Moore argues that these truisms are not merely believed but known, and any philosophy denying them—such as idealism or skepticism—must be false, as it contradicts what every rational person accepts.^[4] Central to Moore's methodology is philosophical analysis, which involves dissecting everyday concepts like knowledge to expose and dissolve paradoxes without resorting to skeptical conclusions. For instance, by carefully examining the meaning of 'to know' in propositions about the external world, Moore demonstrates how apparent uncertainties in perception can be resolved while upholding common sense certainties, emphasizing that analysis reveals the coherence of ordinary beliefs rather than undermining them.^[4] Moore's advocacy for common sense profoundly influenced the development of ordinary language philosophy, inspiring figures such as J. L. Austin and Gilbert Ryle to prioritize the examination of everyday linguistic practices over abstract theorizing. This shift encouraged philosophers to resolve problems by attending to how language functions in ordinary contexts, viewing deviations from common usage as sources of confusion.^[25] In critiquing theories reliant on sense-data, Moore warned that such approaches risk leading to idealism by blurring the distinction between perceived appearances and material objects. He analyzed statements like "This is a human hand" by considering possible breakdowns into sense-data components—such as perceiving a certain color and shape—but insisted that these do not negate the direct reality of the external object, preserving common sense realism against idealistic interpretations.^[4] Moore extended his common sense defense to the philosophy of time, countering J. M. E. McTaggart's atemporal idealism by affirming the tensed reality of temporal relations. He argued that everyday facts, such as knowing one had breakfast before lunch, irrefutably demonstrate the passage of time, rendering McTaggart's denial of temporal becoming untenable against ordinary certainties.^[26] This application underscores Moore's broader strategy of using intuitive, tensed propositions to refute abstract arguments that dismiss the temporal structure of experience.^[27]

Philosophy of Language and Mind

Moore's Paradox

G. E. Moore first articulated what has come to be known as Moore's Paradox in his 1942 paper "A Reply to My Critics," where he examined sentences of the form "It is raining, but I do not believe that it is raining." He noted that such assertions appear absurd, even though they are not logically contradictory, as the conjuncts could both be true in principle. Moore revisited the issue in his 1944 essay "Russell's 'Theory of Descriptions'," emphasizing the peculiarity of sincerely uttering a proposition while simultaneously denying one's belief in it. This observation highlights a tension between the semantic content of an utterance and the psychological state of the speaker. The paradox arises because successful assertion conventionally requires sincerity, which in turn presupposes that the speaker believes the proposition they are asserting. Thus, declaring "p, but I do not believe that p" generates a pragmatic inconsistency: the act of assertion commits the speaker to believing p, rendering the denial of that belief incoherent within the speech act itself. Moore argued that while the sentence lacks formal contradiction—since p could be true and the speaker's disbelief could also hold—the utterance violates ordinary norms of rational discourse, making it feel "perfectly absurd." Moore distinguished between two main forms of the paradox. The negative or omissive form, "p, but I do not believe that p," involves disavowing belief in the asserted proposition. The positive or commissive form, "p, but I believe that not-p," goes further by affirming belief in the negation of p. Both are absurd, but the positive variant intensifies the irrationality by directly contradicting the implied commitment of assertion to truth. In the philosophy of language, Moore's Paradox challenges semantic theories that focus solely on truth conditions while neglecting the speaker's attitudes toward those conditions. It underscores the need to account for performative aspects of language, where meaning is tied not just to what is said but to how it is said. This insight has influenced later developments, such as Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature, which explains the absurdity as arising from flouting the maxim of relation in cooperative dialogue. Moore grounded his analysis in common sense philosophy, viewing the paradox as evidence that such assertions contravene fundamental norms of rationality, akin to self-undermining claims in everyday reasoning. He maintained that our intuitive grasp of these norms reveals the paradox's absurdity without requiring elaborate theoretical justification.

