The importance of being erroneous: Prospects for animal intentionality
Philosophical Topics 27 (1):281-308 (1999)
| Abstract | The question of animal belief (or animal intentionality) often degenerates into a frustrating and unproductive exchange. Foes of animal intentionality point out that non-linguistic animals couldn’t possibly possess the kinds of mental states we linguistic beings enjoy. They claim that linguistic ability enables us to become sensitive to intensional contexts or to the states of mind of others in a way that is unavailable to the non-linguistic, and that would be necessary for proper attributions of intentionality. To attribute mental states to non-linguistic brutes, no matter how natural it comes to us, would be grossly anthropomorphic. In the face of these challenges some friends of animal intentionality have attempted to show that at least a few animals (chimpanzees, vervet monkeys, honeybees) are capable of engaging in quasi-linguistic, communicative practices that ought to be accorded at least a minimal degree of intentionality. Others have questioned the foes’ necessity claims; linguistic ability, claim these animal friends, isn’t required for sensitivity to intensional contexts, surprise, or belief about belief after all, or if it is, then these features aren’t really requisite for mental capacity. Indeed, if we focus exclusively upon linguistic ability, then we are apt to miss the primitive kinds of mental capacities from which our own full-blooded intentional capacities likely evolved. Animals certainly seem to interact intelligently with their surroundings, so much so that we ought to follow our natural (brute?) anthropomorphic inclinations to credit them with minds. Failing to recognize their genuine intentional capacities would be "brutishly" anthropocentric | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeff Speaks (2006). Is Mental Content Prior to Linguistic Meaning?: Stalnaker on Intentionality. Noûs 40 (3):428-467.
Joseph Margolis (1975). Mental States. Behaviorism 3:23-31.
F. Dreckmann (1999). Animal Beliefs and Their Contents. Erkenntnis 51 (1):597-615.
José E. Burgos (2007). About Aboutness: Thoughts on Intentional Behaviorism. Behavior and Philosophy 35:65 - 76.
Anders Nes (2008). Are Only Mental Phenomena Intentional? Analysis 68 (299):205–215.
R. Routley (1982). Alleged Problems in Attributing Beliefs, and Intentionality, to Animals. Inquiry 24 (4):385-417.
Chuck Stieg (2008). The Intentionality of Plover Cognitive States. Cogprints 8 (August).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads34 ( #35,408 of 550,917 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,807 of 550,917 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
