It is a commonplace in philosophy of action that there is and must be teleologically basic action: something done on an occasion without doing it by means of doing anything else. It is widely believed that basic actions are exercises of skill. As the source of the need for basic action is the structure of practical reasoning, this yields a conception of skill and practical reasoning as complementary but mutually exclusive. On this view, practical (...) reasoning and complex intentional action depend on skill and basic action, but the latter pair are not themselves rationally structured: the movements a basic action comprises are not intentional actions, and they are not structured as means to an end. However, Michael Thompson and Douglas Lavin have argued that action that bears no inner rational structure is not intentional action at all, and that therefore there can be no such thing as basic action. In this paper, I argue that their critique shows that standard conceptions of basic action are indeed untenable, but not that we can do without an alternative. I develop an alternative conception of skill and basic action on which their basicness is not to be equated with simplicity: like deliberation and non-basic action, they are teleologically complex, but their complexity takes a different form. On this view, skill contrasts with deliberation—not because it is not a manifestation of practical reason, but because the two are specifically different manifestations of practical reason. (shrink)

The idea of basic action is a fixed point in the contemporary investigation of the nature of action. And while there are arguments aimed at putting the idea in place, it is meant to be closer to a gift of common sense than to a hard-won achievement of philosophical reflection. It first appears at the stage of innocuous description and before the announcement of philosophical positions. And yet, as any decent magician knows, the real work so often (...) gets done in the set-up. I argue that the seemingly innocent idea of basic action is, in fact, bound up with a wide-spread conception of the nature of bodily or physical action (section 3). Its legitimacy is vital to the intelligibility of the causal theory of action, according to which physical action consists of a mere event and a condition of mind joined (in the right way) by the bond of causality. Left unchecked, means-end reason threatens to permeate physical action, and thus threatens the sovereignty of the sphere of material events at the center of the causal theory: such events, including the movements of one’s body when one intentionally moves it, are thought to be constitutively independent of the subject’s rational capacities. Basic action is a necessary countermeasure, a sort of metaphysical containment wall needed to preserve the separate jurisdictions of the mind of the acting subject and what merely happens. I argue that so long as action theory proceeds under the assumption that there must be basic action, it must regard our relation to the progress of our own deeds as not different in principle from Marx’s understanding of the relation of the non-worker (Nichtarbeiter) to the material processes that realize his own ideas, namely the work done on the factory floor. Each is alienated from the progress, or getting done, of his deeds. In each the process of doing something intentionally turns out to be a case of delegating tasks to another power. How the process comes to completion is not willed, and at best watched: the causal work is not the agent’s work, his knowledge not self-knowledge (section 5). We should find this unacceptable. And if this is right, it should be a pressing question whether there must be basic action. I argue that we have no good reason to think so: basic action is not forced on us by argument (sections 2 and 4). It is open to us to consider an alternative, one on which action is not, in the fundamental case, barren of means- end structure, but instead permeated by it: we register as a force in nature not at the limit of the means-end order but precisely in its constitution. [from article introduction]. (shrink)

Recently there has been a surge of interest in the intersection between epistemology and action theory, especially in principles linking rationality in thought and rationality in action. Recently there has also been a surge of interest in the epistemic significance of perceived peer disagreement: what, epistemically speaking, is the rational response in light of disagreement with someone whom one regards as an epistemic peer? The objective of this paper is to explore these two issues—separately, but also in connection (...) with one another. I turn first to the idea that the normative standing of our actions depends on the normative standing of our beliefs. I endorse this idea. More precisely, I endorse a principle according to which sufficiently high credence in success conditions for a given goal-directed action is a necessary condition on rational execution of that action. I then turn to the debate concerning the epistemic significance of perceived peer disagreement. The basic issue is whether such disagreement is always epistemically significant in the sense of serving as a defeater of the initial credences of the disagreeing parties. Conformists argue that this is so while non-conformists deny it. I present a new argument against a brand of non-conformism that I call “strong non-conformism”. The key premise is the principle that sufficiently high credence in success conditions for a given goal-directed action is a necessary condition on rational execution of that action. I argue that, given this principle, strong non-conformism fails to yield the verdict that the epistemic requirement on rational action is violated in a case where, intuitively, it is violated. This is because strong non-conformism has it that disagreement with a perceived peer does not act as a defeater in the relevant case. Conformism fares better. (shrink)

In this chapter, the author wants to situate Arthur Danto's work in relation to a particular elaboration of it that has emerged at Columbia University, where Arthur presided for so long as a senior philosophical figure. Danto's non‐Cartesian dualism poses a problem of other bodies, which he claims is a much more important philosophical problem than the problem of other minds that is alleged to follow up on the nature of consciousness. Danto would surely be right to insist that the (...) first‐person point of view from which mental agency is exercised, by undertaking irreducibly normative commitments, must also be a first‐person point of view from which embodied agency is exercised so as to effect changes in the world. The quickest route to seeing the normative point of the normative analysis of agent identity lies in the case of group agency. (shrink)

According to the standard story given by reductive versions of the Causal Theory of Action, an action is an intrinsically mindless bodily movement that is appropriately caused by an intention. Those who embrace this story typically take this intention to have a coarse-grained content, specifying the action only down to the level of the agent's habits and skills. Markos Valaris argues that, because of this, the standard story cannot make sense of the deep reach of our non-observational (...) knowledge of action. He concludes that we therefore have to jettison its conception of actions as mindless bodily movements animated from the outside by intentions. Here we defend the standard story. We can make sense of the reach of non-observational knowledge of action once we reject the following two assumptions: (i) that an intended habitual or skilled action is a so-called basic action—that is, an action that doesn't involve any finer-grained intentions—and (ii) that an agent, in acting, is merely executing one intention rather than a whole hierarchy of more or less fine-grained intentions. We argue that (i) and (ii) are false. (shrink)

We evaluate a growing trend towards anti-representationalism in cognitive science in the context of recent research into the development and maintenance of anorexia nervosa in cognitive neuropsychiatry. We argue two things: first, that this research relies on an explanatorily robust concept of representation—the concept of a long-term body schema; second, that this body representation underlies our most basic environmental interactions and affordance perception—the psychological phenomena supposed to be most hospitable to a non-representationalist treatment.

