Reason for believing in the existence of the world I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus
I can now outline an answer to this.
I experience. ‘Objects’ of experience vary. When I am not experiencing any ‘object’ (ie. Unconscious and not dreaming) I do not seem to cease to exist as I am existing again upon waking.
If I am able to hold a belief in anything I necessarily must attach said belief to some form of existence. I cannot believe in something that I am unable to have any inkling of - such is beyond me (non-existent).
There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. Such is a limit of human understanding (the ONLY understanding we have or can ever have). The horizon is an ever shifting item that will forever remind us of our limitations.
In more day-to-day terms people do not question existence of most things because they are too busy interacting with said things.
In terms of knowledge, what is known remains known with set limits too. A clearly set out abstract realm possesses Truths but non-abstract (day-to-day things) are always subject to some level of scrutiny as our certainty within experience had limits.
I can question this or that World because I cannot hold it all at once. I can question gravity but in day-to-day life I simply pay it no direct attention, just like I pay no heed to my legs moving when I walk.
There are countless perspectives to look at. What remains pretty clear overall is that to ‘believe’ is the existing world is a rather bizarre way of putting things. The answer (just like the no one around to hear a tree question) depends on the approach and meaning of ‘hear’ within the context given. The ‘sound waves’ exist but with no ear to hear it can be argued that there is no sound quite reasonably. To extend this to the totality of existence just leads me to ask why anyone would bother to do so?
The task Kant set himself was to ask ‘What can we know before experience?’