Goebbels probably never said that. But you have read in so many places that he said it that you now believe he did say it. Constant repetition will make us compliant in belief as in behaviour.

The [..] supposed quotation of Joseph Goebbels has been repeated in numerous books and articles and on thousands of web pages, yet none of them has cited a primary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#Goebbels's_description

If he said that "Jews are despicable, stinking, evil bugs that are worth squashing", and it was a lie, then he lied for his own personal advantage, not because he believed that Jews were despicable, stinking, evil bugs.

In Nazi Germany you had to go with the flow; high ranking officials had to really go with the flow. To Goebbels (if the claim is true) it would have been equally inconsequential to say he hated the French, the Plynasionas, the Injuns, (a people in West Tibet), the Hungarians, the Chinese or the Nibelgerus, if he had to say he hated those to get ahead.

He presented NO contradiction or self-contradiction when he said he'd be lying if he said he hated the Jews. He did not hate them, but he lied, in order to gain personal political advantages.

The [..] supposed quotation of Joseph Goebbels has been repeated in numerous books and articles and on thousands of web pages, yet none of them has cited a primary source. — Cuthbert

I would say go no farther searching for the primary source: it was Goebbels who was the primary source of things Goebbels said.

You are right to object. I was quoting from wikipedia as an authority. That should have made me at least pause. On the general question, whether you can believe something and also disbelieve it, I'm not sure. I think the point of Moore's example is that when you say 'I believe p and not-p' you seem to be contradicting yourself; but it's quite possible to believe p when p is not the case and so there is no strict logical contradiction in the statement. So it's a paradox.

Goebbels was the minister of propaganda, no? There is no paradox. Goebbels did not say everything he said was a lie, he just iterated what every good propagandist knows, that if a lie is reiterated long enough, people will eventually believe it. What he thinks about anything is irrelevant. He might have believed them, or he might not. Maybe it shows some sort of relativistic spirit, but that is not necessary. He just indicated that people could be made to believe anything, making him a master of propaganda.

Tobias said it right. There is no quote and no part of the quote that Goebbels beleived it was the hatred of Jews that was a lie. He did not even tie it to Germany or its agitational propaganda type slogans.

My point is, that he does not have to believe in p and not p when he lies. His lie about p is that he says p is true while he believes p is false. There is no paradox. He does not have to believe his own statement, when lies.

People are humans in numbers greater than one; but it does not necessarily contain all people, including the self. Thus, not all people will believe a repeated lie, including the utterer of the lie, while at the same time the statement is true, because more than one person will believe the lie if repeated.

I think the "live in the present movement", Feng shui, power of positive thinking and similar movements may have grown out of a repeated lie. As well as the power of prayer, the image of a benevolent but evil god ruling over the universe, etc.

Heck, even the language may have come from a need of misguiding other early humans. We like to think that langauge was developed to serve communication of truths, but that is just as possible as development of miscommunication.

His lie about p is that he says p is true while he believes p is false. — god must be atheist

But this is absurd to me. Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false?

Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false? — clemogo

That's what lying is. Deception is an obvious fact of life.

Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false? — clemogo

That is a beautiful question. It is the one asked by Swift:

For he [Gulliver's 'master'] argued thus: “that the use of speech was to make us understand one another, and to receive information of facts; now, if any one said the thing which was not, these ends were defeated, because I cannot properly be said to understand him; and I am so far from receiving information, that he leaves me worse than in ignorance; for I am led to believe a thing black, when it is white, and short, when it is long.” And these were all the notions he had concerning that faculty of lying, so perfectly well understood, and so universally practised, among human creatures. — Swift, Gulliver's Travels

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/829/829-h/829-h.htm

Contrast Plato:

“It is appropriate for the guardians to lie to the citizens for the benefit of the polis, but it is subversive and destructive for anyone else in the polis to lie.”

I'm on slightly surer ground with the sources now I think.

That's what lying is. Deception is an obvious fact of life. — jamalrob

Okay, I get that in most cases, it's simple like that. For example, you would say something to your partner that you think is false in order to not hurt their feelings...

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Goebbels says 'Jews are evil', and repeats this to the public in an attempt to make people believe it. Now let's say that Goebbels knows that it is a lie. This means that he actually believes that Jews are not evil. So if he believes that Jews are not evil, then why would he want others to think that Jews are evil? If it's because he wants the public to support the extermination of Jews, then that implies that he himself thinks exterminating Jews is the right thing to do, which further implies that he thinks Jews deserve extermination, or rather that Jews are evil... So why did he admit that 'Jews are evil' is a lie, if he actually thinks it's true?

I don't know if this is making any sense or I'm just confused haha

I only dropped in because I thought we'd done with Goebbels and had gone on to the general question. I've tried Moore. I've tried Swift. I've tried Plato. And old Goebbels keeps coming back. I wish he'd go away. He's not helping.

But this is absurd to me. Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false? — clemogo

Because spreading the falsehood provides the liar with personal advantage.

Do you think Jesus believed when he said to his guards (something to the effect): "Don't you think I could summon 10000 angels with swords to defend me?" Jesus warn't stupid. He was not insane. He lied throughout his entire career as god on Earth.

Do you think Justin Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of Canada believed himself, when he said, in face of a huge and growing national debt, that "the budget will balance itself"?

Do you think George W. Bush, war criminal, believed himself, when he declared on national television, that "we know that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction"?

Jews are evil', and repeats this to the public in an attempt to make people believe it. Now let's say that Goebbels knows that it is a lie. This means that he actually believes that Jews are not evil. So if he believes that Jews are not evil, then why would he want others to think that Jews are evil? — clemogo

1. It was generally believed that eliminating Jews from capitalist power helped the economy. It did, because redistributing ownership did. What they did not see was that they could have singled out any other delimited group with capitalist powers, and taking away their stuff would have helped the economy too.
2. The hatred gave a reason to arm the nation. The arming of the nation put an end to the overproduction crisis the world was suffering of. They said they needed to arm to exterminate the Jews. Again, the onus was put on the wrong thing... it's not the extermination of the Jews that was the key to economic recovery, but the pre-war economic boom.
3. It helped Goebbels to utter the lie to get economic and political clout. If he hadn't accepted this lie as his slogan, although he knew it was a lie, he wouldn't have risen to second in command in the nation. In fact, he would have stayed being a nobody.