Sense-Data and Direct Realism

In his 1910–1911 lectures, later published as Some Main Problems of Philosophy, G. E. Moore developed the concept of sense-data as the immediate objects of sensory perception, arguing that they constitute what is directly apprehended in experiences such as seeing or hearing.^[28] For instance, when one perceives a tomato, the specific red color or round shape that appears in the visual field qualifies as a sense-datum, which is known with certainty and serves as the primary content of the perceptual act.^[28] Moore emphasized that sense-data are distinct from the properties of physical objects, as the former are inherently tied to the perceiver's perspective and can vary independently of any underlying material reality.^[29] Moore's theory aligned with direct realism, maintaining that perceivers directly encounter external material objects in veridical cases, without intermediary mental entities obstructing access to the world.^[28] He contended that sense-data do not form a "veil of perception" that separates the mind from reality; instead, in normal perception, these data are identical to or constitute actual features of the physical object's surface, such as the color patch on a wall.^[29] Illusions and hallucinations, however, reveal the distinct nature of sense-data, as they can occur without corresponding physical objects—yet Moore argued this does not undermine direct access in ordinary cases, since sense-data remain grounded in the world's structure rather than fabricating a barrier.^[28] This position critiqued representative realism, which posits sense-data as private, non-physical intermediaries that represent external objects but prevent direct knowledge of them.^[29] Moore rejected this intermediary role, insisting that sense-data are not mental constructs but objective aspects of the perceptual situation, often overlapping with or being parts of the material world itself, thereby preserving the intuitive directness of everyday seeing.^[28] In addressing skepticism about the external world, Moore proposed that the indubitable knowledge of one's own sense-data—such as the certainty that "this is blue"—provides an epistemic foundation from which to reasonably infer the existence and properties of external objects, countering doubts raised by perceptual error without conceding indirectness.^[29] Over time, Moore's views evolved, with a later emphasis on naive realism evident in his 1950s lectures.^[30] In these discussions, he expressed increasing reservations about the sense-data framework, favoring the common-sense intuition that perceivers directly apprehend material things in their ordinary properties without needing to invoke distinct perceptual intermediaries, though he did not fully abandon the earlier analysis.^[30] This shift reflected his ongoing commitment to refuting idealist denials of the external world, building on anti-idealist arguments from his earlier work.^[28]

Major Works

Principia Ethica

Principia Ethica is G. E. Moore's most influential work in moral philosophy, published in 1903 by Cambridge University Press.^[17] The book represents the culmination of Moore's early ethical reflections, developed during his time at Cambridge in the late 1890s and early 1900s.^[8] It was composed amid the intellectual ferment of the period, serving as a direct response to the prevailing Victorian moralism and the rise of evolutionary ethics, particularly the naturalistic approaches of thinkers like Herbert Spencer, which Moore sought to critique.^[17] The preface, dated August 1903, underscores Moore's aim to clarify fundamental ethical concepts through rigorous analysis.^[31] The book's structure unfolds across six chapters, systematically addressing core ethical issues. Chapter I, "The Subject-Matter of Ethics," examines the nature of "good" as an indefinable, non-natural property central to ethical inquiry.^[17] Chapter II, "Naturalistic Ethics," critiques attempts to reduce ethical terms to natural properties, introducing the famous "open question" argument against ethical naturalism.^[17] Chapter III focuses on hedonism, rejecting pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, while Chapter IV addresses metaphysical ethics, dismissing idealist reductions of value.^[32] Chapters V, "Ethics in Relation to Conduct," and VI, "The Ideal," develop an ideal utilitarian framework, emphasizing actions that maximize intrinsic goods and the doctrine of organic unities, where the value of wholes exceeds the sum of their parts.^[17] Moore's key innovations in Principia Ethica include his establishment of non-naturalist intuitionism, positing that goodness is a simple, non-natural quality apprehended through intuition rather than empirical or rational deduction.^[17] He proposes that the highest ideals consist in personal affections, aesthetic experiences, and intellectual pursuits, rather than mere pleasure or utility.^[17] These ideas profoundly shaped metaethics by shifting focus from consequentialist mechanics to the intrinsic nature of value.^[17] Upon publication, Principia Ethica exerted significant influence beyond academia, particularly on the Bloomsbury Group—comprising figures like John Maynard Keynes, Lytton Strachey, and Virginia Woolf—who adopted its emphasis on personal relationships and beauty as ethical priorities.^[17] Within philosophy, it revolutionized 20th-century ethics, inspiring analytic approaches while facing criticism for its perceived vagueness in practical applications and lack of concrete guidance for moral decision-making.^[17] Despite these critiques, the work's foundational arguments on non-naturalism and the indefinability of good continue to be debated and revived in contemporary moral philosophy.^[17]

