Moorean Absurdity and the Intentional 'Structure' of Assertion

Analysis 54 (3):160 - 166 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,401

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
137 (#166,382)

6 months
13 (#197,488)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John N. Williams
Singapore Management University

Citations of this work

Assertion is weak.Matthew Mandelkern & Kevin Dorst - 2022 - Philosophers' Imprint 22.
Believing epistemic contradictions.Beddor Bob & Simon Goldstein - 2018 - Review of Symbolic Logic (1):87-114.
Moore's paradox and epistemic norms.Clayton Littlejohn - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

A reply to my critics.George Edward Moore - 1952 - In Paul Arthur Schilpp, The philosophy of G. E. Moore. New York,: Tudor Pub. Co..
Meaning, communication, and knowledge.John McDowell - 1980 - In Z. Van Straaten, Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson. New York: Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 1.
Moore's Paradox: One or Two?John N. Williams - 1979 - Analysis 39 (3):141 - 142.
Moore's Paradox, Assertion and Knowledge.O. R. Jones - 1991 - Analysis 51 (4):183 - 186.
Believing the Self-Contradictory.John N. Williams - 1982 - American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (3):279 - 285.

View all 6 references / Add more references