Philosophical Studies · G. E. Moore
THE REFUTATION OF IDEALISM
But, if all this be true, what follows? Idealists admit that some things really exist of which they are not aware: there are some things, they hold, which are not inseparable aspects of _their_ experience, even if they be inseparable aspects of some experience. They further hold that some of the things of which they are sometimes aware do really exist, even when they are not aware of them: they hold for instance that they are sometimes aware of other minds, which continue to exist even when they are not aware of them. They are, therefore, sometimes aware of something which is _not_ an inseparable aspect of their own experience. They do _know some_ things which are _not_ a mere part or content of their experience. And what my analysis of sensation has been designed to show is, that whenever I have a mere sensation or idea, the fact is that I am then aware of something which is equally and in the same sense _not_ an inseparable aspect of my experience. The awareness which I have maintained to be included in sensation is the very same unique fact which constitutes every kind of knowledge: "blue" is as much an object, and as little a mere content, of my experience, when I experience it, as the most exalted and independent real thing of which I am ever aware. There is, therefore, no question of how we are to "get outside the circle of our own ideas and sensations." Merely to have a sensation is already to _be_ outside that circle. It is to know something which is as truly and really _not_ a part of _my_ experience, as anything which I can ever know.
Now I think I am not mistaken in asserting that the reason why Idealists suppose that everything which _is_ must be an inseparable aspect of some experience, is that they suppose some things, at least, to be inseparable aspects of _their_ experience. And there is certainly nothing which they are so firmly convinced to be an inseparable aspect of their experience as what they call the _content_ of their ideas and sensations. If, therefore, _this_ turns out in every case, whether it be also the content or not, to be at least _not_ an inseparable aspect of the experience of it, it will be readily admitted that nothing else which _we_ experience ever is such an inseparable aspect. But if we never experience anything but what is _not_ an inseparable aspect of _that_ experience, how can we infer that anything whatever, let alone _everything,_ is an inseparable aspect of _any_ experience? How utterly unfounded is the assumption that "_esse_ is _percipi"_ appears in the clearest light.
But further I think it may be seen that if the object of an Idealist's sensation were, as he supposes, _not_ the object but merely the content of that sensation, if, that is to say, it really were an inseparable aspect of his experience, each Idealist could never be aware either of himself or of any other real thing. For the relation of a sensation to its object is certainly the same as that of any other instance of experience to its object; and this, I think, is generally admitted even by Idealists: they state as readily that _what_ is judged or thought or perceived is the _content_ of that judgment or thought or perception, as that blue Is the content of the sensation of blue. But, if so, then when any Idealist thinks he is _aware_ of himself or of any one else, this cannot really be the case. The fact Is, on his own theory, that himself and that other person are in reality mere _contents_ of an awareness, which is aware _of_ nothing whatever. All that can be said is that there is an awareness in him, _with_ a certain content: it can never be true that there is in him a consciousness _of_ anything. And similarly he is never aware either of the fact that he exists or that reality is spiritual. The real fact, which he describes in those terms, is that his existence and the spirituality of reality are _contents_ of an awareness, which is aware of nothing--certainly not, then, of it own content.
And further if everything, of which he thinks he is aware, is in reality merely a content of his own experience he has certainly no _reason_ for holding that anything does exist except himself: it will, of course, be possible that other persons do exist; solipsism will not be necessarily true; but he cannot possibly infer from anything he holds that it is not true. That he himself exists will of course follow from his premiss that many things are contents of _his_ experience. But since everything, of which he thinks himself aware, is in reality merely an inseparable aspect of that awareness; this premiss allows no inference that any of these contents, far less any other consciousness, exists at all except as an inseparable aspect of his awareness, that is, as part of himself. Such, and not those which he takes to follow from it, are the consequences which _do_ follow from the Idealist's supposition that the object of an experience is in reality merely a content or inseparable aspect of that experience.
If, on the other hand, we clearly recognise the nature of that peculiar relation which I have called "awareness of anything"; if we see that _this_ is involved equally in the analysis of _every_ experience--from the merest sensation to the most developed perception or reflexion, and that _this_ is in fact the only essential element in an experience--the only thing that is both common and peculiar to all experiences--the only thing which gives us reason to call any fact mental; if, further, we recognise that this awareness is and must be in all cases of such a nature that its object, when we are aware of it, is precisely what it would be, if we were not aware: then it becomes plain that the existence of a table in space is related to my experience of _it_ in precisely the same way as the existence of my own experience is related to my experience of _that._ Of both we are merely aware: if we are aware that the one exists, we are aware in precisely the same sense that the other exists; and if it is true that my experience can exist, even when I do not happen to be aware of its existence, we have exactly the same reason for supposing that the table can do so also.
When, therefore, Berkeley, supposed that the only thing of which I am directly aware is my own sensations and ideas, he supposed what was false; and when Kant supposed that the objectivity of things in space _consisted_ in the fact that they were "Vorstellungen" having to one another different relations from those which the same "Vorstellungen" have to one another in subjective experience, he supposed what was equally false. I am as directly aware of the existence of material things in space as of my own sensations; and _what_ I am aware of with regard to each is exactly the same--namely that in one case the material thing, and in the other case my sensation does really exist. The question requiring to be asked about material things is thus not: What reason have we for supposing that anything exists _corresponding_ to our sensations? but: What reason have we for supposing that material things do _not_ exist, since _their_ existence has precisely the same evidence as that of our sensations? That either exist _may_ be false; but if it is a reason for doubting the existence of matter, that it is an inseparable aspect of our experience, the same reasoning will prove conclusively that our experience does not exist either, since that must also be an inseparable aspect of our experience of _it._ The only _reasonable_ alternative to the admission that matter exists _as well as_ spirit, is absolute Scepticism--that, as likely as not _nothing_ exists at all. All other suppositions--the Agnostic's, that something, at all events, does exist, as much as the Idealist's, that spirit does--are, if we have no reason for believing in matter, as baseless as the grossest superstitions. [1] _International Journal of Ethics,_ October, 1902.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.