Philosophical Studies

Philosophical Studies is a collection of ten essays by G. E. Moore, first published in 1922 by Routledge and Kegan Paul in London. The volume compiles papers originally written and published between 1903 and 1921, addressing central issues in epistemology, metaphysics, and related philosophical domains, including the nature of truth, propositions, universals, perception, and relations. Moore selected these pieces to represent his evolving thought during this period, excluding his earlier 1899 essay "The Nature of Judgment," which laid foundational anti-idealist groundwork but was not included in the collection.^[33] In the preface, Moore notes that eight of the essays had been previously published, with revisions made to enhance clarity and correct errors he identified upon later reflection; the two ethical essays, "The Conception of Intrinsic Value" (originally 1912) and "The Nature of Moral Philosophy" (previously unpublished), appear without alteration. Key essays include "The Refutation of Idealism" (1903), which critiques Berkeleyan idealism by distinguishing between acts of consciousness and their objects; "External and Internal Relations" (1919–1920), examining whether relations between entities are intrinsic or extrinsic to their nature; and "The Status of Sense-Data" (1913–1914), exploring the ontological standing of perceptual data. These works emphasize Moore's commitment to philosophical analysis through precise linguistic examination, avoiding speculative metaphysics in favor of common-sense intuitions about reality.^[29]^[34] The collection's overarching themes center on a robust defense of realism against idealist doctrines, positing that reality exists independently of perception or thought. Moore analyzes judgment not as a mental synthesis but as a relation between the mind and objective propositions or facts, underscoring the plurality of existent entities such as universals and particulars. For instance, in essays like "The Nature and Reality of Objects of Perception" (1910–1911) and "Some Judgments of Perception" (1918), he argues for the direct acquaintance with external objects while grappling with the role of sense-data, bridging his early rejection of idealism to his later advocacy for common-sense philosophy. This volume thus serves as a pivotal link in Moore's intellectual development, illustrating his shift toward emphasizing ordinary language and empirical evidence in philosophical inquiry.^[29]^[8]

Other Key Publications

In addition to his earlier collections, G. E. Moore produced several significant works in the later stages of his career, including posthumous publications derived from his lectures and a series of targeted papers. Some Main Problems of Philosophy, edited by H. D. Lewis and published in 1953, compiles Moore's lectures from 1910–1911 at Morley College, London, exploring foundational philosophical topics such as sense-data, propositions, methods of knowledge, critiques of Hume's empiricism, the nature of material objects, the concept of time, and ethical inquiries.^[35]^[28] These lectures reflect Moore's methodical approach to dissecting perennial problems, emphasizing clarity in analyzing perception and reality without delving into overly speculative metaphysics.^[36] Earlier, in 1912, Moore delivered a series of lectures at Oxford that formed the basis of his book Ethics, published as part of the Home University Library of Modern Knowledge series.^[37] This work serves as a concise introduction to moral philosophy, elaborating on consequentialist themes from his prior ethical framework by examining utilitarianism, the objectivity of moral judgments, and the implications of egoism versus altruism.^[17] It gained popularity for its accessible style, making complex ideas approachable for non-specialists while reinforcing Moore's commitment to non-naturalist intuitions about goodness.^[38] Moore's reflective piece "An Autobiography," published in 1942 within Paul Arthur Schilpp's edited volume The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, offers personal insights into his intellectual development.^[39] In it, he discusses key influences such as his studies under James Ward and his engagements with idealism, alongside his evolving methodological preferences for common-sense analysis over abstract system-building.^[7] This autobiographical essay, spanning his early career up to the 1940s, highlights the pragmatic and empirical bent that shaped his philosophical practice.^[40] Moore also contributed specialized papers addressing temporal and perceptual issues in his later years. For instance, his 1942 article "An Examination of Professor Broad's Account of Time," presented to the Aristotelian Society, scrutinizes C. D. Broad's four-dimensional theory of time, questioning its implications for perceiving past, present, and future events.^[41] Complementing this, Moore's 1953 British Academy lecture, published as "Sense-Data," revisits perceptual theory by defending the existence of sense-data as immediate objects of awareness, while clarifying their role in everyday experience without endorsing skepticism.^[9] These works extend Moore's interest in refining earlier perceptual and metaphysical themes through precise critique.^[8] Beyond his authored publications, Moore played a pivotal role in philosophical scholarship through editorial endeavors. From 1921 to 1947, he edited the prestigious journal Mind, overseeing its transition into a central venue for analytic philosophy and contributing numerous reviews, notes, and articles that upheld rigorous standards in debate.^[9]

