Moore Paradox Essay

1230 Words3 Pages

Matthew Ang
83393632
27 August 2017
Puzzles and Paradoxes
Second Paper
Moore’s Paradox In order to understand the concept of Moore’s Paradox, we must first assess and understand the behavior of logical and performative contradictions. Credited for devising and examining this paradox, George Edward Moore, a British philosopher who taught at the University of Cambridge and studied ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics describes the paradox in its omissive and commissive forms in which we will discuss thoroughly. I will then express my standpoint on which solution is the most optimal choice for Moore’s Paradox in order to analyze and explain why I believe my solution is superior to other solutions. I will also discuss any issues that arise …show more content…

A logical contradiction is an assertion or a claim that contains both a proposition and its denial given in the form p and not-p. In this case, both of these statements cannot both be true due to the law of noncontradiction. Similar to the principle of bivalence, this law states the declarative statement must be either true or false and cannot be both true at the same time in the same sense. A classic example of a logical contradiction is to assert that “it is raining and it is not raining.” The proposition p is “it is raining” and its denial not-p is “it is not raining.” Because “it is raining” and “it is not raining” cannot be both true at the same time, this statement leads to a logical contradiction when we assume the principle of bivalence or the law of noncontradiction. Some other examples would include statements such as “I know that nothing can be known” and “All general claims have exceptions.” Unlike a logical contradiction, a performative contradiction arises “when the content of an assertion contradicts the act of asserting it or the presuppositions of asserting …show more content…

For example, “It is raining but I don‘t believe it is” (Moore 1942: 543) is a Moorean statement because even though it appears as an absurd statement, it can still be true which is paradoxical. Moorean statements come in two forms: omissive and commissive. The omissive form is when a statement follows the following arrangement: p and I do not believe that p. The example we just used was a Moorean statement in its omissive form where “it is raining” is p and “I do not believe it is” is the second part of the form. Asserting that “it is raining” (p), one implies that one believes in their assertion. This is Moore’s first principle (1942). However, that means it contradicts with the second statement that “I do not believe it is” resulting in a paradox. It demonstrates that what one asserts and what one implies by asserting it would ultimately lead to a contradiction. The commissive form is when a statement follows the following arrangement: p and I believe that not-p or I believe that p, but it is not the case for p. An example of this would be “It is raining and I believe that it is not raining.” Asserting the “it is raining” (p), one also implies that one does not believe in not-p. This is Moore’s second principle (1944). In this case, it implies that I do not believe it is not raining which is contradictory to the second part of the

Open Document