It is absurd to assert or believe both of them at the same time. — Luke
"It is raining outside" - when and if if spoken sincerely - is spoken by a language user who believes that it is raining outside. — creativesoul
Again, what does sincerity have to do with it? What it means and whether or not it's true has nothing to do with what the speaker believes. — Michael
Seeing how we're talking about the absurdity of particular belief statements, and the two are contradictory, and it is impossible to believe both at the same time, it matters. — creativesoul
Why would you assert it to be true if you don't believe it? — Luke
Why is it that "It is raining outside" - when and if if spoken sincerely - is spoken by a language user who believes that it is raining outside?
What is the necessary link which makes it impossible for someone to sincerely say "It's raining outside" (a statement about the state of affairs of the world), when they believe it is not (a state of their internal mind) — Isaac
Again, I'm not saying "I believe that it is raining and I believe that it is not raining". I'm saying "It is raining and I believe that it is not raining".
There is only one belief; the belief that it is not raining. So where is this contradiction? — Michael
My name is Andrew. The Moon is made of cheese. Liquorice is delicious.
There are many reasons that one might assert something that they don't believe to be true. But what does the motivation of the speaker have to do with it? — Michael
If you're sincerely saying that it is raining, then you believe it is raining. If you believe that it is raining, then you cannot believe that it is not. — creativesoul
As I said, the absurdity is in the dual assertion. You need to deal with both parts of the assertion, not just one. — Luke
...a lie is not the same thing as a contradiction or an aburdity. — Michael
One cannot believe both simultaneously; that it is raining outside, and that it is not raining outside. — creativesoul
I did explain it above. You didn't respond to it (to both aspects of it). To repeat:
Why would you assert it to be true if you don't believe it? And why would you not believe it if you are asserting it to be true? — Luke
That one is. — creativesoul
There are lots of reasons that someone might lie. But what does their reason for lying have to do with the supposed absurdity of the assertion? — Michael
I don't see what difference lying makes. Even if I were to lie in asserting that it's raining, what sense does it make to also assert that I don't believe that it's raining? — Luke
The absurdity is in someone asserting ‘P is true but I don’t believe P’. — Luke
The absurdity is in someone asserting ‘P is true but I don’t believe P’. — Luke
Let me see if I follow your thinking here. Let’s assume it’s not really raining, but I lie about it. I assert ‘It’s raining but I believe it’s not raining’. This is a perfectly logical thing to say? — Luke
Correspondence theory would have that "P is true" simply means P, not "I believe that P". — Isaac
If we're to accept this, then there should be no absurdity. There is absurdity, so we must reject this. Wittgenstein, Moore and Ramsey all reject it in different ways, but the point of the paradox is to get us to reject it somehow. — Isaac
Right, well, at least you accept that there is a paradox, unlike several others here. — Luke
Then it is also false regarding your belief? — Luke
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.