Philosophical Studies

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 383–414 | Cite as

Moore’s Paradoxes and Conscious Belief*

  • John Nicholas Williams


For Moore, it is a paradox that although I would be absurd in asserting that (it is raining but I don’t believe it is) or that (it is raining but I believe it isn’t), such assertions might be true. But I would be also absurd in judging that the contents of such assertions are true. I argue for the strategy of explaining the absurdity of Moorean assertion in terms of conscious Moorean belief. Only in this way may the pathology of Moorean absurdity be adequately explained in terms of self-contradiction. David Rosenthal disagrees with this strategy. Ironically, his higher-order thought account has the resources to fulfil it. Indeed once modified and supplemented, it compares favourably with Brentano’s rival account of conscious belief.


Rival Account Conscious Belief Moorean Belief Moorean Assertion Moorean Absurdity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin, J.L. (1970): ‘Other Minds’ in Philosophical Papers 2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, T. 1990G. E. MooreRoutledgeLondon and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brentano, F. (1874): in L.L. McAlister, (trans.), A.C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell and L.L. McAlister (eds.), Psychology from Empirical Standpoint, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. Almeida, C. 2001‘What Moore’s Paradox is About’Philosophy and Phenomenological Research623358Google Scholar
  5. Evans, G. 1982The Varieties of ReferenceOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Heal, J. 1994‘Moore’s Paradox: A Wittgensteinian Approach’Mind103524Google Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J. 1962Knowledge and BeliefCornell University PressCornellGoogle Scholar
  8. Kriegel, U. 2004‘Moore’s Paradox and the Structure of Conscious Belief’Erkenntnis6199121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Moore, G.E. (1993): Selected Essays, T. Baldwin (ed.), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, G.E. 1944‘Russell’s Theory of Descriptions’Schilpp,  eds. The Philosophy of Bertrand RussellTudorEvanston175225Google Scholar
  11. Moore, G.E. 1942‘A Reply to My Critics’Schilpp, P. eds. The Philosophy of G. E. MooreTudorEvanston535677Google Scholar
  12. Rosenthal, D.M. 1995a‘Moore’s Paradox and Consciousness’Philosophical Perspectives9313333Google Scholar
  13. Rosenthal, D.M. 1995‘Self-knowledge and Moore’s Paradox’Philosophical Studies77196209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenthal, D.M. 1997‘A Theory of Consciousness’Block, N.J.Flanagan, O.Guzeldere, G. eds. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical DebatesMIT Press and Bradford BooksCambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenthal, D.M. 2002‘Moore’s Paradox and Crimmins’ Case’Analysis62167171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shoemaker, S. 1995‘Moore’s Paradox and Self-Knowledge’Philosophical Studies77211228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shoemaker, S. 1988‘On Knowing One’s Own Mind’Philosophical Perspectives2183209Google Scholar
  18. Sorensen, R.A. 1988BlindspotsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Sorensen, R.A. 2000‘Moore’s Problem with Iterated Belief’Philosophical Quarterly502843Google Scholar
  20. Stalnaker, R. 1975‘Indicative Conditionals’Philosophia75269286Google Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R. 1984InquiryMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams, J.N. 1994‘Moorean Absurdity and the Intentional “Structure” of Assertion’Analysis5416066Google Scholar
  23. Williams, J.N. 1996‘Moorean Absurdities and the Nature of Assertion’Australasian Journal of Philosophy7413549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams, J.N. 1998‘Wittgensteinian Accounts of Moorean Absurdity’Philosophical Studies92283306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wittgenstein, L. (1980): in G. Anscombe and G. von Wright, (eds.), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology Vol. 1 Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and Social SciencesSingapore Management UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations