How do we know anything?

An extract from What Does it All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy by Thomas Nagel, 19!" #xford $ni%ersity Press"
If you thin& about it the inside of your o'n mind is the only thing you can be sure of" (hate%er you belie%e )
'hether it*s about the sun, moon and stars, the house and neighbourhood in 'hich you li%e, history, science,
other people, e%en the existence of your o'n body ) is based on your experiences and thoughts, feelings and
sense impressions" That*s all you ha%e to go on directly, 'hether you see the boo& in your hands, or feel the floor
under your feet, or remember that +eorge (ashington 'as the first president of the $nited States, or that 'ater is
,-#" .%erything else is further a'ay from you that your inner experiences and thoughts, and reaches you only
through them"
#rdinarily you ha%e not doubts about the existence of the floor under your feet, or the tree outside the 'indo', or
your o'n teeth" In fact most of the time you don*t e%en thin& about the mental states that ma&e you a'are of
those things/ you seem to be a'are of them directly" 0ut ho' do you &no' they really exist1
If you try to argue that there must be an external physical 'orld, because you 'ouldn*t see buildings, people or
stars unless there 'ere things out there that reflected or shed light into your eyes and caused your %isual
experiences, the reply is ob%ious/ ,o' do you &no' that1 It*s 2ust another claim about the external 'orld and your
relation to it, and has to be based on the e%idence of your senses" 0ut you can rely on that e%idence about ho'
%isual experiences are caused only if you can already rely in general on the contents of your mind to tell you
about the external 'orld" And that is exactly 'hat has been called into 3uestion" If you try to pro%e the reliability of
your impressions by appealing to your impressions, you*re arguing in a circle and 'on*t get any'here"
(ould things seem any different to you if in fact all these things existed only in your mind ) if e%erything you too&
to be the real 'orld outside 'as 2ust a giant dream or hallucination, from 'hich you 'ill ne%er 'a&e up1 If it 'ere
li&e that, then of course you couldn*t 'a&e up, as you can from a dream, because it 'ould mean there 'as no
4real4 'orld to 'a&e up into" So it 'ouldn4t be exactly li&e a normal dream or hallucination As 'e usually thin& of
dreams, they go on in the minds of people 'ho are actually lying in a real bed in a real house, e%en if in the dream
they are running a'ay from a homicidal la'nmo'er through the streets of 5ansas 6ity (e also assume that
normal dreams depend on 'hat is happening in the dreamer4s brain 'hile he sleeps"
0ut couldn4t all your experiences be li&e a giant dream 'ith no external 'orld outside it1 ,o' can you &no' that
isn4t 'hat4s going on1 If all your experience 'ere a dream 'ith nothing outside, then any e%idence you tried to use
to pro%e to yourself that there 'as an outside 'orld 'ould 2ust be part of the dream" If you &noc&ed on the table or
pinched yourself, you 'ould hear the &noc& and feel the pinch, but that 'ould be 2ust one more thing going on
inside your mind li&e e%erything else" It4s no use/ if you 'ant to find out 'hether 'hat4s inside your mind is any
guide to 'hat4s outside your mind, you can4t depend on ho' things seem 7 from inside your mind 7 to gi%e you the
ans'er"
0ut 'hat else is there to depend on1 All your e%idence about anything has to come through your mind 7 'hether
in the form of perception, the testimony of boo&s and other people, or memory 7 and it is entirely consistent 'ith
e%erything you4re a'are of that nothing at all exists except the inside of your mind" It4s e%en possible that you
don4t ha%e a body or a brain 7 since your beliefs about that come only through the e%idence of your senses"
8ou4%e ne%er seen your brain 7 you 2ust
assume that e%erybody has one 7 but e%en if you had seen it, or thought you had, that 'ould ha%e been 2ust
another %isual experience 9aybe you, the sub2ect of experience, are the only thing that exists, and there is no
physical 'orld at all 7 no stars, no earth, no human bodies" 9aybe there isn4t e%en any space"
The most radical conclusion to dra' from this 'ould be that your mind is the only thing that exists" This %ie' is
called solipsism It is a %ery lonely %ie', and not too many people ha%e held it" As you can tell from that remar&, I
don4t hold it myself" If I 'ere a solipsist I probably 'ouldn4t be 'riting this boo&, since I 'ouldn4t belie%e there 'as
anybody else to read it" #n the other hand, perhaps I 'ould 'rite it to ma&e my inner life more interesting, by
