• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.341-368
• /
• 2016

Asserting a sentence of the form "p but I do not believe that p" sounds inappropriate, and even absurd or contradictory. The problem that Moore's paradox raises is to explain why asserting such a sentence is absurd despite the fact that there is apparently no logical contradiction in it. Many of the influential accounts of Moore's paradox try to locate its source in the nature of belief or in the nature of assertion. In this paper, I argue that these accounts are not satisfactory, and develop and defend a novel account. According to this account, the source of Moore's paradox should be located in self-reference. Self-reference is constituted by a certain disposition to form second-order beliefs. A subject who is ready to assert "p but I do not believe p" fails to conform to the disposition that is constitutive of self-reference, while at the same time referring to the relevant individual with "I."

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.27-59
• /
• 2011

This paper concerns several versions of conditionalization. In particular, I will examine the relationship between Jeffrey conditionalization and the second order conditionalization concerning updating higher order credences. In section 2, I suggest explicitly what Jeffrey conditionalization and the second order conditionalization are. I will argue in section 3 that Jeffrey conditionalization conflicts with van Fraassen's Reflection Principle while the second order conditionalization doesn't. And I will also argue in section 4 that under some situations, Jeffrey conditionalization may lead agents to Moorean absurdity while the second conditionalization may not. As a result, I will claim that Jeffrey conditionalization is better than the second order contionalization at updating our higher order credences.