Description: Contents: Preface 1. General Remarks on the Vedanta 2. Fundamental Distinction Between The Self and the Ego 3. The Vital Centre of the Human Being, Seat of Brahma 4. Purusha and Prakriti 5. Purusha Unaffected by Individual Modifications 6. The Degrees of Individual Manifestation 7. Buddhi or the Higher Intellect 8. Manas or the Inward Sense : The Ten External Faculties of Sensation and Action 9. The Envelopes of the Self ; The Five Vayus or Vital Functions 10. (...) The Essential Unity and Identity of the Self in all the States of the Being 11. The Different Conditions of Atma in the Human Being 12. The Waking State or the Condition of Vaishwanara 13. The Dream State or the Condition of Taijasa 14. The State of Deep Sleep or the Condition of Prajna 15. The Unconditioned State of Atma 16. The Symbolical Representation of Atma and its Conditions by the Sacred Monosyllable Om 17. The Posthumous Evolution of the Human Being 18. The Reabsorption of the Individual Faculties 19. Differences in the Posthumous Conditions According to the Degrees of Knowledge 20. The Coronal Artery and the Solar Ray 21. The Divine Journey of the Being on the Path of Liberation 22. Final Deliverance 23. Videha-mukti and Jivana-mukti 24. The Spiritual State of the Yogi : The Supreme Identity. (shrink)

Only by inhabiting Dao (the Way of Nature) and dwelling in its unity can humankind achieve true happiness and freedom, in both life and death. This is Daoist philosophy's central tenet, espoused by the person--or group of people--known as Zhuangzi (369?-286? BCE) in a text by the same name. To be free, individuals must discard rigid distinctions between right and wrong, and follow a course of action not motivated by gain or striving. When one ceases to judge events as (...) good or bad, man-made suffering disappears, and natural suffering is embraced as part of life. Zhuangzi elucidates this mystical philosophy through humor, parable, and anecdote, using non sequitur and even nonsense to illuminate truths beyond the boundaries of ordinary logic. Boldly imaginative and inventively written, the _Zhuangzi_ floats free of its historical period and society, addressing the spiritual nourishment of all people across time. One of the most justly celebrated texts of the Chinese tradition, the _Zhuangzi_ is read by thousands of English-language scholars each year, yet, until now, only in the Wade-Giles romanization. Burton Watson's conversion to pinyin in this book brings the text in line with how Chinese scholars, and an increasing number of other scholars, read it. (shrink)

Most contemporary theories of action maintain that there are basic actions. A basic action is something that one does intentionally without doing anything else intentionally as means to that end. Most contemporary theories of action also maintain that there are non-basic actions that are mistakes in performance, where a mistake in performance is a case of mucking up what one meant to do, without the failure being the result of prevention or abnormal interference. But (...) most contemporary theories of action deny that there are basic mistakes in performance: stretches of activity that would be basic actions were they to succeed, but are in fact mistakes in performance. I argue that we have reason to think that there are basic mistakes in performance, and if there are, then we must give up a key commitment common to much contemporary action theory. The commitment is that every particular imperfect expression of the will is grounded in some particular perfect expression of the will. Giving up this commitment has important metaphysical consequences for how we think of the will as a power of agency, and implies that causal deviance perhaps isn’t the main problem that causal theorists of action ought to worry about. (shrink)

This essay is conceived as a contribution to the academic debate on the ethical status of mystical traditions with regard to Jain asceticism in particular and—through comparison of Jain with Advaita Vedanta asceticism—to ideologies of radical quietism more generally. For both Jain and Advaita Vedantic ascetic traditions, the material world, and particularly the body, are the primary obstacles to spiritual development. We deal with the social, physical, and environmental implications of such a worldview, rather than with the practice or the (...) phenomenology or the doctrine of mysticism, which we grant to be an accurate reflection of a particular kind of cosmic experience. We address ethical issues, not metaphysical ones. In our discussion of Jain asceticism, we demonstrate that the basic problem (and promise) of quietism, in almost any cultural form, is the shocking realization it can occasion that the Real has absolutely nothing to do with the social or with any sort of ethical action. We argue that Jain asceticism cannot function as an adequate resource for contemporary ethics. Our normative concerns lie exclusively with the adequacy of Jain quietism in supporting a stable global community and a sustainable natural environment. One can be mystical without being ethical, and ethical without being a mystic. We conclude that the truths of quietism are both very profound and profoundly nonethical. (shrink)

Charles Taylor claims that not only Kant, but also successors of Kant such as Fichte and Hegel, advocate a primitive concept of action, namely, a basic, irreducible, indispensable concept allegedly essential to our self-understanding. This paper shows how philosophers like Robert Brandom agree with Taylor explicitly with regard to Hegel, and attribute to him transcendental non-metaphysical arguments in support of such a concept. It then proceeds to challenge this attribution, offering a brief presentation of an alternative non-transcendental metaphysical (...) approach to the Hegelian idea of giving actuality to a concept through a productive activity. (shrink)

