In Roman Altshuler & Michael J. Sigrist (eds.), Time and the Philosophy of Action. Routledge. pp. 21-36 (2016)

Santiago Amaya
University of the Andes
Most human actions are complex, but some of them are basic. Which are these? In this paper, I address this question by invoking slips, a common kind of mistake. The proposal is this: an action is basic if and only if it is not possible to slip in performing it. The argument discusses some well-established results from the psychology of language production in the context of a philosophical theory of action. In the end, the proposed criterion is applied to discuss some well-known theories of basic actions.
Keywords Slips  Basic actions  Basic knowledge  Extended mind
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason.Michael Bratman - 1987 - Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

View all 33 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Why Value Values?Murray Samuel - 2018 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The No-Slip Condition of Fluid Dynamics.Michael A. Day - 1990 - Erkenntnis 33 (3):285 - 296.
On Gödel's Awareness of Skolem's Helsinki Lecture.Mark van Atten - 2005 - History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (4):321-326.
Sequent Reconstruction in LLM—A Sweepline Proof.R. Banach - 1995 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 73 (3):277-295.
Teaching Proving by Coordinating Aspects of Proofs with Students' Abilities.Annie Selden & John Selden - 2009 - In Despina A. Stylianou, Maria L. Blanton & Eric J. Knuth (eds.), Teaching and Learning Proof Across the Grades: A K-16 Perspective. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 339--354.
Feature Development, Object Concepts, and the Scope Slip.Michael R. W. Dawson - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1146-1147.
Completeness of MLL Proof-Nets W.R.T. Weak Distributivity.Jean-Baptiste Joinet - 2007 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (1):159 - 170.
Descartes's Ontological Proof of God's Existence.Cecilia Wee - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (1):23 - 40.
Argumentative Aspects of Indirect Proof.James Gasser - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (1):41-49.
Dialectic and Indirect Proof.Clark Butler - 1991 - The Monist 74 (3):422-437.


Added to PP index

Total views
84 ( #122,020 of 2,426,572 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
26 ( #31,100 of 2,426,572 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes