The Brain In The Vat Argument Analysis
Description and critique of Putnam’s solution to scepticism about the external world.
The Brain in the vat argument is centred on a hypothesis that claims that there is a possibility that our senses in relation to the external world are deceived by some sort of a system. He argues that nothing in this world exists except the self and the evil genius that exists solely to deceive us (Scepticism and content externalism, 2012). Putnam however argues against his own hypothesis of brain in a vat, by saying that the claim is “self-refuting”, (Putnam, 1981:7). Hilary Putman presents a transcendental argument as a solution for sceptical hypothesis about the external world. His claim revolves around the way in which our words work, (Barfield, 2014). He first imagines a …show more content…
An example would be the word ‘vat’ which refers to vats external to him and the reference of it is a part of what the word means. He then concludes that if he is not a brain in a vat, he can utter the words “I might be a brain in a vat” meaningfully, but since he already acknowledges in this situation that he is not a brain in a vat, this theory is very much false. Secondly, he focuses on a scenario whereby he is a brain in a vat (Barfield, 2014). If he is a brain in a vat, then his words do not mean what he thinks they mean, thus making all his thoughts wrong regarding what hi words actually mean. In this case, the word ‘vat’ cannot by any chance refer to any real vat outside of him since he has never encountered them, except by illusions (ibid.). All that he thinks are real vats are
The Brain in the vat argument is centred on a hypothesis that claims that there is a possibility that our senses in relation to the external world are deceived by some sort of a system. He argues that nothing in this world exists except the self and the evil genius that exists solely to deceive us (Scepticism and content externalism, 2012). Putnam however argues against his own hypothesis of brain in a vat, by saying that the claim is “self-refuting”, (Putnam, 1981:7). Hilary Putman presents a transcendental argument as a solution for sceptical hypothesis about the external world. His claim revolves around the way in which our words work, (Barfield, 2014). He first imagines a …show more content…
An example would be the word ‘vat’ which refers to vats external to him and the reference of it is a part of what the word means. He then concludes that if he is not a brain in a vat, he can utter the words “I might be a brain in a vat” meaningfully, but since he already acknowledges in this situation that he is not a brain in a vat, this theory is very much false. Secondly, he focuses on a scenario whereby he is a brain in a vat (Barfield, 2014). If he is a brain in a vat, then his words do not mean what he thinks they mean, thus making all his thoughts wrong regarding what hi words actually mean. In this case, the word ‘vat’ cannot by any chance refer to any real vat outside of him since he has never encountered them, except by illusions (ibid.). All that he thinks are real vats are