I argue that an agent can be morally responsible and fully (but not necessarily solely) blameworthy for another agent’s free intentional action, simply by intentionally creating the conditions for the action in a way that causes it. This means, I argue, that she can be morally responsible for the other’s action in the relevantly same way that she is responsible for her own non-basic actions. Furthermore, it means that socially mediated moral responsibility for intentional action (...) does not require an agent to authorize another to act on her behalf, nor does it require her to threaten, coerce, or deceive the other. (shrink)

Philosophers of action tend to take for granted the concept of basic actions – actions that are done at will, or directly – as opposed to others that are performed in other ways. This concept does foundational work in action theory; many theorists, especially causalists, take part of their task to be showing that normal, complex actions necessarily stem from basic ones somehow. The case for the concept of basic actions is driven by a family (...) of observations and a cluster of closely related anti-infinite regress arguments. I review this case in the work of Arthur Danto, Donald Davidson, and Jennifer Hornsby – three of the most important developers of the concept – and find it lacking. I conclude by sketching the possibility of non-foundationalist action theory. (shrink)

The paper motivates a novel research programme in the philosophy of action parallel to the ‘Knowledge First’ programme in epistemology. It is argued that much of the grounds for abandoning the quest for a reductive analysis of knowledge in favour of the Knowledge First alternative is mirrored in the case of intentional action, inviting the hypothesis that intentional action is also, like knowledge, metaphysically basic. The paper goes on to demonstrate the sort of explanatory contribution that (...) intentional action can make once it is no longer taken to be a target for reductive analysis, in explaining other, non-intentional kinds of action and voluntariness. (shrink)

Philosophical theories of action have been dominated by the view that the presence of certain kinds of intentions on the part of the agent are the mark of action. Specifically, action theorists have typically based their analyses on the premise that whether something is an action depends on whether what was done was purposeful, goal-directed, or intended, and that it was brought about in some way by or done with an intention of the agent. Furthermore, (...) class='Hi'>action theorists have been mainly concerned to analyze our most basic actions---for instance, those actions that consist in, or are brought about by, a single bodily movement of the agent. ;This dissertation is concerned with an analysis of a more complex class of action. This class includes actions that are brought about by a group of agents. For instance, when an angry mob riots or when two people lift a heavy table together, the individuals in the collective contribute their own individual actions toward a so-called 'collective action'. While collective actions typically involve two or more agents contributing their individual actions toward a 'larger' group action, actions that are comprised of a collection of actions may be authored by a single individual as well. For instance, a single individual may calculate her taxes or prepare a meal by performing a number of individual constituent actions. Actions that are brought about by collection of actions, but are the product of a single individual are here called 'aggregate actions.' ;The aim of this dissertation is two fold. First, it is to provide an extended argument that aggregate and collective action warrant the same analysis. Second, it is to propose such a unified analysis of aggregate and collective action. Specifically, this dissertation argues that the intention-based accounts of action fail to give an adequate analysis of composite action. Rather, it is proposed that the mark of a composite action depends on a certain kind of causal consequence, which is termed a 'non-additive' causal consequence. (shrink)

What reasons for action do we have? What explains why we have these reasons? This paper articulates some of the basic structural features of a theory that would provide answers to these questions. According to this theory, reasons for action are all grounded in intrinsic values, but in a way that makes room for a thoroughly non-consequentialist view of the way in which intrinsic values generate reasons for aaction.

Whereas the belief-desire model maintains that reasons for action either are or depend on reasons which consist in the agent's own beliefs and desires, I contend that reasons for action, whether taken normatively or explanatorily, are states of affairs. I defend this view by reference to non-deliberative responses to states of affairs agents encounter directly – stopping for a stop sign or answering a knock at the door, for instance–actions which I take to be common, to presuppose no (...) specific attitudes on the part of agents, and to be basic to all action. (shrink)

If mental causal explanations are grounded in facts about physical causes and effects, and if there are no psychophysical laws, how can we avoid the conclusion that the mental is causally, and causally explanatorily, irrelevant? The chapter analyses the ways in which this objection has been raised against non‐reductive monism in general, and Davidson's anomalous monism in particular. Then a conception of explanatory relevance for non‐basic physical properties is set out: properties are candidates for explanatory relevance if they play (...) a role in a simple model of causal action; it is intelligible how a property can be causally explanatorily relevant only if it supervenes on low‐level physical properties; but such supervenience does not provide a self‐standing condition of explanatory relevance. A parallel model is developed for the mental case, exploiting the intuitive model of rational action and appealing to supervenience. Anomalous monism is thereby defended against one objection; but, it is argued, this defence challenges the original motivation for thinking that mental events must be physical events. (shrink)

This paper develops an account of how economic and political institutions can limit the applicability of principles of justice even in non-relational cosmopolitan conceptions. It shows that fundamental principles of justice underdetermine fair distributive shares as well as justice -based requirements. It argues that institutions partially constitute the content of justice by determining distributive shares and by resolving indeterminacies about justice -based requirements resulting from strategic interaction and disagreement. In the absence of existing institutions principles of justice might not be (...) applicable for assessing distributions or guiding individual action and institutional design. Hence, accepting a specific cosmopolitan conception of justice is insufficient to settle global distributive questions. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question of how the right to liberty, qua moral right, is best understood, and then how that right can serve as a basic human right of indispensable value. Section I argues that if the right to liberty is understood as a general right to license, then, as Ronald Dworkin argues, it cannot be a basic right in any morally meaningful sense. Sections II, III, and IV consider and reject the view that the right to (...) liberty, as a basic right, comprises unrelated sets of either unilateral or bilateral liberty rights correlating with prima facie duties of non-interference. A new model of the basic right to liberty is offered in section V, and then defended in section VI. This model understands the basic right to liberty as a mutually held and reciprocally respected Hohfeldian power-right enjoyed by all basic-rights holders. In virtue of occupying the position of basic-rights holder and participation in a system of rights-permitted action and duty-required compliance or forbearance, persons come to enjoy emergent liberties that augment respect within the community and the value of having basic rights. (shrink)

The Shape of Agency offers interlinked explanations of the basic building blocks of agency, as well as its exemplary instances. The first part offers accounts of a collection of related phenomena that have long troubled philosophers of action: control over behaviour, non-deviant causation, and intentional action. These accounts build on earlier work in the causalist tradition, and undermine the claims made by many that causalism cannot offer a satisfying account of non-deviant causation, and therefore fails as an (...) account of intentional action. The second part turns to modes of agentive excellence—ways that agents display quality of form—providing a novel account of skill, including an account of the ways that agents display more or less skill. Shepherd discusses the role of knowledge in skill, and concludes that while knowledge is often important, it is inessential. This leads to a discussion of the way that knowledge of action and knowledge of how to act informs action execution. Knowledgeable action includes a unique epistemic underpinning: in knowledgeable action, the agent has authoritative knowledge of what she is doing and how she is doing it when and because she is poised to control her action by way of practical reasoning. (shrink)

Diverse lines of evidence point to a basic human aversion to physically harming others. First, we demonstrate that unwillingness to endorse harm in a moral dilemma is predicted by individual differences in aversive reactivity, as indexed by peripheral vasoconstriction. Next, we tested the specific factors that elicit the aversive response to harm. Participants performed actions such as discharging a fake gun into the face of the experimenter, fully informed that the actions were pretend and harmless. These simulated harmful actions (...) increased peripheral vasoconstriction significantly more than did witnessing pretend harmful actions or to performing metabolically-matched non-harmful actions. This suggests that the aversion to harmful actions extends beyond empathic concern for victim harm. Together, these studies demonstrate a link between the body and moral decision making processes. (shrink)

In German archival terminology, the term Akte (file) as the basic unit of storage corresponds with its actualization as discursive (re-)action: the word ‘acts’ can designate at once the content of what is to be archived and the archive itself (Derrida, 1995: 17). Whereas the network of Prussian state archives from post-Napoleonic Germany until the First World War figured as a non-discursive juridical Read Only Memory of internal autopoetic bureaucracy, the German Weimar Republic sought to develop a more (...) democratically transparent archival information politics. This remained, however, for the most part an aspiration of the new political culture, and it was never systematically adopted by state institutions. By contrast, the National Socialist regime was the first to make use of archival memory in a partisan, active manner; Akten were actively instrumentalized as part of the programme for the annihilation of European Jewry. This article, based on the German state archives and also on a case-study concerning the ideologization of the Nietzsche Archive in Weimar, examines archival micro-politics as the site of discursive repression and production, between the affirmation and the resistance of discretely segmented memory to holistic ideological demands. (shrink)

We show that the formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be derived from an extended least action principle. The principle can be considered as an extension of the least action principle from classical mechanics by factoring in two assumptions. First, the Planck constant defines the minimal amount of action a physical system needs to exhibit during its dynamics in order to be observable. Second, there is constant vacuum fluctuation along a classical trajectory. A novel method is introduced (...) to define the information metrics to measure additional observability due to vacuum fluctuations, which is then converted to an additional action through the first assumption. Applying the variational principle to minimize the total actions allows us to recover the basic quantum formulations including the uncertainty relation and the Schrödinger equation in the position representation. In the momentum representation, the same method can be applied to obtain the Schrödinger equation for a free particle while further investigation is still needed for a particle with an external potential. Furthermore, the principle brings in new results on two fronts. At the conceptual level, we find that the information metrics for vacuum fluctuations are responsible for the origin of the Bohm quantum potential. Even though the Bohm potential for a bipartite system is inseparable, the underlying vacuum fluctuations are local. Thus, inseparability of the Bohm potential does not justify a non-local causal relation between the two subsystems.responsible for manifesting entanglement effects without underlying physical interactions, implying that entanglement effects are non-causal. At the mathematical level, quantifying the information metrics for vacuum fluctuations using more general definitions of relative entropy results in a generalized Schrödinger equation that depends on the order of relative entropy. The extended least action principle is a new mathematical tool. It can be applied to derive other quantum formalisms such as quantum scalar field theory. (shrink)

This book focuses on material culture as a subject of philosophical inquiry and promotes the philosophical study of material culture by articulating some of the central and difficult issues raised by this topic and providing innovative solutions to them, most notably an account of improvised action and a non-intentionalist account of function in material culture. Preston argues that material culture essentially involves activities of production and use; she therefore adopts an action-theoretic foundation for a philosophy of material culture. (...) Part 1 illustrates this foundation through a critique, revision, and extension of existing philosophical theories of action. Part 2 investigates a salient feature of material culture itself—its functionality. A basic account of function in material culture is constructed by revising and extending existing theories of biological function to fit the cultural case. Here the adjustments are for the most part necessitated by special features of function in material culture. These two parts of the project are held together by a trio of overarching themes: the relationship between individual and society, the problem of centralized control, and creativity. (shrink)

A variety of strategies have been used to oppose the influential Humean thesis that all of an agent’s reasons for action are provided by the agent’s current wants. Among these strategies is the attempt to show that it is a conceptual truth that reasons for action are non-relative. I introduce the notion of a basic reason- giving consideration and show that the non-relativity thesis can be understood as a corollary of the more fundamental thesis that basic (...) reason-giving considerations are generalizable. I then consider the relationship between the generalizability thesis and the Humean thesis that all of an agent’s reasons for action are provided by the agent’s current wants. I argue that, contrary to a common assumption, there is a subtle and clearly motivated version of the Humean thesis that does not deny, and so is not threatened by, the generalizability thesis. (shrink)

Interpreters today often take Kant’s practical philosophy to share some of the basic insights of Aristotle’s. Such, for instance, is the main tone of Christine Korsgaard’s reading. I make a case for a different, non-Aristotelian, reading of Kant’s moral philosophy. In particular, I distinguish between two senses of self-legislation: Aristotelian and Kantian. Aristotelian self-legislation is a general project we are involved in as humans, and in which we determine the organizing principle of our practical life. Every action of (...) ours takes part in this project of self-determination, and the project is thus part of the principle of every action. As opposed to that, not all actions are acts of Kantian self-legislation. To legislate for ourselves is to be involved in an internal drama of legislation. It is to be bound to respect moral duties by a force that is akin to a force of nature, and is yet internal. Moral normativity is thus separated from practical normativity in general. (shrink)

RésuméAprès avoir déflni la Psychologie comme la science des personnaliés, de leurs activité au sein des situations qui les confrontent, et de leur développement dans un milieu physique, social et culturel donné, le Dr Murray formule un certain nombre de propositions et conceptions théo‐riques destinées à rendre compte des faits psychiques. Les unes sont ?ordre général, les autres concernent la motivation. Propositions générales. 1. La personnalitéà son siège dans le cerveau.2. Elle dure et se développe dans le temps par suite (...) des opérations qu'elle est amenée à produire.3. Ces opérations sont internes ou externes, et correspondent à des attitudes ?introversion ou ?extroversion. Toutes comportent une dimension temporelle, un début, un déroulement de longueur variable, une fin.4. Les opérations externes sont constituteées ?une série de champs momentanés , le champ lui‐même résultant de la combinaison ?une situation externe et ?un état interne. II importe de distinguer de la situation réelle, la situation telle que la voit le sujet. Cette distinction revêt une importance particulière dans le cas des relations sociales.5. Ľobjet ?étude du Psychologue consiste alors, non pas dans le comportement du seul sujet, mais dans ľinteraction du sujet et de ľobjet. Celle‐ci, avec ses deux aspects complémentaires de besoin et de pression est ce que le Dr Murray à appeié ailleurs un théme.6. Les actions Psychologiques s'ordonnént fréquemment en séquences tendant àľobtention ?un but éioigné. Les démarches intermédiates s'expliquent alors, non pas par ľinfluence des facteurs externes contemporains, mais par celle des facteurs internes antérieurs. Ce sont, non des réactions, mais des proactions. Elles ne sont pas homéostatiques et subor‐données à la restitution ?un équilibre antérieur, mais _HYPERLINK “superstatiqu.es” et visant à la production de quelque chose de neuf. Séquences et proactions composent pour une grande part ľego‐system.7. Ľévolution de la personnalité s'ordonné en périodes relativement longues dont il est possible de prendre au cours de brefs laps de temps une sorte ?échantillonnage.8. La personnalité fait montre ?une intégration variable, perceptible aux niveaux des opérations, des séquences ou des périodes.9. Elle se transforme sans cesse par ľeffet des opérations ou elle est engageée, ces transformations graduelles et insensibles pouvant s'accumuler jusquà déclencher à un moment donné des revirements spectaculaires tels que les conversions.10. Le donné du Psychologue est de deux sortes: faits subjectifs communiqués par le sujet, faits objectifs recueillis par ľobservateur extérieur. II importe ensuite ?expliquer ce donné, autrement dit de construire une représentation hypothétique du psychisme du sujet, qui permette de comprendre ses conduites passées et de prédire ses conduites futures. Ces constructions n'ont pas encore atteint le stade ?une tľpologie satisfaisante. Concepts relatifs à la motivation. Dans la représentation théorique dont il vient ?être parlé, une place éminente revient aux concepts relatifs à la motivation: tendance, instinct, besoin, vecteur psychique concu à la façon de Lewin. La Psychologie américaine à pendant longtemps tendu à restreindre le nombre de ces besoins, et à n'admettre comme tout à fait fondamentaux et originels que ceux qui concernent la nourriture et le sexe. II est impossible de comprendre les actions humaines si ľon ne réserve une place à des tendances, activités et satisfactions ?un ordre plus élevé. Notamment:1. Ľêtre vivant peut dépenser le surplus ?énergie dont il dispose dans des actions spontanées, non déclenchées par un stimulus externe. Ľaction trouve alors sa gratification en elle‐même et non dans le résultat qu'elle procure .2. Un plaisir supplémentaire peut résulter de la manière plus ou moins harmonieuse dont se déroule ľaction, indépendamment de ľeffet où elle arrive.3‐4. Il existe des besoins ?ordre mental oùľesprit cherche sa satisfaction propre et non celle de ľorganisme. On voit alors ľimagination ľemporter sur la perception et le donné s'analyser et se recomposer en créations originales. Ces besoins et les actes qu'ils provoquent procurent les trois sortes de plaisirs distingués plus haut. Leur but n'est pas préala‐blement donné, mais doit être construit pièce par pièce.5‐6. à côté des besoins positifs existent des besoins négatifs qui poussent àéviter, exclure, ou détruire. De même, aux besoins réactifs s'opposent les besoins proactifs, spontanés et créateurs. Les premiers peuvent devenir proréactifs par ľintervention de ľanticipation, les seconds réproactifs sous ľeffet de circonstances inattendues. Ces diverses sortes de conduites peuvent servir à classer les individus ?après la place considérable ou réduite qu'elles occupent dans son comportement.7. Les besoins se spécifient par canalisation ou cathection . Ils peuvent aussi par généralisation sétendre à de nouveaux objets. Ľexcès ou le manque absolu de fixation sont des symptômes ?immaturityé. – Une importance particulière revient, dans le cadre de cette théorie, à la notion freudienne de cathexis. Certains objets et buts sont adoptés à la faveur de circonstances où joue le trial and error. Dautres, purement idéaux àľorigine, sont recherchds par ľindividu sans jamais avoir été rencontrés par lui. Si le trial and error intervient ici, c'est sur le plan de ľimagination. – La Psychologie américaine à restreint en général la notion et le terme ?apprentissage àľacquisition des moyens de satisfaction àľexclusion des fins. De même, la civilisation contemporaine, si elle à prodigieusement développé’ les techniques, à perdu la notion ?un commun idéal humaniste. II importerait de revenir, ?un point de vue théorique non moins que pratique, àľapprentissage des fins, autrement dit au processus par lequel ľindividu, sous la poussée de besoins largement indifférenciés adopte tel nouveau but, s'attache à telle valeur, jugée par lui source de satisfaction.8. Les besoins peuvent être conscients ou inconscients. Dans le dernier cas, ľindividu les refoule sous la pression des impératifs sociaux. Ils se mafestent alors de diverses façons détournées, éventuellement névrotiques, et peuvent se retourner contre le sujet.9‐10. II existe un ordre ?urgence dans la satisfaction des besoins, les plus biologiques réclamant le plus impérieusement satisfaction, les plus Aleves et altruistes ne se faisant sentir qu'ensuite.11. La Psychologic sociale récente à artificiellement dissoci^ les notions ?inUret, attitude et valeur de celle de besoin. Mais la notion de besoin à son tour demande une analľse plus poussee. Le besoin comprend deux composantes : Ľaction à quoi il pousse ou vedeur proprement dit, la valeur ou entite valorisee au benefice de laquelle s'effectue cette action. Toute conduite concrete apparait alors comme un systéme valeur‐uecteur et peut être analľsee de ce double point de vue. (shrink)

