Moore's Paradox

1. Introduction

Moore’s Paradox designates a family of puzzling sentences that are apparently perfectly consistent in terms of their truth-conditions, yet seem impossible to assert rationally from the first-person perspective. The canonical example, due to G. E. Moore, is:

"

It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.

On standard logical treatments, there is no outright contradiction between the conjuncts: the world might indeed be such that it is raining while the speaker fails to believe that it is. Nonetheless, many philosophers hold that a competent, sincere speaker cannot, without some kind of irrationality or incoherence, assert such a sentence about their own present beliefs.

This tension has been taken to expose a special kind of inconsistency—often described as pragmatic, perspectival, or self-referential—that arises not from what the sentence says about the world but from what is involved in saying it. The paradox thereby sits at the intersection of several philosophical domains:

Different authors use the label “Moorean sentence” for any sentence of the general form “p and I (do not) believe/not-p,” and distinguish between omissive (“p and I don’t believe that p”) and commissive (“p and I believe that not-p”) varieties. A central task for contemporary theories of assertion, belief, and self-knowledge is to explain why such sentences are truth-conditionally coherent yet pragmatically or rationally defective when used in the first person, present tense, and in a sincere, literal way.

2. Origin and Attribution

Moore’s Paradox is named after the British philosopher G. E. Moore (1873–1958), who first drew attention to the phenomenon in mid-20th-century analytic philosophy. Although related themes appear earlier in his work, Moore’s most explicit formulation occurs in:

"

G. E. Moore, “A Reply to My Critics,” in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, Library of Living Philosophers, vol. 4, 1942.

In this essay, Moore notes the peculiar status of sentences like:

"

“It is raining but I don’t believe that it is,”
“I went to the pictures last Tuesday but I don’t believe that I did.”

Moore does not present these as a formally regimented paradox in the style of the Liar, but as a “curious” and philosophically revealing phenomenon. He emphasizes that such sentences can be true and that others might truly say of him that “p, but Moore does not believe that p,” while insisting that he himself could not, on reflection, say them without absurdity.

Earlier writings and lectures from the 1910s–1930s already contain related ideas about first-person knowledge and “I know that p” claims, but the label “Moore’s Paradox” and the standard examples became widely disseminated only after the 1942 essay.

Later authors systematized and popularized the paradox, explicitly attributing it to Moore and turning it into a standard reference point:

While some historians suggest precursors in earlier philosophy of self-reference and self-knowledge, the consensus is that the paradox, in its standard form and influence, is properly attributed to Moore’s mid-20th-century work.

3. Historical Context in Early Analytic Philosophy

Moore developed the paradox against the backdrop of early analytic philosophy, shaped by Frege, Russell, and early Wittgenstein, where logical form, meaning, and certainty were central concerns. Several contextual strands are especially relevant:

Moore’s common sense realism and anti-skepticism

Moore is known for defending “common sense” propositions (such as “Here is a hand”) against skeptical and idealist arguments. His focus on ordinary statements and their apparent certainty led him to scrutinize how knowledge and belief are expressed in natural language, especially through first-person avowals like “I know that p.”

The paradox arises from this examination: Moore is struck by the oddity of conjoining an ordinary empirical claim with a denial or reversal of the corresponding belief claim.

Developments in logic and the philosophy of language

Frege’s and Russell’s formalization of logic had highlighted the distinction between:

• the truth-conditions of propositions, and
• the psychological states (belief, judgment) that entertain or endorse them.

Moore’s Paradox emerged as a puzzle precisely because classical logic treats “p and not-B(p)” (where B is a belief predicate) as consistent, yet our ordinary linguistic practice seems to resist first-person assertion of such sentences.

Wittgenstein and the later discussion

Ludwig Wittgenstein, especially in his later work, treated Moore’s observations as data for a broader investigation of how language-games involving “I believe,” “I know,” and “I am certain” function. His remarks contributed to situating the paradox within issues of:

• the use of mental-state verbs,
• rules and norms of assertion, and
• the special grammar of first-person present-tense utterances.

Early analytic focus on self-knowledge

Contemporaneous debates about introspection, the transparency of mental states, and the asymmetry between first- and third-person psychological attributions provided a fertile setting. Philosophers pursued questions about how we know our own minds and whether first-person avowals are based on observation, inference, or a different kind of authority. Moore’s Paradox offered a sharp test case for these emerging theories, linking issues in epistemology, mind, and language in a characteristic analytic fashion.

4. Formulating Moore’s Paradox

Standard formulations of Moore’s Paradox focus on sentence types that are not logically contradictory, yet appear impossible to assert rationally in the first person, present tense. Two central schemata are commonly distinguished:

Philosophers often impose specific conditions to sharpen the paradoxical feel:

1. First-person present tense: The speaker refers to their own current mental state (“I believe now…”).
2. Literal, non-ironic use: The utterance is not a joke, quotation, or performance.
3. Sincerity and competence: The speaker is assumed to be using the words with their standard meanings and is not self-deceived in an obvious way.

Under these conditions, the core puzzle is formulated as follows:

• It seems epistemically and pragmatically impossible (or at least irrational) to assert sincerely a sentence of one of these forms.
• Yet, the sentence appears logically and semantically consistent: the first conjunct can be true while the second conjunct accurately describes the speaker’s belief state.

Some presentations use more formal notation, for example:

• Omissive: p ∧ ¬Bᵢp
• Commissive: p ∧ Bᵢ¬p

where Bᵢ is a first-person belief operator (“I believe that …”).

Other authors extend the formulation to cases involving knowledge:

• “p, but I don’t know that p,”
• “p, but I know that not-p,”

noting similarities and differences with the original belief-based cases, while often reserving the label “Moorean” for the belief variants.

Across these formulations, the task for subsequent sections is to explain why the sentences remain apparently coherent in content yet defective as assertions made by their own subject, and to articulate what sort of inconsistency, if any, is at stake.

5. Logical and Semantic Features

From a logical perspective, Moorean sentences are usually taken to be consistent. In classical propositional logic, there is no contradiction in the conjunction:

"

p and ¬Bᵢp

if Bᵢ is treated as a standard propositional attitude predicate. The truth of p does not entail that the speaker believes p, and the absence of belief does not entail the falsity of p. Thus:

• There are possible worlds in which p is true and the speaker does not believe p.
• Similarly, there are worlds in which p is true and the speaker believes ¬p.

Formally:

On standard truth-conditional semantics, the meaning of a Moorean sentence is determined by the conditions under which the conjunction is true. On that approach:

• A statement like “It’s raining, but I don’t believe that it is” is true iff
  (i) it is raining, and
  (ii) the speaker does not believe that it is raining.

There is no semantic rule forbidding this combination of conditions.

However, some semantic frameworks and modal logics adopt idealization principles about belief—such as that agents are logically omniscient or that they always believe all logical consequences of their knowledge. If one adds axioms requiring that agents believe all truths they assert, Moorean sentences can become impossible in those enriched systems. Critics of such treatments argue that these are non-descriptive or idealized constraints and that they should not be read as revealing a semantic contradiction.

A number of authors thus distinguish:

• Logical inconsistency: violation of the laws of logic; absent here under ordinary logics.
• Semantic anomaly: a problem in the sentence’s truth-conditional profile; usually denied.
• Pragmatic or perspectival inconsistency: a clash between what is said and what is done in saying it; typically invoked to capture the paradox.

Some philosophers explore whether non-classical logics, dynamic epistemic logics, or multi-context semantics can characterize the distinctive status of Moorean sentences more formally, but there is no consensus that a non-classical logic is required. The prevailing view is that, at the purely logical and truth-conditional level, Moorean sentences remain consistent, and that their puzzling character emerges only when use and speaker perspective are brought into account.

6. Omissive and Commissive Moorean Sentences

A central structural distinction in discussions of Moore’s Paradox is between omissive and commissive Moorean sentences.

Omissive Moorean sentences

An omissive sentence asserts p while claiming lack of belief in p:

"

p and I do not believe that p

Example:

"

“It’s raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.”

Here, the speaker simultaneously presents p as true and represents themselves as not believing p. Many commentators regard these as the most strikingly paradoxical, since the act of sincerely asserting p appears, on many theories, to manifest or express belief that p.

Commissive Moorean sentences

A commissive sentence asserts p while ascribing to oneself a belief in ¬p:

"

p and I believe that not-p

Example:

"

“It’s raining, but I believe that it isn’t raining.”

In this case, the speaker concedes that their own belief clashes with the asserted content. The assertion seems to display a kind of acknowledged doxastic error or irrationality: the speaker publicly endorses p while openly reporting a belief in ¬p.

