David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 52 (3):309-329 (1987)
What is it, precisely, that an agent intends when he intends, as we might say, to clean his stove today? What is the content of his intention? In recent years, Gilbert Harman and John Searle have maintained that all intentions are self-referential -- that is, that an adequate expression of the content of any intention makes essential reference to the intention whose content is being expressed. I shall call this the self-referentiality thesis (SRT). Harman, in his paper 'Practical Reasoning', argues that "the intention to do A is the intention that, because of that very intention, one will do A". Searle, in his book, Intentionality, contends similarly that the "Intentional content" of an agent's "prior intention" to A identifies that very intention as a cause of the agent's (prospective) A-ing. In Sections 1-3 below, I show that the main arguments for the SRT are unsuccessful and that the thesis is problematic. In Section 4, I sketch an alternative account of the contents of intentions.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Searle (1983). Intentionality. Oxford University Press.
Alvin I. Goldman (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Princeton University Press.
Donald Davidson (1982). Rational Animals. Dialectica 36 (4):317-28.
Myles Brand (1986). Intending and Acting. Philosophical Review 95 (2):261-264.
Irving Thalberg (1984). Do Our Intentions Cause Our Intentional Actions? American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (3):249 - 260.
Citations of this work BETA
J. Robert Thompson (2014). Meaning and Mindreading. Mind and Language 29 (2):167-200.
Armin Schulz (2013). The Benefits of Rule Following: A New Account of the Evolution of Desires. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 44 (4a):595-603.
Tomis Kapitan (1991). Agency and Omniscience. Religious Studies 27 (1):105-120.
Armin W. Schulz (2013). The Benefits of Rule Following: A New Account of the Evolution of Desires. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):595-603.
Alfred R. Mele (1989). She Intends to Try. Philosophical Studies 55 (1):101-106.
Similar books and articles
Renée Bilodeau (2006). The Motivational Strength of Intentions. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:129-135.
Chrisoula Andreou (2009). Taking on Intentions. Ratio 22 (2):157-169.
Raimo Tuomela & Kaarlo Miller (1992). We-Intentions, Free-Riding, and Being in Reserve. Erkenntnis 36 (1):25 - 52.
Bruno Verbeek (ed.) (2007). Reasons and Intentions. Ashgate Pub. Ltd..
Elisabeth Pacherie (2000). The Content of Intentions. Mind and Language 15 (4):400-432.
Matthew Hanser (1998). Intention and Teleology. Mind 107 (426):381-401.
Vojislav Bozickovic (2001). The Semantic Insignificance of Referential Intentions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):125-135.
J. David Velleman (1997). How To Share An Intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1):29 - 50.
John R. Searle (1979). The Intentionality of Intention and Action. Inquiry 22 (1-4):253 – 280.
Raimo Tuomela (2005). We-Intentions Revisited. Philosophical Studies 125 (3):327 - 369.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads62 ( #76,961 of 1,940,981 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #272,533 of 1,940,981 )
How can I increase my downloads?