Influence and Legacy

Role in Analytic Philosophy

G. E. Moore played a pivotal role in pioneering the analytic turn in early 20th-century philosophy, emphasizing linguistic clarity, rigorous argument analysis, and a rejection of speculative metaphysics such as idealism.^[8] His approach shifted philosophical inquiry toward precise examination of concepts and propositions, influencing key figures like Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who acknowledged Moore's impact on their development of logical atomism and early analytic methods.^[7] Through works like his 1899 paper "The Nature of Judgment," Moore advocated analyzing propositions independently of mental acts, laying groundwork for treating philosophy as a conceptual clarification rather than metaphysical speculation.^[8] Moore co-founded the analytic tradition at Cambridge University, where he fostered an environment of precision and anti-speculative rigor through involvement in the Moral Sciences Club and the Apostles society.^[8] Returning to Cambridge in 1911 as a lecturer and later becoming professor of mental philosophy in 1925, he helped establish the university as a hub for analytic philosophy, editing the journal Mind from 1921 to 1947 to promote analytical standards.^[7] These efforts countered the dominant British idealism, promoting empiricism and logical analysis as central to philosophical progress.^[42] Among Moore's key innovations were his defenses of common sense realism, ethical non-naturalism, and propositional analysis, which became hallmarks of analytic methodology.^[8] In ethics, his non-naturalism, outlined in Principia Ethica (1903), posited that goodness is a simple, indefinable property, challenging reductionist views through the open-question argument.^[7] His common sense realism affirmed everyday beliefs against skepticism, as in "A Defence of Common Sense" (1925), while propositional analysis distinguished abstract truths from subjective thoughts, influencing logical and linguistic philosophy.^[8] Moore's critiques of absolutist idealism, particularly in "The Refutation of Idealism" (1903), helped precipitate a broader shift in 20th-century philosophy from Hegelian monism toward empiricism and formal logic.^[8] By rejecting doctrines like "to be is to be perceived" and internal relations, he cleared the path for analytic philosophy's focus on empirical evidence and argumentative structure.^[7] In the long term, Moore's emphasis on ordinary language and conceptual precision shaped the ordinary language philosophy of J. L. Austin and Gilbert Ryle, as well as metaethical debates, including non-cognitivist responses to his ethical realism.^[8]