Comparative features

Some theorists maintain that the same underlying phenomenon explains both forms; others argue that they involve slightly different issues. For instance, omissive cases appear to challenge the idea that sincere assertion requires belief at all, whereas commissive cases highlight the rational requirement not to simultaneously endorse and deny the same proposition in different ways.

Debate also concerns whether both types are equally central to Moore’s own discussions. Moore’s examples primarily feature the omissive pattern, though later literature has given substantial attention to both forms in parallel.

7. Assertion, Belief, and Self-Knowledge

Moore’s Paradox has been a key test case for theorizing the relations among assertion, belief, and self-knowledge.

Assertion and belief

Many accounts hold that sincere assertion is intimately connected to belief:

• Some propose that to assert p is, in part, to express or manifest belief that p.
• Others frame a norm: one ought to assert p only if one believes p.

On such views, when a speaker asserts “p and I do not believe that p,” the first conjunct functions as an expression of belief in p, while the second conjunct denies that belief. The resulting clash between what the speech act expresses and what is explicitly said about one’s mental state is cited as the source of the paradoxical feel.

Alternative positions deny any constitutive link between assertion and belief, treating assertion as governed by other standards (e.g., truth or knowledge). From this perspective, Moorean sentences still seem defective, but not because they undermine a built-in connection between assertion and belief.

Self-knowledge and first-person avowal

Moorean sentences also engage questions about how agents know their own beliefs:

• Many philosophers claim that we enjoy first-person authority over our beliefs: normally, when a subject judges “I believe that p,” this judgment is especially secure.
• Others stress transparency: in determining whether one believes p, one typically considers whether p is true, rather than inspecting an inner mental state.

Under such views, a sincere assertion of p tends to presuppose a certain self-knowledge: the speaker is taking themselves to believe p by virtue of taking p to be true. Moorean sentences then appear to represent a breakdown in this self-ascriptive practice, as the speaker both acts in a way characteristic of believing p and simultaneously denies having that belief.

Competing accounts that weaken first-person authority or treat self-knowledge as fallible and inferential contend that Moorean sentences merely illustrate the possibility of error about one’s own beliefs, rather than any deep structural connection between assertion and self-knowledge.

8. Norms of Assertion and Moore’s Paradox

Moore’s Paradox figures prominently in debates over what norms govern assertion. A norm of assertion specifies conditions under which it is proper or permissible to assert a proposition.

Belief norm and Moorean sentences

On the belief norm of assertion, one should assert p only if one believes p. Proponents argue that Moorean sentences vividly support this norm:

• In asserting “p and I do not believe that p,” the speaker admits to violating the belief norm with respect to the first conjunct.
• The utterance is thus self-refuting or self-undermining: the speaker both performs an assertion that appears to conform to the norm (by putting p forward) and simultaneously avows non-compliance (by denying belief in p).

Defenders of this approach contend that the distinctive irrationality of Moorean assertions is best explained by appeal to a belief-based norm.

Knowledge norm and related views

Others endorse a knowledge norm of assertion: one should assert p only if one knows p. On this view, the basic paradox arises because, under ordinary conditions, knowing p entails (or at least normally involves) believing p. Thus, a speaker who asserts p while claiming not to believe p implicitly disavows knowledge and so fails to meet the knowledge norm.

Some knowledge-norm theorists use Moorean sentences to motivate the idea that violating the norm is not merely suboptimal but incoherent when one openly advertises the violation within the very act of assertion. The paradox becomes a case in which the norm’s authority is displayed from the inside.

Alternative and deflationary accounts

Critics of robust norms argue that Moore’s Paradox does not uniquely support either belief or knowledge norms. They propose:

• Truth norms (“assert only what is true”) or more complex pragmatic norms as sufficient to explain the oddity.
• General rationality requirements on beliefs and self-ascriptions, independent of any constitutive norm of assertion.

Some deflationary views hold that Moorean sentences merely generate a clash between the content of what is asserted and familiar expectations about how sincere, cooperative speakers manage their epistemic states. On these accounts, there is no need to posit a special, deep norm of assertion; Moorean sentences are simply especially clear cases where a speaker’s announced epistemic position undercuts the point of asserting what they do.

9. Pragmatic and Expressivist Accounts

A major family of responses to Moore’s Paradox explains the phenomenon in pragmatic or expressivist terms, focusing on what one does in asserting, rather than on the sentence’s truth-conditions.