This paper is a semantic analysis of ‘experienced action’ constructions in Umpithamu, a Paman language from Cape York Peninsula (Australia). The basic argument is that these constructions are related to the better-attested category of experiencer object constructions (e.g. Evans, Non-nominative subjects 1: 69–192, 2004), which in Umpithamu describe involuntary experience of bodily processes. Experienced action constructions extend the feature of ‘involuntary experience’ from processes within the body to actions originating outside the body, and thus provide a semantically (...) marked alternative for standard transitive clauses. The constructions are typologically interesting because they show the need to identify different loci of experiential semantics in a construction, and they help to clarify the status of control for human Undergoers within semantic typologies of reduced transitivity. (shrink)

The aims of this paper are to survey, explicate, compare, contrast, and critically evaluate a number of (mainly recent and technical) contributions (Kanger, Porn and Áqvist) to the logic of action locutions in connection with their treatment of the concept of an agent's bringing about a state of affairs. The discussion is primarily concerned with practical applications of these formalisms for the action theorist. It is suggested that these systems are best understood as capturing a strategic sense of (...) bringing-about, and not a notion of actual bringing-about, which is merely presupposed by them. It is argued that the developments surveyed open up a new 'intensional' style of action theory, contrasted with the 'extensional' approach of Davidson. Yet because of the treatment of conditionals, they fail to capture a basic notion of 'bringing about' important for action theory. It is concluded that a study of the behavior of 'bringing-about' over non-standard conditionals would be a useful next step for intensional action logic. (shrink)

In this paper I offer an interpretation of Kant’s theory of perceptual error based on his remarks in the Anthropology. Both hallucination and illusion, I argue, are for Kant species of experience and therefore require the standard co-operation of sensibility and understanding. I develop my account in a conceptualist framework according to which the two canonical classes of non-veridical experience involve error in the basic sense that how they represent the world as being is not how the world is. (...) In hallucination this is due to the misapplication of categories and in illusion to the misapplication of empirical concepts. Yet there is also room in this framework for a distinction in terms of cognitive functionality between the level of experience, which is merely judgementally structured, and that of judgement proper, which involves the free action of a conscious agent. This distinction enables Kant to allow for the otherwise problematic phenomenon of self-aware non-veridicality. (shrink)

