“Here is one hand, and here is another…I knew that there was one hand in the place indicated by combining a certain gesture with my first utterance of “here” and that there was another in the different place indicated by combining a certain gesture with my second utterance of “here”
To prove the existence of the external world Moore uses the demonstration of two hands to fulfill the three criteria for a good proof. Firstly, the premises have to be different from the end result, secondly, it has to be demonstrated and lastly, the conclusion should trail from these premises. Moore insists that the skeptics cannot offer the same argument to prove their metaphysical premises hence common sense triumphs. Rather than dwell on the propositions by the skeptics he argues that the two hands are enough to meet the criteria required. In the statement, Moore expounds on the demonstration of gesturing the hands that are to be met with in space.
“The conception "presented in space" is therefore, in one respect, much wider than the conception "to be met with in space"; many "things" fall under the first conception which do not fall under the second”
Moore begins by referencing Kant’s argument regarding proving the existence of the external world. Therefore, proceeds to interpret the semantics that might mislead the meaning of “things” as he continues to argue. He compares the meaning of ‘presented in space’ and ‘met with in space’ to clarify what he means by external things. He presents bodily pains and after-images as things that are presented rather than met with in space. Moore is referring to things that are outside of us when proving his point about the external world. Therefore, certain things that are not material but are presented in space do not fall under Kant’s phrase of things met with in space.
“I held up two hands above this desk not very long ago; therefore two hands existed not very long ago; therefore at least two external objects have existed at some time in the past”
Moore solidifies his argument by fulfilling every criterion that might be implied in Kant’s philosophy on existence. His epistemological argument proves the existence of the external world but at that particular moment. He continues to argue that the same demonstration is still foolproof because it can prove its existence in the past. Existence can only be proved if it can be shown to exist in the past too. In order to remove the scandal of not being able to secure the proof as per Kant’s criteria, Moore presents the above argument.