Bloomsbury Group Connections

Although G. E. Moore was not a formal member of the Bloomsbury Group, his philosophical ideas, particularly those in Principia Ethica (1903), exerted a profound indirect influence on its ethics and aesthetics through early adopters in the Cambridge Apostles society. Key figures such as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, and E. M. Forster engaged deeply with the text during Apostles meetings around 1904–1906, where it became a cornerstone of their discussions and inspired a personalist ethics centered on the intrinsic goods of intimate relationships, love, and the enjoyment of beauty over abstract social duties.^[8]^[7] This adoption is most explicitly captured in Keynes's 1938 essay "My Early Beliefs," presented to the Bloomsbury Memoir Club, where he reflected on the book's "electrifying impact" and described it as fostering a near-religious devotion among the group to Moore's ideals of personal affection and aesthetic appreciation as the highest values.^[12] Keynes noted that Principia Ethica converted them to a worldview prioritizing "the pleasures of human intercourse and the enjoyment of beautiful objects," shaping their rejection of Victorian moral conventions in favor of authentic, individual fulfillment.^[43] Virginia Woolf echoed this sentiment, later recalling the work as "the book which, more than any other book I remember, has made me feel... wise and good."^[12] Over time, however, the Bloomsbury Group's interpretation of Moore evolved, drifting toward ethical relativism that emphasized subjective experience over objective truths, particularly in the post-World War I era.^[8] Despite this shift, they retained and adapted Moore's doctrine of organic unities—the idea that the value of complex wholes, such as works of art or personal bonds, emerges non-additively from their parts—in their aesthetic theories and interpersonal dynamics, viewing relationships and creative endeavors as integrated entities with intrinsic worth beyond summation.^[8]^[44] Moore himself remained largely detached from the group's social scene, attending only a handful of their informal gatherings and focusing instead on rigorous academic philosophy rather than their bohemian experimentation with art, sexuality, and lifestyle.^[8] This distance underscored his role as an intellectual influence rather than a participant, allowing his concepts to permeate Bloomsbury's cultural output without direct involvement. The legacy of this connection manifested in the group's contributions to modernist literature, where Moore's emphasis on intrinsic value and anti-conventionalism informed Woolf's explorations of subjective consciousness in novels like Mrs. Dalloway and Forster's advocacy for personal authenticity against societal norms in works such as Howards End.^[45]^[12]

Impact on Students and Successors

Moore's supervision of Ludwig Wittgenstein during the latter's early years at Cambridge (1911–1914) played a significant role in shaping the Austrian philosopher's thought, particularly through discussions on realism and logic that informed the development of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.^[46] Wittgenstein dictated philosophical notes to Moore in Norway in 1914, confirming his commitment to a method influenced by Moore's emphasis on clarity and common-sense realism.^[47] Later, in the 1930s, Wittgenstein credited Moore's analytical precision for helping refine his own ideas, as evidenced by Moore's detailed notes on Wittgenstein's Cambridge lectures.^[48] Moore also exerted a profound influence on Bertrand Russell, encouraging his break from British idealism toward realism and logical analysis in the early 1900s. Russell acknowledged that Moore "led the way" in this shift, with Moore's rejection of idealist metaphysics prompting their collaborative work on logic, truth, and the foundations of mathematics.^[49] This partnership, rooted in Moore's lectures and writings, helped establish key tenets of early analytic philosophy, including the analysis of propositions and the critique of absolute idealism.^[50] Among Moore's other notable students at Cambridge were Frank P. Ramsey and C. D. Broad, both of whom engaged deeply with his ideas in philosophy, economics, and epistemology. Ramsey, who attended Moore's lectures as an undergraduate in the early 1920s, was influenced by his philosophical approach.^[51] Broad, one of Moore's students at Cambridge, developed his epistemological views on perception and induction in Scientific Thought (1923), engaging with analytic critiques of idealism including those advanced by Moore.^[8] Moore's anti-metaphysical stance and emphasis on linguistic clarity had an indirect but lasting impact on A. J. Ayer and the logical positivist movement, particularly through Ayer's early reading of Principia Ethica. Ayer adopted Moore's open-question argument against naturalism but reframed it to support emotivism, arguing that moral terms lack cognitive content, thus extending Moore's indefinability thesis into verificationist terms.^[52] In the postwar period, Moore's defense of common sense shaped the Oxford ordinary language school, with philosophers like J. L. Austin building on his methods to analyze everyday concepts and refute skepticism through linguistic examination. Austin explicitly regarded Moore as a key predecessor, refining Moore's appeals to ordinary usage in works like Sense and Sensibilia (1962).^[53] Emotivist critiques, such as those by Ayer and C. L. Stevenson, emerged partly as responses to Moore's non-naturalism; Stevenson, for instance, explained the "indefinability of good" via the emotive magnetism of ethical terms, linking moral judgments to attitudes rather than properties.^[54] Ayer similarly invoked Moore's rejection of naturalism to argue that ethical statements express emotions, not verifiable facts.^[55] Moore's enduring legacy is evident in Cambridge's continued dominance in analytic ethics, bolstered by honors such as his appointment to the Order of Merit in 1951, recognizing his contributions to philosophy.^[56]