Action theory may be regarded as a theoretical foundation of AI, because it provides in a logically coherent way the principles of performing actions by agents. But, more importantly, action theory offers a formal ontology mainly based on set-theoretic constructs. This ontology isolates various types of actions as structured entities: atomic, sequential, compound, ordered, situational actions etc., and it is a solid and non-removable foundation of any rational activity. The paper is mainly concerned with a bunch of issues (...) centered around the notion of performability of actions. It seems that the problem of performability of actions, though of basic importance for purely practical applications, has not been investigated in the literature in a systematic way thus far. This work, being a companion to the book as reported, elaborates the theory of performability of actions based on relational models and formal constructs borrowed from formal lingusistics. The discussion of performability of actions is encapsulated in the form of a strict logical system. This system is semantically defined in terms of its intended models in which the role of actions of various types is accentuated. Since due to the nature of compound actions the system is not finitary, other semantic variants of are defined. The focus in on the system of performability of finite compound actions. An adequate axiom system for is defined. The strong completeness theorem is the central result. The role of the canonical model in the proof of the completeness theorem is highlighted. The relationship between performability of actions and dynamic logic is also discussed. (shrink)

Mental causation comes in different shapes, but certainly one of the most conspicuous instances of mental causation is intentional action – when we do something because we want to do it. At least, most action theorists and philosophers of mind take it for granted that intentional action is an instance of mental causation, since they assume first that desires are mental and second that doing something because one wants to do it is to be accounted for causally. (...) Yet, these philosophers face a well-known problem: it may happen that our desires cause what is wanted without that being an instance of our intentionally doing what is wanted. Prima facie, what is wrong in these cases is that the causal path leading from desires to actions goes ‘wayward’ instead of taking the right track, apt for intentional action. Hence, action theorists have tried to specify the right tracks of action causation. But since this turned out to be an awfully tricky task, the idea came up that the whole enterprise may have been ill-advised from the beginning. As I shall argue, this suspicion is correct. Although the two assumptions leading to the problem of waywardness are true (if understood in the right way), the idea of causal paths connecting desires with actions is wrong and should be replaced by a quite different picture of the causal role of desires in agency: desires and other intentional attitudes are causal powers which are actualized in intentional agency. This alternative picture not only has the advantage of accounting for the notorious cases of waywardness, it also relieves some doubts concerning the conceivability of a causal influence of desires in a world of material causes. However, I shall confine myself to the problem of waywardness. My contribution has twelve sections. In section 1, I sketch a standard story about the way we influence the world, and I mention two well known problems discussed in the theory of action. Sections 2 and 3 present three cases of wayward causal chains that pose a third problem for the standard picture. I shall go on to discuss mainly two of them, cases of so-called basic versus non-basic waywardness (section 4) . To understand what is wayward in these cases one needs to understand the special function of ‘by’-sentences (section 5) and the causal role of intentional attitudes (sections 6-8). Sections 9-11 explain the idea that intentional attitudes are causal powers of agents. As it turns out, this accounts smoothly for the two prime examples, but leaves unaddressed a third kind of wayward causal chains. Section 12 closes with an attempt to extend the account to those cases, too, thereby connecting human agency with freedom. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Basic Actions Action Individuation References Further reading.

This thesis explores Aristotle's conception of practical reason through examining his discussion of 'wish [ bou&d12;l hsiv ]' and 'deliberation [ bou&d12;l 3usiv ]'. In chapter 1, which focuses on Aristotle's claim that all wishes are directed at 'acting well [ 3u&d12;pr axi&d12;a ]', I argue that this claim indicates that wish, unlike nonrational desires, involves the agent's reflective endorsement of an initial desirable and thus demonstrates a double aspect structure of human motivation. In chapter 2, which concerns Aristotle's view (...) of the relationship between wish and the nonrational states of the soul, I refute the view that the desiderative drive involved in a wish originates entirely from the nonrational part of the soul. For Aristotle, I argue, both the rational and nonrational parts of the soul are independent sources of motivation, and while the latter presents the initial desirables, it is the former that, using them as basic data, finally determines the object of wish. In chapter 3, which explores Aristotle's distinction between action and production, especially the sense in which the end of action is not 'distinct [ ` 3&d12;t3r on ]' from action itself, I argue that the point of the non-distinctness is that under every purposive action lies the agent's ultimate concern to respond appropriately to the practically relevant features of the given situation. In chapter 4, which concentrates on the relationship between the practically wise person's capacity to find out the best means and his perceptual capacity, I argue that this perceptual capacity concerns the particularity of the given situation, not of the subject of his final practical judgment, and that this capacity essentially concerns what should be done as opposed to what is there. In chapter 5, which is concerned with the practically wise person's knowledge of the end, I defend the view that this knowledge consists in possessing a set of appropriate settled dispositions towards specific objects and concerns, against the view that it consists in a comprehensive, articulate conception of the good life. I also argue that in accepting the first view, we should take the stage where a narrow practical end is set to be already part of the process of practical deliberation. (shrink)

The abilities to attribute an action to its proper agent and to understand its meaning when it is produced by someone else are basic aspects of human social communication. Several psychiatric syndromes, such as schizophrenia, seem to lead to a dysfunction of the awareness of one’s own action as well as of recognition of actions performed by other. Such syndromes offer a framework for studying the determinants of agency, the ability to correctly attribute actions to their veridical (...) source. Thirty normal subjects and 30 schizophrenic patients with and without hallucinations and/or delusional experiences were required to execute simple finger and wrist movements, without direct visual control of their hand. The image of either their own hand or an alien hand executing the same or a different movement was presented on a TV-screen in real time. The task for the subjects was to discriminate whether the hand presented on the screen was their own or not. Hallucinating and deluded schizophrenic patients were more impaired in discriminating their own hand from the alien one than the non-hallucinating ones, and tended to misattribute the alien hand to themselves. Results are discussed according to a model of action control. A tentative description of the mechanisms leading to action consciousness is proposed. (shrink)

