Graduate studies at Western
Inquiry 10 (1-4):164 – 180 (1967)
|Abstract||To say that a single human action can be given different descriptions is to imply that the contrast between action and description is intelligible. There are several ways in which such a contrast is easily understood, but those ways do not meet philosophers? needs. They have said that the descriptions are all true, thereby excluding that interpretation in which no more than one description could be true. They have emphasized the word ?different?, therefore that interpretation in which the descriptions are partial and consequently combinable into one larger description is excluded. The descriptions must be different and true while remaining descriptions of the same single action. How can we conceive of this sort of contrast between description and action? It is not a familiar one. Several attempts are made in this paper to provide a way of conceiving of the contrast. All fail. The conclusion is hesitantly drawn that we have no other way to conceive of different human actions than by descriptions which are different from one another and true|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Rayfield (1974). On Miller's Paradoxes and Circles. Inquiry 17 (1-4):461-464.
David Rayfield (1973). Cody's Categories. Inquiry 16 (1-4):419 – 428.
Arthur R. Miller (1974). Correct Vs. 'Merely True' Act‐Descriptions. Inquiry 17 (1-4):457-460.
David Rayfield (1970). On Describing Actions. Inquiry 13 (1-4):90 – 99.
R. E. Dowling (1967). 'Can an Action Have Many Descriptions?'? Inquiry 10 (1-4):447-448.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads5 ( #170,270 of 739,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?