Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Galen A. Johnson (1985). Intentionality, Institutions, and the Interpretation of Historical Action in the Dialectic of Action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15 (4):449-459.
Similar books and articles
No categories
This article presents a sketch of a theory of action. It does so by locating the relation of intention to action -vithin a general theory of Intentionality. It introduces a distinction between ptiorintentions and intentions in actions; the concept of the experience of acting; and the thesis that both prior intentions and intentions in action are causally self-referential. Each of these is independently motivated, but together they allow suggested solutions to several outstanding problems within action theory (deviant causal chains, the accordion effect, basic actions, etc.); the demonstration of striking similarities between the logical structure of intentional action and the logical structure of perception; and the construction of an account of simple actions. A successfully performed intentional action characteristically consists of an intention in action together with the bodily movement or state of the agent which is its condition of satisfaction and which is caused by it. The account is extended to complex actions.
In this collection of essays, Audi develops a general theory of action ranging from the nature of action and action-explanation to free and rational action.
The starting?point for this discussion is Rolf Gruner's ?On the Action of Social Groups? (Inquiry, Vol. 19 [1976]), in which it is argued that assemblies and institutions can be said to perform actions, while classes cannot. It is shown here that teams, which are groups distinct from both assemblies and institutions, can also be said to act. Some of the similarities and differences between teams and assemblies and institutions are noted; and, in particular, it is found that the relation between the action of a team and the actions of its members differs from the corresponding relations in the cases of assemblies and institutions.
No categories
Realism in Action is a selection of essays written by leading representatives in the fields of action theory and philosophy of mind, philosophy of the social sciences and especially the nature of social action, and of epistemology and philosophy of science. Practical reason, reasons and causes in action theory, intending and trying, and folk-psychological explanation are some of the topics discussed by these leading participants. A particular emphasis is laid on trust, commitments and social institutions, on the possibility of grounding social notions in individual social attitudes, on the nature of social groups, institutions and collective intentionality, and on common belief and common knowledge. Applications to the social sciences include, e.g., a look at the Erklären-Verstehen controversy in economics, and at constructivist and realist views on archeological reconstructions of the past.
The aim of this paper is to introduce a logically grounded approach to action semantics and action interpretation. The main idea is to present the context of action as a set of questions demanding an action to answer. I introduce (a) a basic procedure of action interpretation, which is a reformulation of Hilpinen's semantical procedure for imperatives; (b) a procedure of what-interpretation; (c) a procedure of why-interpretation. The conditions of mutual reducibility of interpretation procedures are explicated. The paper concludes by putting forth the problem of interpretive bounds of moral responsibility.
This book deals with foundational issues in the history of the nature of action, the intentionality of action, the compatibility of freedom of action with determinism, and the explanation of action. Ginet's is a volitional view: that every action has as its core a "simple" mental action. He develops a sophisticated account of the individuation of actions and also propounds a challenging version of the view that freedom of action is incompatible with determinism.
A phenomenology of action is outlined, analyzing the structure of volition, kinesthesis, and perception in the experience of action, and, finally, the experience of embodiment in action. The intentionality of action is contrasted with that of thought and perception in regard to the role of the body, and the relations between an action, the experience of acting, and the context of the action are specified.
Discussion of Galen A. Johnson, Intentionality, institutions, and the interpretation of historical action in the dialectic of action
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