Neuroscientists commonly assume that the brain generates representations of a scene in various non-retinotopic 3D coordinate frames, for example in 'egocentric' and 'allocentric' frames. Although neurons in early visual cortex might be described as representing a scene in an eye-centred frame, using 2 dimensions of visual direction and one of binocular disparity, there is no convincing evidence of similarly organized cortical areas using non-retinotopic 3D coordinate frames nor of any systematic transfer of information from one frame to another. We propose (...) that perception and action in a 3D world could be achieved without generating ego- or allocentric 3D coordinate frames. Instead, we suggest that the fundamental operation the brain carries out is to compare a long state vector with a matrix of weights to choose an output. The processes involved in perception of a 3D scene and action within it depend, we suggest, on successive iterations of this basic operation. Advantages of this proposal include the fact that it relies on computationally well-defined operations corresponding to well-established neural processes. Also, we argue that from a philosophical perspective it is at least as plausible as theories postulating 3D coordinate frames. Finally, we suggest a variety of experiments that would falsify our claim. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophers have overall studied intentional actions that agents attempt to perform in the world. However, logicians of action have tended to neglect the intentionality proper to human action. I will present here the basic principles and laws of a logic of action where intentional actions are primary as in contemporary philosophy of action. In my view, any action that an agent performs unintentionally could in principle have been attempted. Moreover any unintentional action (...) of an agent is an effect of intentional actions of that agent. So my logic of action contains a theory of attempts. As Belnap pointed out, action, branching time and historic modalities are logically related. There is the liberty of voluntary action. I will then work out a logic of action that is compatible with indeterminism. In classical philosophical logic, propositions with the same truth-conditions are identified. However it is clear that strictly equivalent propositions are not the contents of the same attitudes of human agents. For that reason I will first present a non-classical propositional logic capable of distinguishing the contents of intentional actions which are different. Next I will enrich earlier logics of action so as to characterize adequately intentional actions, attempts and purposes of agents and the different kinds of generation of action. I will state the basic laws of agentive commitment and action generation. (shrink)

Explaining is one of the most important everyday practices in science education. In this article, we examine how scientific explanations could serve as cultural tools for members of a group of pre-service physics teachers. Specifically, we aim at their use of explanations about forces of inertia in non-inertial frames of reference. A basic assumption of our study is that explanatory tools shape the ways we think and speak about the world. Drawing on the theory of mediated action, analysis (...) illustrates three major claims on scientific explanations: explaining is an act of actively responding to explanations presented by others ; the actual experience of explaining involves the enactment of power and authority; resistance might be a constitutive part of learning how to explain. These assertions expand the possibilities of dialogue between studies of scientific explanations and the social sciences. Implications for science teaching and research in science education are presented. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to show that there are actions which are non-intentional. An account is first given which links intentional and unintentional action to acting for a reason, or appropriate causation by an intention. Mannerisms and habitual actions are then presented as examples of behavior which are actions, but which are not done in the course of acting for a reason. This account has advantages over that of Hursthouse's "arational actions," which are allegedly intentional actions done (...) for no reason at all. Finally, one consequence of neglecting non-intentional action is discussed to illustrate its importance. (shrink)

Recent work in cognitive science highlights the importance of exem- plar-based know-how in supporting human expertise. Influenced by this model, certain accounts of moral knowledge now stress exemplar- based, non-sentential know-how at the expense of rule-and-principle based accounts. I shall argue, however, that moral thought and reason cannot be understood by reference to either of these roles alone. Moral cognition – like other forms of ‘advanced’ cognition – depends crucially on the subtle interplay and interaction of multiple factors and forces (...) and especially (or so I argue) between the use of linguistic tools and formulations and more biologically basic forms of thought and reason. (shrink)

Martin Luther King Jr. cannot be said to have addressed the problem of terrorism in general because he proposed his philosophy of non-violence resistance within the context of the oppression, injustice, segregation, violence and discrimination suffered by the African Americans. Nevertheless, his philosophy captured ways by which we can fittingly address the problem of terrorism. Many of the methods of non-violence given by Martin Luther King Jr. are of paramount importance in the face of terrorism. His philosophy is basically important (...) today in Nigeria owing to the fact that our unity as a country is threatened by the recurring activities of terrorism and as such we are at a cross road in the history of our country, where drastic decisions have to be taken to address this perilous trend. The philosophy of non-violent resistance as proposed by Martin Luther King Jr. is a veritable step towards a working solution, as it is not only an outcry against terrorism of any sort, but also an ideology that frowns against any form of action that results in the taking of human life or the carnage that comes with violence. His non-violent resistance theory which he developed after a deep study of Mahatma Gandhi’s theory of non-violence, is a radical approach towards the fight against violence of any sort inflicted on the African Americans of his time, an action borne of a passionate fight against racism. So, to aptly address the problem of terrorism in Nigeria, it is necessary we consult and apply some principles of the philosophy of non-violence resistance as postulated by Martin Luther King Jr. (shrink)

In this article, I examine recent debates concerning the existence and the nature of basic actions. The discussion is structured around four theses, with which Arthur Danto introduced basic actions to contemporary theorists. The theses concern (i) the relationship between agency and causality, (ii) the distinction between basic and complex actions, (iii) the regress argument for basic actions, and (iv) the structure of practical knowledge in the light of these actions.