Action

Author(s):  
Jennifer Hornsby

Philosophical study of human action owes its importance to concerns of two sorts. There are concerns addressed in metaphysics and philosophy of mind about the status of reasoning beings who make their impact in the natural causal world, and concerns addressed in ethics and legal philosophy about human freedom and responsibility. ‘Action theory’ springs from concerns of both sorts; but in the first instance it attempts only to provide a detailed account that may help with answering the metaphysical questions. Action theorists usually start by asking ‘How are actions distinguished from other events?’. For there to be an action, a person has to do something. But the ordinary ‘do something’ does not capture just the actions, since we can say (for instance) that breathing is something that everyone does, although we don’t think that breathing in the ordinary way is an action. It seems that purposiveness has to be introduced – that someone’s intentionally doing something is required. People often do the things they intentionally do by moving bits of their bodies. This has led to the idea that ‘actions are bodily movements’. The force of the idea may be appreciated by thinking about what is involved in doing one thing by doing another. A man piloting a plane might have shut down the engines by depressing a lever, for example; and there is only one action here if the depressing of the lever was (identical with) the shutting down of the engines. It is when identities of this sort are accepted that an action may be seen as an event of a person’s moving their body: the pilot’s depressing of the lever was (also) his moving of his arm, because he depressed the lever by moving his arm. But how do bodies’ movings – such events now as his arm’s moving – relate to actions? According to one traditional empiricist account, these are caused by volitions when there are actions, and a volition and a body’s moving are alike parts of the action. But there are many rival accounts of the causes and parts of actions and of movements. And volitional notions feature not only in a general account of the events surrounding actions, but also in accounts that aim to accommodate the experience that is characteristic of agency.

Author(s):  
Jennifer Hornsby ◽  
Naomi Goulder

Philosophical study of human action owes its importance to concerns of two sorts. There are concerns addressed in metaphysics and philosophy of mind about the status of reasoning beings who make their impact in the natural causal world, and concerns addressed in ethics and legal philosophy about human freedom and responsibility. Action theorists begin by asking what an action is. For there to be an action, a person has to do something. But the ordinary ‘do something’ does not capture just the actions, since we can say (for instance) that breathing is something that everyone does, although we don’t think that breathing in the ordinary way is an action. So it seems that appeal to intentions is required. Learning what a person is doing intentionally may require finding out what their reasons for acting are, and thus coming to know what they want to be doing and what they think is a way to achieve what they want. So action theorists introduce (so-called ‘rationalizing’) desires and beliefs when they introduce intention. And insofar as they focus on intention, they generally set aside questions about the relation between human agency and the agency of other kinds of thing. The contemporary literature is radically divided over the place of action in the natural causal world. This division is associated with a deep disagreement over the nature of causation. The ‘standard story’ (associated with Donald Davidson) makes use of a familiar model of causation as a network of causal links. On this view, an action is a bodily movement that is caused by the desires and beliefs that rationalize it. The desire, the belief and the bodily movement they cause are all taken to be inherently passive states or events, but the bodily movement is taken to count as an action in virtue of the appropriate, rationalizing, attitudes figuring in its event-causal history. The main alternative view makes use of an Aristotelian model of causal processes, according to which agents are an ineliminable part of the causal order. This view is associated with G. E. M. Anscombe, and is coming to be more widely accepted as renewed attention is paid to her book Intention. Its exponents hold that when the person makes their impact in the natural world, what they do is not detachable from their intentions in doing so. Exponents of the standard story suppose that the attitudes and the action are related as cause to (independent) effect, whereas exponents of the alternative view suppose that a basically different species of causal dependence (an internal one) is in play. Aspects of the contemporary debate are prefigured in an older dispute over whether there are purely psychological ‘volitions’, or acts of will, in action. In each case there is disagreement whether an account of action can be built up out of intrinsically passive elements. There is also disagreement about the character and extent of the agent’s experience and knowledge of what they intentionally do. Action theorists have tended to abstract from questions in ethics. However, there is a long philosophical tradition in which action and ethics are intertwined, from Aristotle’s emphasis on the virtuous agent to Immanuel Kant’s account of freedom in terms of the moral law. How far Aristotelian and Kantian ideas about agency can be developed independently from the ethical frameworks in which they were originally set remains a matter of dispute. But the concerns of legal and moral philosophy certainly require a richer conception of the phenomena of agency than the action-theoretic account on its own provides.


Author(s):  
Holly M. Smith

Consequentialists have long debated (as deontologists should) how to define an agent’s alternatives, given that (a) at any particular time an agent performs numerous “versions” of actions, (b) an agent may perform several independent co-temporal actions, and (c) an agent may perform sequences of actions. We need a robust theory of human action to provide an account of alternatives that avoids previously debated problems. After outlining Alvin Goldman’s action theory (which takes a fine-grained approach to act individuation) and showing that the agent’s alternatives must remain invariant across different normative theories, I address issue (a) by arguing that an alternative for an agent at a time is an entire “act tree” performable by her, rather than any individual act token. I argue further that both tokens and trees must possess moral properties, and I suggest principles governing how these are inherited among trees and tokens. These proposals open a path for future work addressing issues (b) and (c).


