This paper is a response to Prof. B. Sambasiva Prasad’s paper, entitled ‘Wittgenstein’s Criticism of Moore’s Propositions of Certainty: Some Observation’ published in this journal, Volume XX, Number-3, July–September 2003. The objective of Prasad’s paper, as he puts it, is to examine Wittgenstein’s criticism of the propositions of certainty which Moore has made in his essays ‘A Defence of Common Sense’ and ‘Proof of an External World’ with the twin aims of refuting idealism and skepticism and upholding common sense realism. (...) But, a close reading of Prasad’s paper reveals that its main agenda is to defend Moore by justifying his propositions and the realist project as a whole against Wittgenstein’s attack of them in On Certainty. The objective of my paper is to argue that Prasad’s defence of Moore is untenable, since he has tried to side with him without fully comprehending the logic behind Wittgenstein’s criticism of him. Prasad has sought to justify Moore’s propositions and his realism without taking into account Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language and his conception of proposition, meaning, knowledge, certainty and doubt. My paper is also an attempt at asserting that Wittgenstein’s analysis of the problem of scepticism and the existence of the world and the ‘resolution’ thereof is more profound than those offered by Moore. It seeks to affirm Wittgenstein’s radical remark that the idealists are demented in doubting the existence of the world and the realists are doubly demented in trying to refute the idealists and prove the existence of the world of physical objects. The paper embodies my justification of Wittgenstein’s criticism of Moore on the four important issues with reference to which Prasad has tried to uphold Moore. It constitutes my objections to the observations and arguments which Prasad has made by way of defending Moore and denouncing Wittgenstein on these issues. The issues are the nature of Moore’s propositions; Moore’s use/misuse of the expression ‘I know’; Moore’s and Wittgenstein’s approach to idealism/scepticism; and their world-views. (shrink)

Epistemological foundationalism has typically been thought to hold that in order to account for human knowledge we must countenance the direct Justification of some specific kind of beliefs, such as one's beliefs to the effect that one is having a certain sensation. How else, it may be thought, can one analyse Justification without confronting an infinite regress or a vicious circle? I believe that this conception of foundationalism has been so influential that most foundationalists and nearly all their critics have (...) failed to appreciate that foundationalism may be plausibly construed as a thesis mainly about the structure of a body of Justified beliefs. Central to the thesis, so interpreted, is that one's Justified beliefs divide into foundations and superstructure; but no particular content on the part of either set of beliefs need be required. This latitude regarding content is altogether appropriate; for if we use, as a guide to understanding foundationalism, the famous regress argument, from which the thesis derives much of its plausibility, then the only foundations required by the thesis are beliefs whose Justification does not depend on that of other beliefs. Precisely what beliefs these are is a controversial matter on which foundationalists may differ. (shrink)