References

[1]
Moore, George Edward, 1873-1958 (philosopher) | ArchiveSearch
### Biographical Summary: G.E. Moore (1873-1958)
[2]
G.E. Moore - his life and work - Philosopher of the Month | OUPblog
Jul 6, 2019 · GE Moore (1873-1958) was a British philosopher, who alongside Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein at Trinity College, Cambridge, was a key protagonistMissing: reliable | Show results with:reliable<|control11|><|separator|>
[3]
Principia Ethica, by George Edward Moore—A Project Gutenberg ...
All ordinary ethical judgments assert causal relations, but they are commonly treated as if they did not, because the two kinds of relation are not ...
[4]
A Defense of Common Sense - DiText
Published in Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series), ed. J. H. Muirhead, 1925. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Philosophical Papers (1959).
[5]
[PDF] Proof of an External World - rintintin.colorado.edu
Proof of an External World by G. E. Moore (1939). It seems to me that, so far from its being true, as Kant declares to be his opinion, that there is only one ...
[6]
G. E. Moore: A great philosopher? | TLS - Times Literary Supplement
The realist who championed simplicity and common sense, and who discovered 'Moore's Paradox'. By Thomas Baldwin.
[7]
Moore, George Edward | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
GE Moore was a highly influential British philosopher of the early twentieth century. His career was spent mainly at Cambridge University.Biography · Metaphysics and Epistemology · Ethics · The Influence of Moore's...
[8]
George Edward Moore - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 26, 2004 · British philosopher of the first half of the twentieth century. He was one of the trinity of philosophers at Trinity College Cambridge.
[9]
[PDF] george edward moore, om - The British Academy
In my third year I met G. E. Moore, who was then a freshman, and for some years he fulfilled my ideal of genius. He was in those days beautiful.
[10]
GE Moore - Assets - Cambridge University Press
examiner's report on the 1898 dissertation. Report on a Dissertation entitled 'The Metaphysical Basis of. Ethics' by Mr. G. E. Moore. 245. Bernard Bosanquet.
[11]
The Moral Sciences Club (A Short History) | Faculty of Philosophy
The Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club is devoted to the publication and discussion of philosophical papers.
[12]
He was the most revered philosopher of his era. So why did GE ...
Apr 3, 2020 · ... Dulwich College, which he and his three brothers attended as day boys. ... This -doctrine, quite unfairly, they fathered upon GE Moore, whose ...
[13]
Moore, Dorothy Mildred (1892-1977), née Ely, wife of G. E. Moore
Moore, George Edward (1873–1958), philosopher is the spouse of Moore, Dorothy Mildred (1892-1977), née Ely, wife of G. E. Moore. Dates of relationship. 1916- ...
[14]
Principia ethica / by George Edward Moore. - Wellcome Collection
Moore, G. E. (George Edward), 1873-1958. Date: 1959, 1903. Books. About this work. Publication/Creation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1959, 1903.
[15]
Papers of G.E. Moore (Add. MSS 8330, 8875)
The philosophical papers contain the bulk of Moore's notes for his Cambridge lecture courses 1911-1939, together with notes for occasional lectures or short ...Missing: exemption post-
[16]
[PDF] PRINCIPIA ETHICA
GEORGE EDWARD MOORE. "Everything is what it is, and not another ... others, then there is no reason to call the fallacy naturalistic. But if he ...
[17]
Moore's Moral Philosophy
Jan 26, 2005 · G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica of 1903 is often considered a revolutionary work that set a new agenda for 20th-century ethics.
[18]
Moral Non-Naturalism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 1, 2003 · In particular, there is widespread agreement that G.E. Moore's account of goodness in Principia Ethica is a paradigmatically non-naturalist ...
[19]
§ 106: PRINCIPIA ETHICA (1903) by G. E. Moore
For his definition of virtue does not exclude a disposition to perform actions ... That he is right in applying the word virtue to such a disposition cannot be ...
[20]
