Erkenntnis 57 (1):41-46 (2002)
|Abstract||This paper defends Humeanism: the view that an agent has a reason for an intentional action if and only if it fulfills, or is a means to fulfilling, a current desire of that agent. Thomas Nagel presents an example involving a short-lived desire for eating a persimmon tomorrow. He claims that, contrary to Humeanism, this example is a clear case of irrationality. Furthermore, the Humean cannot simply dismiss all current desires with future objects, because desires of this sort are crucial to the Humean account of prudence. I respond that, correctly understood, Humeanism can simultaneously account for prudent conduct and other conduct motivated by present desires with future objects.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daan Evers (forthcoming). In Defence of Proportionalism. European Journal of Philosophy.
Jonathan Dancy (1995). Why There Is Really No Such Thing as the Theory of Motivation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:1-18.
Michelle Mason (2005). Hume and Humeans on Practical Reason. Hume Studies 31 (2):347-378.
Michael Ridge (1998). Humean Intentions. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (2):157-178.
Yonatan Shemmer (2004). Desiring at Will and Humeanism in Practical Reason. Philosophical Studies 119 (3):265-294.
Donald C. Hubin (1999). What's Special About Humeanism. Noûs 33 (1):30-45.
Achim Lohmar (2008). The Failure of Pure Cognitivism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76 (1):149-166.
Steven Daskal (2010). Absolute Value as Belief. Philosophical Studies 148 (2).
A. Byrne & A. Hajek (1997). David Hume, David Lewis, and Decision Theory. Mind 106 (423):411-728.
Steven Arkonovich (2001). Defending Desire: Scanlon's Anti-Humeanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):499-519.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,547 of 549,069 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )
How can I increase my downloads?