The question of the world existing brings forth two main arguments: “I know the world exists” and “I do not know the world exists.” It is due to the possibility of doubt that these two issues arise. The question of which hypothesis is correct out of one whom doubts sense-data, which are things immediately known to us in sensation, one whom believes solely in one’s independent sense-data or one whom believes that one’s mind along with others work independently, remains unclear to many. These different views on the issue have been discussed in several works, including works from René Descartes and Bertrand Russell. This issue is important because it questions reality due to the fact that there is not absolute certainty that everyday things are physically there or are constructed in one’s mind.
Wisdom can only be obtained by forming a relationship with one’s mindset and something outside one’s sensory knowledge. To state that human’s knowledge is in the mind is agreeing with the fact that mankind has limited wisdom and transmission of information. Although it could be argued that “the world consists of nothing but minds and their ideas,” (Bertrand 1954; 4) in fact the natural view is more plausible, where one is actually experiencing physical objects that do not depend on our perspicacity for their continuation.
Descartes quest for certainty
Descartes strived for certainty, and the only things he concluded that were certain were himself and God. He exclaimed that it was possible for the earth and all its’ features to be mirages of the mind, he declared that the same was not possible for God. God is a perfect being and it would be unachievable for an imperfect being, such as a human, to invent such an idea. Since all else are subject to uncertainty, God’s existence is the most confident (Descartes; 1641). It is practical to say that all doubts of the world and reality can be discarded because of God’s existence. Since one’s perceptions come from God, all awareness must be true. Mankind is deceived when one relies solely on themselves and not in correlation with God’s objects that He provided.
Bertrand’s Common Sense Premise
The differences in people’s experiences of physical objects are not due to the fact that they view something different in their mind; but the variation depends on the viewpoint and the reflection. Public neutral objects, which are objects that are in a room and everyone can see, evidently exist. “With the naked eye one can see the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughness and hills and valleys,” (Bertrand 1954; 3). This is not because one’s mind is deceiving, but because it always depends on the circumstance of observation. One cannot doubt the alertness of one’s sensations. Russell believes that the table is real and that it does exist independent of us. The same can be said for other people. Russell states that the world is only doubted because it is unable to be alike in every way with our sense data; however, physical objects still are similar to our sense data. Consequently, the natural belief, in all its’ simplicity, seems much more feasible than the dreaming premise. In concluding physical objects existence, the conviction and assertion in our senses have been correctly located and one knows the world does exist.
The possibility of doubt can easily be miscomprehended and made to look as if one does not know the world exists.
Descartes found himself utterly unsatisfied with the Aristotelian schooling because he did not find the certainty that he had been promised to find (Descartes 1637). He set out to complete his studies within himself instead. During his search for certainty, he eventually began to doubt more and more until he came to the conclusion that he could doubt virtually everything except himself. In his travels, he came across customs that