Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

Postprint

Publication Date

9-2013

Abstract

Moore’s paradox is the fact that assertions or beliefs such as Bangkok is the capital of Thailand but I do not believe that Bangkok is the capital of Thailand or Bangkok is the capital of Thailand but I believe that Bangkok is not the capital of Thailand are ‘absurd’ yet possibly true. The current orthodoxy is that an explanation of the absurdity should first start with belief, on the assumption that once the absurdity in belief has been explained then this will translate into an explanation of the absurdity in assertion. This assumption gives explanatory priority to belief over assertion. I show that the translation involved is much trickier than might at first appear. It is simplistic to think that Moorean absurdity in assertion is always a subsidiary product of the absurdity in belief, even when the absurdity is conceived as irrationality. Instead we should aim for explanations of Moorean absurdity in assertion and in belief that are independent even if related, while bearing in mind that some forms of irrationality may be forms of absurdity even if not conversely.

Keywords

Moore’s paradox, Assertion, Belief, Absurdity, Irrationality, Expression, Norms

Discipline

Philosophy

Research Areas

Humanities

Publication

Philosophical Studies

Volume

165

Issue

3

First Page

1117

Last Page

1138

ISSN

0031-8116

Identifier

10.1007/s11098-012-9997-1

Publisher

Springer Verlag

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Additional URL

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9997-1

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS