1. The view that beliefs can be characterized solely by their motivational role promises an informative reduction of what it is for a state to be a belief state. It is therefore of import if such a view is wrong. In ‘On the aim of belief’ David Velleman (2000) presents an argument against such a motivational view of belief.1 On Velleman’s construal of the motivational view.
We show that neither the descending chain property nor the finite model property is a necessary condition for a model logic having no minimal proper extension. This answers in the negative two questions raised by G. E. Hughes.