Although we will be reading work in which Moore addresses issues of analysis related to the theory of knowledge, Moore was as well known in the early part of his career (i.e., before WWI) for work in ethics. And that work had a surprisingly broad impact (especially given his unusual writing style); it was, for example, taken as an inspiration by the modernist writers and artists known as the “Bloomsbury Group.”

We will read the two papers outside his early work in ethics for which Moore is now best known. These papers represent a side of Moore that is important for its influence on Wittgenstein, who returned to Moore’s ideas repeatedly in his later work. The first of these papers, “A Defense of Common Sense,” was published (in 1925) in a collection providing a sample of then-contemporary work in British philosophy. Although Moore and Russell had initially broken with the idealists 20 years before, they were still an important force in British philosophy, and Moore’s arguments are directed mainly at them. He considers a number of points of difference that he groups into five unequal sections. We will focus on the three longest (I, II, and IV), and we will probably spend most of the class on the first, which constitutes half the paper.

Although Moore’s arguments are important, his style is important, too. The extreme care with which he states his views, can make it difficult to get a sense of just what these views are, so you will need to push past these careful statements. Still, this care seems closely tied to the aspects of his philosophical activity that influenced the Bloomsbury Group and Wittgenstein, so you should at some point think about it for its own sake. What is he careful about, and how do you suppose he would respond if you asked why he was so careful? A second aspect of his style is more closely related to the content of his arguments: he will make clear claims of certainty and uncertainty, and you should think about the difference between the things he feels certain of and the things about which he feels doubt.

I won’t outline Moore’s arguments since he presents them in the framework of an outline. It would be a good exercise to convert this (either on paper or in your head) to an outline summary with only a line or two for each item of his outline. Also as you read, you should also mark points that seem puzzling. I’ll suggest that our discussion on Tuesday work through such difficulties in the course of attempting to formulate an outline summary of his arguments in I (going on to II or IV if there is time).