Pragmatic explanations

Pragmatic accounts, often influenced by Gricean theories of conversation, treat Moorean sentences as instances of conversational incoherence:

• A speaker who asserts p typically represents themselves, by default, as being appropriately positioned with respect to p (in belief, evidence, or knowledge).
• By adding “but I don’t believe that p” (or “but I believe that not-p”), the speaker cancels or contradicts this default representation.

On this view, the oddity arises because the speaker’s explicit self-ascription frustrates the pragmatic point of making the assertion. The sentence is not semantically defective but pragmatically self-defeating: it violates conversational maxims concerning sincerity, relevance, or cooperativity.

Some theorists emphasize that similar pragmatic tensions occur in non-Moorean cases (e.g., “I assert this, but it is pointless to say so”), suggesting that Moorean sentences are not sui generis but belong to a broader class of pragmatically anomalous speech acts.

Expressivist and self-representational accounts

Expressivist accounts construe assertion as, in part, an expression of belief. To assert p is not just to describe the world but to reveal or manifest a certain doxastic state. Under this assumption:

• In saying “p,” the speaker presents themselves as believing p.
• In adding “I do not believe that p,” the speaker disavows that very state.

The resulting utterance embodies a conflict between expressive content and explicit content: what is expressed by the act (belief that p) clashes with what is said (non-belief that p). This conflict is taken to capture the distinctive paradoxicality.

Some expressivist and self-representational theories link this to the idea that first-person psychological discourse functions partly as a self-ascriptive practice governed by special norms. Moorean sentences then highlight a tension within that practice, where the first-person avowal both enacts and denies a mental commitment.

Other theorists propose more deflationary expressivist readings, holding that while assertion typically expresses belief, this is not a strict requirement; Moorean sentences then show that speakers can in principle distance themselves from the attitudes they would normally be taken to express, though at the cost of pragmatic and rational awkwardness.

10. First-Person Authority and Transparency

Moore’s Paradox is closely intertwined with debates about first-person authority and the transparency of belief.

First-person authority

First-person authority is the idea that individuals normally occupy a privileged epistemic position with respect to their own mental states. When someone sincerely says “I believe that p,” their statement is typically regarded as more authoritative than any third-person report about their beliefs.

Moorean sentences appear to challenge or presuppose this authority in different ways:

• If we assume strong first-person authority, then “p and I don’t believe that p” seems particularly problematic: the speaker’s self-ascription of non-belief conflicts with the attitude being displayed in the act of assertion.
• If, conversely, we weaken or reject first-person authority, Moorean sentences might be interpreted as cases where a subject is simply mistaken about their own beliefs, reducing the sense of paradox.

The literature explores whether the oddity of Moorean assertions is itself evidence for some robust form of first-person authority or whether it merely reflects social or pragmatic expectations about self-knowledge.

Transparency of belief

The transparency of belief, associated with authors such as Gareth Evans, refers to the idea that when a subject asks themselves “Do I believe that p?”, they typically answer by considering whether p is true, not by introspecting an internal state. This suggests a constitutive link between:

• judging that p is true, and
• taking oneself to believe p.

On such a picture, sincerely asserting p involves taking p to be true; via transparency, this is bound up with taking oneself to believe p. Moorean sentences like “p and I don’t believe that p” thus appear to undermine the transparency-based route by which one ordinarily knows one’s own beliefs: the speaker’s avowed non-belief is at odds with the cognitive act they are performing in asserting p.

Some philosophers interpret this as showing that first-person avowals have a distinctive “avowal authority” not grounded in evidence or observation but in their role in the subject’s rational life. Others argue that transparency is a contingent feature of ordinary reasoning, and that Moorean sentences merely dramatize what happens when it breaks down.

Across these debates, Moore’s Paradox serves as a focal example for theorizing how our practices of self-ascription, rational reflection, and assertion interlock in the first person.

11. Standard Objections and Critical Responses

Philosophers who treat Moore’s Paradox as a deep phenomenon have faced several influential objections. These challenge both the significance of the paradox and particular explanatory strategies.

Purely pragmatic inconsistency objection

Some, following Gricean ideas, argue that Moorean sentences are only pragmatically defective:

• They are compared to odd but coherent conversational moves that flout maxims of cooperation or relevance.
• On this view, the paradox reveals nothing special about belief, assertion, or self-knowledge beyond ordinary conversational expectations.

