Performative contradiction
in logic, a situation when the making of an utterance rests on necessary presuppositions that contradict the proposition asserted in the utterance
A performative contradiction (German: performativer Widerspruch) arises when the making of an utterance rests on necessary presuppositions that contradict the proposition asserted in the utterance.
The term was coined by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, who attribute the first elaboration of the concept to Jaakko Hintikka, in his analysis of Descartes' cogito ergo sum argument. Hintikka concluded that cogito ergo sum relies on performance rather than logical inference.
Habermas claims that post-modernism's epistemological relativism suffers from a performative contradiction. Hans-Hermann Hoppe claims in his theory of discourse ethics that arguing against self-ownership results in a performative contradiction.
See also
Liar paradox
Performative utterance
Self-refuting idea
Kettle logic – Using inconsistent arguments
References
Further reading
Habermas, Jürgen (1990). "Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification". In Habermas (ed.). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. trans.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Performative contradiction” is in logic, a situation when the making of an utterance rests on necessary presuppositions that contradict the proposition asserted in the utterance. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Performative, contradiction and logic, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “in logic, a situation when the making of an utterance rests on necessary presuppositions that contradict the proposition asserted in the utterance” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7168265. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1990.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Performative contradiction”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Performative contradiction primary sources, Performative contradiction archive and Performative research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Performative contradiction”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Performative contradiction” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.