2012 ◽  
pp. 117-135
Author(s):  
Md Abdul Muhit

The distinction between necessary and contingent truths has so much important role in the explication of Leibniz’s philosophy of logic, metaphysics, and philosophy of science that the distinction spreads throughout most of his philosophical writings. My aim in this paper is to try to provide a clear and detailed account of some of the aspects of Leibniz’s distinction between necessary and contingent truths. This paper is divided into four parts. In the first part, an analysis of Leibniz’s general notion of “truth” (“the Principle of the Predicate-in-Notion”) is given. This will be followed by his distinction between necessary truths and contingent truths, which he also terms as “truths of reason” and “truths of fact” respectively. Thirdly, the implication of this distinction in Leibniz’s theory of human freedom will be addressed. I will end my discussion with an answer to the following questions: The distinction goes traditionally under Leibniz' name; but is it his own invention, or has he merely picked it up from one of his predecessors? And secondly, how far this distinction has an impact (if any) on the philosophies of his contemporaries, especially on Wolff, Hume and Kant? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/afj.v4i0.12936 The Arts Faculty Journal Vol.4 July 2010-June 2011 pp.117-135


Dialogue ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-685
Author(s):  
Myles Brand

It is difficult to understand why this volume is named New Essays in the Philosophy of Mind. Some of the essays are better classified as metaphysics, some as philosophy of science, and at least one as philosophy of language. But no matter, the name of the volume is unimportant: it is the contents that count. And the contents are very interesting. The general quality of the papers is high, higher than is often found in contemporary journals. The articles all share the methodological trait of being well-argued, and perhaps it is this trait more than anything else that unifies the volume. In what follows, I shall comment briefly on two articles on action theory, and then even more briefly on the remaining six papers.


Author(s):  
Paul Earlie

This book offers a detailed account of the importance of psychoanalysis in Derrida’s thought. Based on close readings of texts from the whole of his career, including less well-known and previously unpublished material, it sheds new light on the crucial role of psychoanalysis in shaping Derrida’s response to a number of key questions. These questions range from the psyche’s relationship to technology to the role of fiction and metaphor in scientific discourse, from the relationship between memory and the archive to the status of the political in deconstruction. Focusing on Freud but proposing new readings of texts by Lacan, Torok, and Abraham, Laplanche and Pontalis, amongst other seminal figures in contemporary French thought, the book argues that Derrida’s writings on psychoanalysis can also provide an important bridge between deconstruction and the recent materialist turn in the humanities. Challenging a still prevalent ‘textualist’ reading of Derrida’s work, it explores the ongoing contribution of deconstruction and psychoanalysis to pressing issues in critical thought today, from the localizing models of the neurosciences and the omnipresence of digital technology to the politics of affect in an age of terror.


2020 ◽  
pp. 56-71
Author(s):  
Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei

This chapter shows the inheritance by existentialism of ideas from the philosophical tradition. Socrates serves for Kierkegaard and Marcel as a model for the authentic practice of philosophy and for initiating interior reflection of the self. Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus debated Stoicism’s understanding of freedom from external circumstances. Husserl and Heidegger interpreted Augustine’s conception of time, while Heidegger along with Beauvoir adapted, in a secular context, features of his conception of religious conversion. Augustine, Shakespeare, and Montaigne explored inner reflection and the nature of the self which came to be critically echoed in existentialist conceptions. The Enlightenment generated a philosophy of human freedom, defending the rational autonomy of the individual. Critical engagement of these ideas is shown to have shaped existentialist conceptions of authenticity, subjectivity, inwardness, freedom, and responsibility.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (279) ◽  
pp. 282-301
Author(s):  
Laurent Jaffro ◽  
Vinícius França Freitas

Abstract Little attention has been paid to the fact that Thomas Reid's epistemology applies to ‘political reasoning’ as well as to various operations of the mind. Reid was interested in identifying the ‘first principles’ of political science as he did with other domains of human knowledge. This raises the question of the extent to which the study of human action falls within the competence of ‘common sense’. Our aim is to reconstruct and assess Reid's epistemology of the sciences of social action and to determine how it connects with the fundamental tenets of his general epistemology. In the first part, we portray Reid as a methodological individualist and focus on the status of the first principles of political reasoning. The second part examines Reid's views on the explanatory power of the principles of human action. Finally, we draw a parallel between Reid's epistemology and the methodology of Weberian sociology.


2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-252
Author(s):  
Lucy Campbell

AbstractA 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.


Author(s):  
Mark Siderits

This essay develops the theory of action presupposed by Buddhist Reductionists. Their account uses the theory of two truths to reconcile the folk theory of human action with the Buddhist claim that there are no agents. The conventional truth has it that persons are substance-causes of actions, and the willings that trigger actions are exercises of a person’s powers in light of their reasons. According to the ultimate truth, there are no persons, only causal series of bundles of tropes. An action is a bodily or mental event in one such series that has the occurrence of a prior intention event as its cause. Facts about causally connected psychophysical elements explain the utility, and thus the conventional truth, of claims about persons as agents. This two-tier account of human agency makes possible a novel approach to making attributions of moral responsibility compatible with psychological determinism.


Author(s):  
Jessica Goodman

This chapter’s examination of the registers of the Comédie-Italienne provides more detailed context to Goldoni’s career at the Hôtel de Bourgogne by focusing specifically on the status of the author in this theatre. A detailed account of the payments made to the opéra-comique authors working alongside Goldoni illustrates his particular value to the troupe. This data modifies the straightforward vision of the Comédie-Italienne as a lucrative commercial venue; however, a consideration of relative timescales for payment also suggests that although payments there were often low, the theatre’s accessibility with respect to the Comédie-Française could nonetheless still make it attractive. Goldoni’s employment by the Italian troupe is posited as not only an attempt to address increasingly pressing economic concerns, as recent re-evaluations suggest, but also as part of a move by the theatre’s administration to re-enter an older logic of prestige and historical status.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document