G. E. Moore: Early Philosophical Writings | Reviews
Moore's Principia Ethica is of course famous for claiming that questions about what one ought to do are questions about how to promote the good, with good being ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
[PDF] Moore's proof of an external world
According to Moore's definitions, if something is to be met with in space, then it is also external to our minds; so if we can give an anti-skeptical argument ...
[22]
[PDF] How to Read Moore's ``Proof of an External World'' - PhilArchive
1939 paper, “Proof of an External World” (PEW). Here, Moore is taken to issue a challenge to anyone who denies that we know that there is an external world ...
[23]
[PDF] The Point of Moore's Proof - PhilArchive
Moore's Introduction. Moore opened his 1939 lecture “Proof of an External World” by reproducing. Kant's famously posed problem of the existence of external ...
[24]
[PDF] Wittgenstein and Moore - PhilArchive
Oct 19, 2012 · Common Sense Truths 1939 “Proof of an External World” introduces a remarkable change. Though its focus aren't common sense truths, the two ...
[25]
Three Aspects of Moore's Philosophy - jstor
The defense of common sense, the defense of ordinary language, the clarification of concepts-each in its way has had an enormous influence on philosophy in the ...
[26]
McTaggart on Time - jstor
G.E. Moore famously thought he had refuted McTaggart's thesis that time does not exist by drawing attention to the fact that he had breakfast before he had ...
[27]
[PDF] G E Moore's Time Realism
The 'new realist' G E Moore is hardly known as a metaphysician of time, yet. I argue his 1910–11 lectures, later published as Some Main Problems of Philo-.
[28]
Some main problems of philosophy : G. E. Moore - Internet Archive
Dec 18, 2019 · Some main problems of philosophy. by: G. E. Moore. Publication ... PDF WITH TEXT download · download 1 file · SINGLE PAGE PROCESSED JP2 ZIP ...
[29]
Philosophical Studies by G. E. Moore
### Table of Contents
[30]
Lectures on philosophy; : Moore, G. E. (George Edward), 1873-1958
Apr 11, 2019 · Lectures on philosophy; ; Publication date: 1966 ; Topics: Philosophy ; Publisher: London, Allen & Unwin; New York, Humanities P ; Collection ...Missing: pdf | Show results with:pdf
[31]
http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/preface
[32]
PRINCIPIA ETHICA (1903) by G. E. Moore - Fair Use Repository
Principia Ethica , by G. E. Moore, was first published in 1903. This is a complete electronic transcription, based on the public domain text as it is ...
[33]
Philosophical studies : Moore, G. E. (George Edward), 1873-1958
Jul 11, 2007 · Publication date: 1922 ; Topics: Philosophy, Modern ; Publisher: London : Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, New York, Harcourt, Brace ; Collection: cdl; ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
III.—External and Internal Relations - Oxford Academic
G. E. Moore; III.—External and Internal Relations, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 20, Issue 1, 1 June 1920, Pages 40–62, https://doi.org/1.
[35]
George Edward Moore, Some Main Problems of Philosophy
... {Some Main Problems of Philosophy}, year = {1953} }. Moore, George Edward (1953). Some Main Problems of Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Edited by H. D. Lewis ...
[36]
Some Main Problems of Philosophy | Moore, George Edward
Apr 4, 2014 · This title collates a number of the late G. E. Moore's lectures on philosophy with the inclusion of his audience's questions and his answers ...Missing: 1953 | Show results with:1953
[37]
Ethics - Paperback - G. E. Moore - Oxford University Press
Free delivery 25-day returnsG. E. Moore's 1912 work Ethics has tended to be overshadowed by his famous earlier work Principia Ethica. However, its detailed discussions of utilitarianism, ...
[38]
Moore's Ethics - Cambridge University Press & Assessment
This Element critically surveys the full range of G. E. Moore's ethical thought, including: (1) his rejection of naturalism in favor of the view that 'good' ...
[39]
Paul Arthur Schilpp, The philosophy of G. E. Moore - PhilPapers
