|
20024
|
Davidson gave up reductive accounts of intention, and said it was a primitive
[Davidson, by Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Later Davidson dropped his reductive treatment of intentions (in terms of 'pro-attitudes' and other beliefs), and accepted that intentions are irreducible, and distinct from pro-attitudes.
|
|
From:
report of Donald Davidson (Intending [1978]) by Wilson,G/Schpall,S - Action 2
|
|
A reaction:
Only a philosopher would say that intentions cannot be reduced to something else. Since I have a very physicalist view of the mind, I incline to reduce them to powers and dispositions of physical matter.
|
|
20032
|
Bratman rejected reducing intentions to belief-desire, because they motivate, and have their own standards
[Bratman, by Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bratman motivated the idea that intentions are psychologically real and not reducible to desire-belief complexes by observing that they are motivationally distinctive, and subject to their own unique standards of rational appraisal.
|
|
From:
report of Michael Bratman (Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason [1987]) by Wilson,G/Schpall,S - Action 4
|
|
A reaction:
If I thought my belief was a bit warped, and my desire morally corrupt, my higher self might refuse to form an intention. If so, then Bratman is onto something. But maybe my higher self has its own beliefs and desires.
|
|
20031
|
On one model, an intention is belief-desire states, and intentional actions relate to beliefs and desires
[Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the simple desire-belief model, an intention is a combination of desire-belief states, and an action is intentional in virtue of standing in the appropriate relation to these simpler terms.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the traditional view found in Hume, and is probably endemic to folk psychology. They cite Bratman 1987 as the main opponent of the view.
|