aim about something using that something as your source. He claims that one then, cannot rely on things inside the mind to prove what is outside the mind (10). The most radical conclusion he alleges we can draw from this, is solipsism: the only thing that one can know exists is ones mind (or conception of it) (11). This is, of course, Descartes main theory, methodological skepticism, encapsulated in his infamous statement I think therefore I exist. Basically, the skepticism lies in the actuality that one knows nothing beyond their experiences and impressions (12). Nagel delves deeper into Descartes theory, posing question such as how do we know we have existed before now, that there are causes when we have never seen them first-hand, and that there has to be such thing as explanation? (13). Nagel then moves on to science, stating: science is just as vulnerable as perception (14); our scientific theories rely on the trustworthiness of our sense experiences. He also gives a short look at verificationism, the idea that our reality is just our idea of what we can observe (15). Nagel concludes these ideas stating that solipsism tries to get rid of the external world from ones impressions, but, if the external world is taken away, impressions become perceptions of reality, as shown through verificationism (16). Is reality merely what can be observed though? Nagel answers with the egocentric theory; the mind is our cage, we cannot exceed it, therefore, we end up arguing in circles (17). Although with Nagel, we are still left with many, more specific questions, we are left with the statement that a belief in the world outside our minds comes so naturally to us, perhaps we dont need grounds for it. (18). This is the rational conclusion we are left with: perhaps it is better to continue believing reality is reliable, for it is practically impossible not to (17). Commonalities and Contrasts of Pierce and Nagel The contrast between th...
