Abstract

Moore was first to notice that it is absurd to assert sentences of the form “p, but I don’t believe it.” As it looks even more absurd to believe what such a sentence states, explanations of Moore’s paradox have primarily focused on the beliefs thus asserted. Shoemaker, for example, analyzes these beliefs in terms of conflicting higher order beliefs. Kriegel, in return, provides an explanation in terms of logical contradictions. I shall argue that both accounts rest on the mistaken assumption that assertions are merely uttered judgements. What I show instead is that the episodic aspect of judgements renders it impossible even to have such beliefs.