Proponents of more substantive accounts respond that Moorean sentences display a kind of incoherence from the agent’s own point of view that goes beyond typical pragmatic oddities, given the role of belief in rational deliberation and self-ascription.

No-special-norm-of-assertion objection

Critics of strong norms of assertion maintain that the paradox does not support any special belief or knowledge norm. They contend:

• The irrationality lies wholly in the subject’s holding (or disavowing) inconsistent beliefs about their own mental states.
• Assertion plays no constitutive role; similar incoherence could occur in silent thought.

In reply, norm-of-assertion theorists argue that the paradox’s distinctive sharpness appears in the speech act of assertion, where the agent both undertakes a public commitment to p and disowns the mental state that such a commitment normally presupposes.

Denial of privileged self-knowledge objection

Another objection questions appeals to privileged self-knowledge. If people can be systematically mistaken about what they believe, the objection continues, then Moorean sentences simply illustrate such errors and lose their special status.

Defenders of first-person authority concede that self-knowledge can fail but maintain that Moorean sentences are peculiarly resistant to sincere, non-pathological assertion under normal conditions, suggesting a structural connection between avowal and belief that cannot be fully captured by error-possibility alone.

Symmetry (third-person vs first-person) objection

Finally, the symmetry objection stresses that sentences of the form “p, but she does not believe that p” are unproblematic. The critic concludes that the paradox must be a superficial matter of perspective rather than a deep feature of belief or assertion.

Proponents of perspectival or expressive accounts accept the asymmetry as central: the paradox is precisely about the first-person standpoint and the special role of self-ascription in rational agency. They argue that the contrast between first- and third-person forms supports, rather than undermines, claims about the sui generis status of first-person avowals.

12. Variants and Related Paradoxes

Moore’s original formulations have inspired a range of variants and related paradoxes, extending the basic pattern to other mental states, temporal perspectives, and logical configurations.

Knowledge-based variants

A closely related family replaces belief with knowledge:

• “p, but I don’t know that p.”
• “p, but I know that not-p.”

These are sometimes called “Moorean” knowledge claims. Many find them less paradoxical than the original, since it seems more conceivable to assert a truth while conceding lack of knowledge (e.g., due to insufficient evidence). Yet, the combination “p, but I know that not-p” appears strongly incoherent and is often discussed alongside commissive cases.

Temporal and attitudinal variants

Other variants alter the temporal index or attitude type:

• Temporal: “p, but I believed yesterday that not-p,” or “p, but I will believe tomorrow that not-p.”
• Other attitudes: “p, but I doubt that p,” “p, but I suspect that not-p,” “p, but I hope that not-p.”

These constructions are used to probe which specific features of belief and present-tense self-ascription are crucial for the paradox. Some seem less problematic, suggesting that the core puzzle may rely on the link between present belief, assertion, and rational commitment.

Higher-order and self-referential variants

Philosophers have also proposed higher-order analogues, such as:

• “p, but I do not believe that I believe that p.”
• “p, but I believe that I do not believe that p.”

and self-referential structures reminiscent of the Liar or other paradoxes of self-ascription, for example:

• “This very sentence is not believed by me.”

These raise further questions about the interaction between first-person authority, introspection, and logical self-reference.

Related paradoxes

Moore’s Paradox is often compared with:

While these phenomena differ structurally, they share a focus on how agents can coherently take up attitudes toward their own assertions, beliefs, and epistemic positions, and they sometimes inform general strategies for handling Moorean constructions.

13. Implications for Epistemology

Within epistemology, Moore’s Paradox has been used to illuminate issues about rational belief, self-knowledge, and epistemic normativity.

Rationality and doxastic coherence

Moorean sentences highlight constraints on rational belief:

• Many hold that a rational agent cannot simultaneously accept p and judge that they do not believe p, or accept p while believing ¬p.
• This is taken to support principles requiring a certain coherence between one’s first-order beliefs and one’s beliefs about one’s own beliefs.

Some epistemologists use Moorean patterns to test accounts of higher-order evidence and intellectual humility: whether and how one can rationally endorse p while acknowledging epistemic shortcomings regarding p.

Self-knowledge and warrant

The paradox also feeds into discussions of self-knowledge and its epistemic basis:

• Strong readings suggest that first-person avowals of belief enjoy a kind of warrant “for nothing”—they do not rest on observational or inferential grounds.
• Moorean sentences seem to violate this privileged status, prompting questions about when and how self-ascriptions can fail.

