Online research in philosophy

This article defends the idea that causal relations between reasons and actions are wholly irrelevant to the explanatory efficacy of reason-explanations. The analysis of reason-explanations provided in this article shows that the so-called “problem of explanatory force” is solved, not by putative causal relations between the reasons for which agents act and their actions, but rather by the intentions that agents necessarily have when they act for a reason. Additionally, the article provides a critique of the principal source of support (...) for the thesis that reason-explanations are causal explanations, namely, Davidson’s argument in “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” It is shown that Davidson’s argument for this thesis rests crucially on two mistakes: his definition of intentional action and his ontological prejudice against intentions.Cet article soutient que les relations causales entre raisons et actions ne sont pas du tout adaptées à l’efficacité explicative de la relation raison-explications. L’analyse de cette dernière introduite dans le présent article montre que le soi-disant «problème de la force explicative» se trouve résolu non par de prétendues relations causales entre les raisons pour lesquelles des agents agissent et leurs actions mais plutôt par les intentions que les agents ont nécessairement quand ils agissent pour une raison. Par ailleurs l’article avance la critique de ce qui est essentiellement à la source de la défense de la thèse selon laquelle la relation raison-explications forme les explications causales, c’est-a-dire l’argument de Davidson dans «Actions, Raisons et Causes» Il est montré que l’argument de Davidson a l’oeuvre dans cette thèse repose essentiellement sur deux erreurs: la première est sa définition de l’action délibérée et la seconde est un préjugé d'ordre ontologique à l’égard des intentions. (shrink)

In this paper I show that two conflicting theories of literal meaning can be found in Donald Davidson's philosophy of language. In his earlier writings, Davidson espoused the common sense idea that words have literal meanings independently of particular contexts of use. In his later writings, however, Davidson insisted that the literal meaning of a word is a function of the speaker's intentions in using it, from which it follows that words do not have literal meanings independently of particular contexts. (...) In this paper I examine and evaluate the transition from Davidson's earlier to his later view of literal meaning. I show that the change in view came about through Davidson's efforts to extend a theory of literal meaning to malapropisms but that Davidson's understanding of malapropisms is seriously flawed. I conclude that Davidson had no good reason for espousing his later intentions-based theory of literal meaning. (shrink)

This article is concerned with the question of whether, and to what extent, the concept of metaphor properly applies to pictures (e.g., paintings or photographs). The question is approached dialectically through an examination of the views of Sonia Sedivy, who advances the following 4 claims: (a) that pictures possess propositional content, (b) that there are metaphoric pictures, (c) that metaphoric pictures do not possess metaphoric content, and (d) that there can be no theory of pictorial metaphor. Although the first of (...) Sedivy's claims is rejected in this article, the existence of pictorial metaphors is not denied. Thus, the fact that pictures do not possess propositional content does not preclude the possibility of pictorial metaphors. What are required, though, are changes to the conception of pictorial metaphor that Sedivy advances. (shrink)