Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-bjz6k Total loading time: 0.495 Render date: 2022-05-18T19:14:45.384Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Propositionalism about intention: shifting the burden of proof

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Lucy Campbell*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract

A widespread view in the philosophy of mind and action holds that intentions are propositional attitudes. Call this view ‘Propositionalism about Intention’. The key alternative holds that intentions have acts, or do-ables, as their contents. Propositionalism is typically accepted by default, rather than argued for in any detail. By appealing to a key metaphysical constraint on any account of intention, I argue that on the contrary, it is the Do-ables View which deserves the status of the default position, and Propositionalism which bears the burden of proof. I go on to show that this burden has not been met in the literature.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, M., 2010. Kinds of Reasons: An Essay in the Philosophy of Action. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M., 1957. Intention. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M., 1989. Von Wright on Practical Inference. In The Philosophy of Georg Henrik Von Wright, edited by Schilpp, P. A.. The Library of Living Philosophers. La Salle Ill: Open Court.Google Scholar
Aydede, M., 2010. “The Language of Thought Hypothesis.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, A. C., 1970. “Act and Intent.” Journal of Philosophy, 67 (19): 648658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J., 2001a. “Are Intentions Reasons? and How Should We Cope with Incommensurate Values?” In Practical Rationality and Preference: Essays for David Gauthier, edited by Morris, C. and Ripstein, A., 98120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J., 2001b. “Normative Practical Reasoning.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 75 (1): 175193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J., 2002. “Practical Reasoning.” In Reason and Nature: Essays in the Theory of Rationality, edited by Bermudez, J. L. and Millar, A., 85111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Castañeda, H.-N., 1972. “Intentions and Intending.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 9 (2): 139149.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., 1989. “Anaphora and Attitudes De Se.” In Semantics and Contextual Expression, edited by Renate Bartsch, J. F. A., Van Bentham, K., and Van Emde Boas, P., 131, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, P., 2001. “The Action as Conclusion.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 31 (4): 481505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coliva, A., 2016. “The Varieties of Self-Knowledge.” In Palgrave Innovations in Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dancy, J., 2009. “Action, Content, and Inference.” In Wittgenstein and Analytic Philosophy: Essays for PMS Hacker, edited by Hacker, P. M. S. and Hyman, J., 278298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., 2001. “Mental Events.” In Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W., 1984. “A Causal Theory of Intending.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 21 (1): 4354.Google Scholar
Ferrero, L., 2013. “Can I Only Intend My Own Actions?” In Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, 7094. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J., 1978. “Propositional Attitudes.” The Monist, 61 (4): 501523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P., 1971. “Intention and Uncertainty.” Proceedings of the British Academy, 57: 263279.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J., 2016. “Intending, Knowing How, Infinitives.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46 (1): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, J., 2017. “Knowledge How in the Philosophy of Action.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 80: 87104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, P. R., 2005. Analysing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavin, D., 2013. “Must There Be Basic Action?Noûs, 47 (2): 273301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D., 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Madden, R., 2011. “Intention and the Self.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXI (3): 325351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H., 2014. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J., 2010. “What Is the Content of an Intention in Action?Ratio, 23 (4): 415432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, A., 1977. “Radical Subjectivity: Morality Versus Utilitarianism.” Ratio, 19 (2): 115132.Google Scholar
Price, A. W., 2016. “Choice and Action in Aristotle.” Phroenesis, 61: 435462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, C., 1988. “Transformational Grammar: A First Course.” In Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumfitt, I., 1994. “Frege’s Theory of Predication: An Elaboration and Defense, with Some New Applications.” The Philosophical Review, 103 (4): 599637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M., 2012. “The Ubiquity of State-Given Reasons.” Ethics, 122 (3): 457488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., 1979. “The Intentionality of Intention and Action.” Inquiry, 22 (1–4): 253280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N., and Silverstein, M.. 2013. “Reasoning in Stages.” Ethics, 124 (1): 101113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J., 2011. Know How. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M., 2008. Life and Action: Elementary Structures of Practice and Practical Thought. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, D., 1989. Practical Reflection. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vermazen, B., 1993. “Objects of Intention.” Philosophical Studies, 71 (3): 223265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T., 2017. “Acting on Knowledge.” In Knowledge-First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind, edited by Adam Carter, J., Gordon, E. C., and Jarvis, B., 163181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
4
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Propositionalism about intention: shifting the burden of proof
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Propositionalism about intention: shifting the burden of proof
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Propositionalism about intention: shifting the burden of proof
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *