Uttering Moorean Sentences and the pragmatics of belief reports

Philosophical Studies 178 (6):1879-1895 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Moore supposedly discovered that there are sentences of a certain form that, though they can be true, no rational human being can sincerely and truly utter any of them. MC and MO are particular instances:MC: “It is raining and I believe that it is not raining”MO: “It is raining and I don’t believe that it is raining”In this paper, I show that there are sentences of the same form as MC and MO that can be sincerely and truly uttered by rational agents. We call sentences of the same form as MC and MO “Moorean Sentences”. In Part II, we go over a standard argument for why sentences of the same form as MC and MO cannot be sincerely and truly uttered, and we explain why this argument is unsound. In explaining why this argument is unsound, we rely on the context-sensitivity of belief-reports and show that the premises of the argument are not all true in the same context. We then employ a general theory of belief reports that incorporates guises to explain why our examples are sincerely utterable while Moore’s sentences are typically not sincerely utterable. The answer will turn on the suggestion that belief reports carry a hidden quantifier over guises, where the domain of quantification is determined by context. We conclude with general lessons about Moore’s Paradox and the supposed limits of first-person belief reports.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Moore's Paradox and Akratic Belief.Eugene Chislenko - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (3):669-690.
Pure Moorean Propositions.Roy A. Sorensen - 1985 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (3):489 - 505.
Self-knowledge and Moore's paradox.David M. Rosenthal - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 77 (2-3):195 - 209.
A way out of the preface paradox?Hannes Leitgeb - 2014 - Analysis 74 (1):ant091.
Consistency of belief.Howard Darmstadter - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (10):301-310.
Understanding belief reports.David Braun - 1998 - Philosophical Review 107 (4):555-595.
A pragmatic solution to Ostertag’s puzzle.Philip Atkins - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.
A preference for sense and reference.Gabriel Segal - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (2):73-89.
Assertion, Moore, and Bayes.Igor Douven - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 144 (3):361-375.
Moore’s paradox in belief and desire.John N. Williams - 2014 - Acta Analytica 29 (1):1-23.
The Use of the Binding Argument in the Debate about Location.Dan Zeman - 2017 - In Sarah-Jane Conrad & Klaus Petrus (eds.), Meaning, Context and Methodology. Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 191-212.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-08-12

Downloads
199 (#97,327)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Frank Hong
University of Hong Kong

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and its limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Philosophical Investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe.
Frege’s Puzzle (2nd edition).Nathan U. Salmon - 1986 - Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Philosophy 76 (297):460-464.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):200-201.

View all 30 references / Add more references