including the impression of the appearance of the boo& in print, of other people reading it and telling me their
reactions, and so forth" I might e%en get the impression of royalties, if I4m luc&y"
1
Perhaps you are a solipsist in that case you 'ill regard this boo& as a product of your o'n mind, coming into
existence in your experience as you read it" #b%iously nothing I can say can pro%e to you that I really exist, or that
the boo& as a physical ob2ect exists"
#n the other hand, to conclude that you are the only thing that exists is more than the e%idence 'arrants" 8ou
can4t &no' on the basis of 'hat4s in your mind that there4s no 'orld outside it" Perhaps the right conclusion is the
more modest one that you don4t &no' anything beyond your impressions and experiences" There may or may not
be an external 'orld, and if there is it may or may not be completely different from ho' it seems to you 7 there4s
no 'ay for you to tell" This %ie' is called scepticism about the external 'orld"
An e%en stronger form of scepticism is possible" Similar arguments seem to sho' that you don4t &no' anything
e%en about your o'n past existence and experiences, since all you ha%e to go on are the present contents of your
mind, including memory impressions If you can4t be sure that the 'orld outside your mind exists no', ho' can
you be sure that you yourself existed before no'1 ,o' do you &no' you didn4t 2ust come into existence a fe'
minutes ago, complete 'ith all your present memories1 The only e%idence that you couldn4t ha%e come into
existence a fe' minutes ago depends on beliefs about ho' people and their memories are produced, 'hich rely
in turn on beliefs about 'hat has happened in the past" 0ut to rely on those beliefs to pro%e that you existed in the
past 'ould again be to argue in a circle" 8ou 'ould be assuming the reality of the past to pro%e the reality of the
past"
It seems that you are stuc& 'ith nothing you can be sure of except the contents of your o'n mind at the present
moment" And it seems that anything you try to do to argue your 'ay out of this predicament 'ill fail, because the
argument 'ill ha%e to assume 'hat you are trying to pro%e 7 the existence of the external 'orld beyond your mind"
Suppose, for instance, you argue that there must be an external 'orld, because it is incredible that you should be
ha%ing all these experiences 'ithout there being some explanation in terms of external causes" The sceptic can
ma&e t'o replies" :irst, e%en if there are external causes, ho' can you tell from the contents of your experience
'hat those causes are li&e1 8ou4%e ne%er obser%ed any of them directly" Second, 'hat is the basis of your idea
that e%erything has to ha%e an explanation1 It*s true that in your normal, non7philosophical conception of the
'orld, processes li&e those 'hich go on in your mind are caused, at least in part, by other things outside them"
0ut you can4t assume that this is true if 'hat you4re trying to figure out is ho' you &no' anything about the 'orld
outside your mind" And there is no 'ay to pro%e such a principle 2ust by loo&ing at 'hat4s inside your mind"
,o'e%er plausible the principle may seem to you, 'hat reason do you ha%e to belie%e that it applies to the 'orld1
Science 'on4t help us 'ith this problem either, though it might seem to" In ordinary scientific thin&ing, 'e rely on
general principles of explanation to pass from the 'ay the 'orld first seems to us to a different conception of 'hat
it is really li&e" (e try to explain the appearance in terms of a theory that describes the reality behind them, a
reality that 'e can4t obser%e directly" That is ho' physics and chemistry conclude that all the things 'e see
around us are composed of in%isibly small atoms" 6ould 'e argue that the general belief in the external 'orld has
the same &ind of scientific bac&ing as the belief in atoms1
The sceptic4s ans'er is that the process of scientific reasoning raises the same sceptical problem 'e ha%e been
considering all along science is 2ust as %ulnerable as perception" ,o' can 'e &no' that the 'orld outside our
minds corresponds to our ideas of 'hat 'ould be a good theoretical explanation of our obser%ations1 If 'e can4t
establish the reliability of our sense experiences in relation to the external 'orld, there4s no reason to thin& 'e can
rely on our scientific theories either"
There is another %ery different response to the problem" Some 'ould argue that radical scepticism of the &ind I
ha%e been tal&ing about is meaningless, because the idea of an external reality that no one could e%er disco%er is
meaningless" The argument is that a dream, for instance, has to be something from 'hich you can 'a&e up to
