David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 7 (1):63-84 (1994)
This article explores the possibility of naturalized theory of action. It distinguishes ontological naturalism from conceptual naturalism, and asks whether a defensible theory of action can be either ontologically or conceptually naturalistic. The distinction between conditions for an ontology and conditions for a concept receives support from Donald Davidson's identification of two modes of explanation for action: rational and physical causal explanation. Davidson's action theory provides a naturalized ontology for action theory, but not a naturalized concept of intentional action. This article raises doubts about Davidson's basis for such one-sided naturalism. It examines some conditions for a mode of explanation, in order to clarify whether an intentional mode of explanation might have ontological significance and thus raise problems for ontological naturalism. The article argues for the central role of certain instrumental factors in explanatory strategies, whether naturalistic or intentional; and it casts doubt on Jaegwon Kim's recent argument that intentional psychology and neuroscience are mutually exclusive as explanatory strategies. A key lesson is that variable end-dependent reasons are our only wherewithal in the evaluation of explanatory strategies. In this sense, our explanatory strategies are ultimately instrumental and perspectival. The article draws out the implications of this lesson for naturalized action theory and for psychological explanation. It opposes any suggested monopoly on explanation from the physical sciences.
|Keywords||Consciousness Metaphysics Mind Naturalism Psychology Science|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Fred A. Keijzer & Sacha Bem (1996). Behavioral Systems Interpreted as Autonomous Agents and as Coupled Dynamical Systems: A Criticism. Philosophical Psychology 9 (3):323-46.
Similar books and articles
Zhu Xu (2010). Laws, Causality and the Intentional Explanation of Action. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5 (2):280-293.
M. Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49.
Terence E. Horgan (1993). Nonreductive Materialism and the Explanatory Autonomy of Psychology. In Steven J. Wagner & Richard Warner (eds.), Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal. University of Notre Dame Press
Karsten Stueber, Intentional Explanation, Psychological Laws, and the Irreducibility of the First Person Perspective.
Jennifer Hornsby (2001). Simple Mindedness: In Defense of Naive Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Harvard University Press.
Mikael Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection or From Normativity to Constitutivity. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35 - 49.
Mikael Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection or From Normativity to Constitutivity. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49.
Jaegwon Kim (2002). Horgan's Naturalistic Metaphysics of Mind. Grazer Philosophische Studien 63 (1):27-52.
Mark Risjord (2005). Reasons, Causes, and Action Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (3):294-306.
Jaegwon Kim (2003). The American Origins of Philosophical Naturalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 28 (Supplement):83-98.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #150,455 of 1,724,748 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,121 of 1,724,748 )
How can I increase my downloads?