A Study of Russell's Theory of Desire in Connection with His Doctrine of Neutral Monism in "the Analysis of Mind"

Dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada) (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In The Analysis of Mind , Russell criticizes a theory that considers desire a conscious mental phenomenon directed towards an imagined object and offers instead an account of desire in terms of behaviour-cycles. ;This theory has been criticized on various grounds: that it is circular and incoherent, that it applies only to needs, and that it is too behaviouristic. I argue that these criticisms are incorrect and that Russell's critics have ignored his doctrine of neutral monism. I study Russell's modified version of neutral monism to reveal the philosophical underpinnings of his theory of desire. Brentano's and Meinong's views of mind are studied partly to show Russell's reasons for rejecting them in favour of neutral monism and partly to discuss Meinong's analysis of mental phenomena after which Russell models his analysis of belief. ;Russell attributes the theory of desire that he criticizes to common sense. I deal with the way common sense refers to desire both to evaluate Russell's criticisms and to assess the adequacy of his own theory. Russell maintains that his method for studying desire is behaviouristic. However, his theory of desire is not entirely behaviouristic because he allows introspection to play an important role in identifying feelings and sensations in human beings. Although Russell's account of desire in animals is mainly behaviouristic, his account of desire in human beings is not so because it requires beliefs which cannot be accounted for adequately on behaviouristic grounds. Russell's views of behaviourism and introspection are examined in detail and the effects of introducing beliefs to human desire are discussed at length with respect to both his theory of desire and his doctrine of neutral monism. ;Russell offers a model of desire that is simplistic and incomplete. It is neither behaviouristic nor empiricistic, but it is offered to accord with his doctrine of neutral monism. I argue that this model is adequate for explaining animal and simple human desires, but needs considerable elaboration to successfully account for complicated human conscious desires

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Neutral Monism Reconsidered.Erik C. Banks - 2010 - Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):173-187.
What was Russell's neutral monism?Michael Lockwood - 1981 - Midwest Studes in Philosophy 6 (1):143-58.
先秦儒家关于“欲”的理论 (Pre-Qin Confucian Theory on Human Desires).Keqian Xu - 2006 - 中州学刊 (Academic Journal of Zhongzhou) 2006 (1):166-170.
Russell's hypothesis and the new physicalism.Erik C. Banks - 2009 - Proceedings of the Ohio Philosophical Association 6.
Conflicts of Desire.Steven Arkonovich - 2012 - Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (1):51-63.
Desires, descriptivism, and reference failure.Alexander Hughes - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (1):279-296.
Desiring to Desire: Russell, Lewis and G.E.Moore.Charles Pigden - 2007 - In Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.), Themes from G.E.Moore. Oxford University Press. pp. 244-260.
10 Russell's Neutral Monism.Re Tully - 2003 - In Nicholas Griffin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. Cambridge University Press. pp. 332.
Aquinas and the Human Desire for Knowledge.Jan A. Aertsen - 2005 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 79 (3):411-430.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references