disco%er you ha%e been asleep; a hallucination has to be something 'hich others <or you later= can see is not
really there" Impressions and experiences that do not correspond to reality must be contrasted 'ith others that do
correspond to reality, or else the contrast bet'een appearance and reality is meaningless"
According to this %ie', the idea of a dream from 'hich you can ne%er 'a&e up is not the idea of a dream at all/ it
is the idea of reality ) the real 'orld in 'hich you li%e" #ur idea of the things that exist is 2ust our idea of 'hat 'e
2
can obser%e" <This %ie' is sometimes called %erificationism=" Sometimes our obser%ations are mista&en, but that
means they can be corrected by other obser%ations ) as 'hen you 'a&e up from a dream, or disco%er that 'hat
you thought 'as a sna&e 'as 2ust a shado' on the grass" 0ut 'ithout some possibility of a correct %ie' of ho'
things are <either yours or someone else*s=, the thought that your impressions of the 'orld are not true is
meaningless"
If this is right, then the sceptic is &idding himself if he thin&s he can imagine that the only thing that exists is his
o'n mind" ,e is &idding himself, because it couldn*t really be true that the physical 'orld doesn*t really exist,
unless somebody could obser%e that it doesn*t exist" And 'hat the sceptic is trying to imagine is precisely that
there is no one to obser%e that or anything else ) except of course the sceptic himself, and all he can obser%e is
the inside of his o'n mind" So solipsism is meaningless" It tries to subtract the external 'orld from the totality of
my impressions; but it fails, because if the external 'orld is subtracted, they stop being mere impressions, and
become instead perceptions of reality"
Is this argument against solipsism and s&epticism any good1 Not unless reality can be defined as 'hat 'e can
obser%e" 0ut are 'e really unable to understand the idea of a real 'orld, or a fact about reality, that can*t be
obser%ed by anyone, human or other'ise1
The sceptic 'ill claim that if there is an external 'orld, the things in it are obser%able because they exist, and not
the other 'ay around/ that existence is not the same thing as obser%ability" And although 'e get the idea of
dreams and hallucinations from cases 'here 'e thin& 'e can obser%e the contrast bet'een our experiences and
reality, it certainly seems as if the same idea can be extended to cases 'here the reality is not obser%able"
If that is right, it seems to follo' that it is not meaningless to thin& that the 'orld might consist of nothing but the
inside of your mind, though neither you nor anyone else could find out that this 'as true" And if this is not
meaningless, but is a possibility you must consider, there seems no 'ay to pro%e that it is false, 'ithout arguing in
a circle" So there may be no 'ay out of the cage of your o'n mind" This is sometimes called the ego centric
predicament"
And yet, after all this has been said, I ha%e to admit it is practically impossible to belie%e seriously that all the
things in the 'orld around you might not really exist #ur acceptance of the external 'orld is instincti%e and
po'erful/ 'e cannot 2ust get rid of it by philosophical arguments Not only do 'e go on acting as if other people
and things exist/ 'e belie%e that they do, e%en after 'e4%e gone through the arguments 'hich appear to sho' 'e
ha%e no grounds for this belief <(e may ha%e grounds, 'ithin the o%erall system of our beliefs about the 'orld, for
more particular beliefs about the existence of particular things li&e a mouse in the breadbox, for example" 0ut that
is different" It assumes the existence of the external 'orld="
If a belief in the 'orld outside our minds comes so naturally to us, perhaps 'e don4t need grounds for it" (e can
2ust let it be and hope that 'e4re right" And that in fact is 'hat most people do after gi%ing up the attempt to pro%e
it e%en if they can4t gi%e reasons against scepticism, they can4t li%e 'ith it either 0ut this means that 'e hold on to
most of our ordinary beliefs about the 'orld in face of the fact that <a= they might be completely false, and <b= 'e
ha%e no basis for ruling out that possibility"
(e are left then 'ith three 3uestions/
Is it a meaningful possibility that the inside of your mind is the only thing that exists 7 or that e%en if there
is a 'orld outside your mind, it is totally unli&e 'hat you belie%e it to be1
If these things are possible, do you ha%e any 'ay of pro%ing to yourself that they are not actually true1
If you can4t pro%e that anything exists outside your o'n mind, is it all right to go on belie%ing in the
external 'orld any'ay1
3