Moore's autobiography.--Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of G. E. Moore ... Schilpp, Paul Arthur (1942) "The philosophy of G. E. Moore".
[40]
Philosophy Of G. E. Moore : Schilpp Paul Arthur - Internet Archive
Jan 16, 2017 · Philosophy Of GE Moore Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.46303 dc.contributor.author: Schilpp Paul ArthurMissing: Lectures 1966
[41]
Writings of C. D. Broad - Ditext
The Philosophy of G. E. Moore (1942): 43-67. Review of The Philosophy of ... Reprinted (signed) with corrections and additions in G. E. Moore, Philosophical ...
[42]
Aristotle on Nous of Simples | Canadian Journal of Philosophy
Jan 1, 2020 · In a difficult passage in Metaphysics IX, however, Aristotle introduces a kind of cognition which admits of no more or less, no better or worse.
[43]
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/SchwartzKeynes.html
[44]
Keynes as Lucifer - Econlib
Sep 7, 2015 · (Keynes, “My Early Beliefs,” page 436). It was Moore who had written: By far the most valuable things, which we know or can imagine, are ...
[45]
[PDF] Some Lessons from JM Keynes Danielle Guizzo
Lastly, a doctrine of organic unities, which stated that the best achievable ... The Bloomsbury group had a key relevance to Keynes's constitution as an ...
[46]
Virginia Woolf, G.E. Moore and the Aesthetics of Personal Relations
6 Thus, Regan has defined G.E. Moore as 'Bloombury's prophet,' arguing that what the Bloomsbury members found in him was 'an ethic of individual liberation' (24) ...
[47]
Wittgenstein's Pre-Tractatus Conception of Philosophy - Academia.edu
In the “Notes dictated to G. E. Moore”, Wittgenstein shall confirm his commitment to this method. ... There might be an influence from Russell's substitutional ...
[48]
Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway
This digital edition is based on Ludwig Wittgenstein. "Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway." Notebooks 1914–1916, edited by G. H. von Wright and G. E. M. ...<|separator|>
[49]
View of Moore's Notes on Wittgenstein's Lectures, Cambridge 1930 ...
The co-authors of this paper are currently editing G. E. Moore's notes of Wittgenstein's Cambridge lectures, 1930-1933, for a book to be published by Cambridge ...Missing: exemption | Show results with:exemption
[50]
Cambridge Philosophers V: G. E. Moore - jstor
to a University lectureship in Moral Sciences at Cambridge. He then stayed in Cambridge throughout his academic career; in 1925 he succeeded James Ward as ...
[51]
Moore's Conception of Common Sense - jstor
Moore's and Russell's influence is such that this figure of speech now passes without notice in philosophy. In philosophical usage common sense can have beliefs ...
[52]
'One of the Great Intellects of His Time' | Ray Monk
Dec 22, 2016 · Another member of the Apostles, G.E. Moore, was the most influential philosopher at Cambridge. When Ramsey started to attend his lectures, Moore ...
[53]
Broad's Approach to Moral Philosophy RM Hare - Ditext
Broad's inclination to understate the bearing of ethical studies on moral questions is the historical result of the work of Moore, as extended by Prichard, and ...
[54]
A Defence of Empiricism - A. J. Ayer: Memorial Essays
I shall begin by examining the contribution of the Cambridge philosopher G. E. Moore. Though he first owed his fame to his book Principia Ethica (Moore ...
[55]
MOORE AS AN ORDINARY-LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHER - jstor
that Moore's influence has been greatest on ordinary-language philosophers such as J. L. Austin, D. F. Pears, P. F. Strawson, and Gilbert Ryle, this still ...
[56]
[PDF] Emotivism and Internalism: Ayer and Stevenson
Indeed, Stevenson argued, it is precisely this connection to motivation and feeling, 'the emotive meaning of ethical terms', that explains what Moore had ...
[57]
Emotivism and the Verification Principle - jstor
Jan 12, 1998 · Ayer's account of morals lies directly under the influence of the work of G.E. Moore, especially Moore's indictment of naturalism in ...
[58]
G. E. Moore - Ditext
In 1921 he became editor of Mind, on the retirement of G. F. Stout. In 1925 he succeeded James Ward as Professor of Philosophy in Cambridge, and in the same ...Missing: resignation 1939 health 1921-1947