Some theorists argue that the difficulty of sincerely endorsing a Moorean sentence supports the idea that there is a constitutive link between being in a belief state and being in a position to know one is in that state. Others hold that the paradox shows merely that certain combinations of first- and second-order attitudes are unstable under reflection, rather than impossible.

Epistemic norms and assertion

As noted earlier, Moorean constructions have been used to motivate various epistemic norms of assertion (belief, knowledge, truth). In epistemology, this links the paradox to broader questions about:

• What makes an assertion epistemically appropriate?
• How do epistemic norms relate to practical reasoning and dialogue?

Here, Moore’s Paradox operates as a stress test for accounts that attempt to derive norms of belief and assertion from more general epistemic principles.

Skepticism and common sense

Finally, because of Moore’s own anti-skeptical work, the paradox has been situated within debates about skepticism and common sense. Some epistemologists draw parallels between:

• Moorean assertions (e.g., “Here is a hand, but I don’t believe it”), and
• Moore-style “proofs” against skepticism (“Here is a hand; therefore, there is an external world”).

This comparison leads to questions about whether one can coherently maintain certain skeptical attitudes while still endorsing everyday propositions, and whether these combinations exhibit a Moorean pattern of tension between commitment and higher-order reflection.

14. Impact on Philosophy of Language and Mind

Moore’s Paradox has had substantial impact on both the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind, often serving as a bridge between the two.

Philosophy of language

In the philosophy of language, the paradox has influenced:

• Theories of assertion: It is frequently cited in arguments for robust norms of assertion and for the view that assertion is tied constitutively to belief or knowledge.
• Speech act theory: Moorean sentences exemplify how the illocutionary force of an utterance (what act is performed) can come into tension with its propositional content.
• Pragmatics and implicature: Discussions of Moorean sentences have shaped accounts of how default assumptions about a speaker’s epistemic position—belief, evidence, sincerity—are pragmatically generated and can be explicitly cancelled.

Some authors explore how dynamic or context-sensitive semantics might accommodate the special status of Moorean assertions by modeling the updating of common ground and commitment stores, where a speaker’s self-ascribed beliefs play a central role.

Philosophy of mind

In the philosophy of mind, Moore’s Paradox is used to probe:

• The nature of belief: Whether beliefs are essentially linked to dispositions to avow, assert, and reason, or whether they can be substantially opaque to the subject.
• Self-knowledge and introspection: The paradox tests competing models—observational, inferential, constitutive, or transparency-based—of how we know our own beliefs.
• First-person authority: It exemplifies the distinctive status of first-person claims about mental states, as opposed to third-person attributions.

Moorean sentences also interact with debates about self-deception, akrasia, and alienation from one’s own attitudes. For instance, some have asked whether a self-deceived or fragmented subject might in fact coherently produce a Moorean utterance, and what this would reveal about the unity of the mind.

Across both fields, Moore’s Paradox is often treated as a touchstone: any adequate theory of assertion, belief, and self-knowledge is expected to explain why Moorean sentences are both semantically coherent and yet irrational or impossible to assert under normal conditions.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

Over time, Moore’s Paradox has become a standard tool in analytic philosophy, with a legacy that extends well beyond Moore’s own writings.

Integration into the analytic canon

The paradox has been incorporated into:

• Introductory and advanced textbooks on epistemology and philosophy of language,
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and other reference works,
• A large body of specialist literature on assertion, belief, and self-knowledge.

This institutional presence reflects its role as a canonical example illustrating the intersection of semantics, pragmatics, and the philosophy of mind.

Influence on later thinkers

A range of prominent philosophers have engaged with Moore’s Paradox, each embedding it in broader theoretical projects:

These discussions have helped shape contemporary understandings of first-person discourse, normative pragmatics, and epistemic agency.

Ongoing significance

Moore’s Paradox continues to function as:

• A test case for new formal models of belief and assertion (e.g., dynamic epistemic logic, multi-agent frameworks).
• A touchstone in debates about self-knowledge, introspection, and mental transparency in philosophy of mind and cognitive science.
• A comparative point for analyzing other paradoxes of self-reference and self-ascription.

Historically, the paradox exemplifies a characteristic move of early analytic philosophy: scrutinizing seemingly mundane sentences to uncover deep structural features of our concepts and practices. Its enduring presence in contemporary work indicates that questions about how we can coherently speak about our own beliefs, and what such speech reveals about rational agency, remain central to philosophical inquiry.