What Moore's Paradox Is About

Abstract

On the basis of arguments showing that none of the most influential analyses of Moore's paradox yields a successful resolution of the problem, a new analysis of it is offered. It is argued that, in attempting to render verdicts of either inconsistency or self-contradiction or self-refutation, those analyses have all failed to satisfactorily explain why a Moore-paradoxical proposition is such that it cannot be rationally believed. According to the proposed solution put forward here, a Moore-paradoxical proposition is one for which the believer can have no non-overridden evidence. The arguments for this claim make use of some of Peter Klein's views on epistemic defeasibility. It is further suggested that this proposal may have important meta-epistemological implications

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,766

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
111 (#108,436)

6 months
2 (#258,199)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Claudio de Almeida
Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Rio Grande Do Sul

References found in this work

Warrant and Proper Function.Alvin Plantinga - 1993 - Oxford University Press.
Theory of Knowledge.Roderick Chisholm - 1966 - Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Theory of Knowledge.Keith Lehrer - 1990 - Westview Press.
Blindspots.Roy A. Sorensen - 1988 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work

The Puzzle of Metacoherence.Michael Huemer - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (1):1-21.
Moore’s Paradox and the Priority of Belief Thesis.John N. Williams - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (3):1117-1138.
Moore's Paradox and Epistemic Norms.Clayton Littlejohn - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.
Moore's Paradox in Thought: A Critical Survey.John N. Williams - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (1):24-37.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Moore’s Paradox Is About.Claudio De Almeida - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):33-58.
Moore's Paradox.Krista Lawlor & John Perry - 2008 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (3):421 – 427.
Moore’s Paradox and Epistemic Justification.Robert Hambourger - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:1-12.
Moore’s Paradoxes and Conscious Belief.John Nicholas Williams - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 127 (3):383-414.
Self-Knowledge, Rationality and Moore’s Paradox.Jordi Fernández - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (3):533-556.
Moore's Paradox and Epistemic Norms.Clayton Littlejohn - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.
Shoemaker, Self-Blindness and Moore's Paradox.Amy Kind - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):39-48.
Assertion and Belief.Charles Sayward - 1966 - Philosophical Studies 17 (5):74 - 78.