This article offers a critical analysis of John Broome's conception of practical reasoning. I first introduce his main claims and then point out some of the difficulties raised by the notion of “double expression” and by some aspects of the cognitivism which he explicitly endorses. I then emphasize two consequences of these criticisms: one concerning the link he sees between belief and intention, and the other concerning the idea that our practical reasonings are inextricably linked to our theoretical reasonings. Finally, (...) I argue that the problem Broome seems to be facing has its source in the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between reasoning (a relation between mental states) and the description of its content (a relation between propositions). (shrink)

This article offers a critical analysis of John Broome's conception of practical reasoning. I first introduce his main claims and then point out some of the difficulties raised by the notion of “double expression” and by some aspects of the cognitivism which he explicitly endorses. I then emphasize two consequences of these criticisms: one concerning the link he sees between belief and intention, and the other concerning the idea that our practical reasonings are inextricably linked to our theoretical reasonings. Finally, (...) I argue that the problem Broome seems to be facing has its source in the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between reasoning (a relation between mental states) and the description of its content (a relation between propositions). (shrink)

This article offers a critical analysis of John Broome's conception of practical reasoning. I first introduce his main claims and then point out some of the difficulties raised by the notion of “double expression” and by some aspects of the cognitivism which he explicitly endorses. I then emphasize two consequences of these criticisms: one concerning the link he sees between belief and intention, and the other concerning the idea that our practical reasonings are inextricably linked to our theoretical reasonings. Finally, (...) I argue that the problem Broome seems to be facing has its source in the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between reasoning (a relation between mental states) and the description of its content (a relation between propositions). (shrink)

Partant de l’hypothèse qu’une théorie adéquate du raisonnement devrait être en mesure de répondre à la question de savoir comment les aspects processuel et inférentiel d’un raisonnement sont liés entre eux, l’objectif de cet article est de déterminer comment Gilbert Harman conçoit cet aspect processuel, et si sa théorie permet d’expliquer de manière adéquate la relation entre ces deux aspects. J’examine d’abord quelle fonction il reconnaît aux notions d’implication et d’inconsistance, et montre ensuite que si le processus dans lequel s’engage (...) celui qui raisonne peut être conçu à la manière d’Harman, c’est-à-dire à la 3e personne, il doit aussi être conçu du point de vue de l’agent qui raisonne, c’est-à-dire à la 1re personne. Après avoir discuté des limites inhérentes au fait de concevoir l’aspect processuel du raisonnement d’un point de vue essentiellement externe, à la 3e personne, j’identifie quelques conséquences que fait apparaître la perspective de la 1re personne, dans le but de montrer pourquoi une théorie adéquate du raisonnement ne peut en faire l’économie.Assuming that an adequate account of reasoning should be able to explain how the processual aspect of a piece of reasoning relates to its inferential aspect, this article seeks to determine how Gilbert Harman’s conceives of this processual aspect, and whether his theory allows for a correct explanation of its relation to the inferential aspect. I consider first which role he attributes to the notions of implication and consistency, and then argue that even though the process in which a reasoning subject engages can be thought of in the way suggested by Harman, i.e., from the 3rd person perspective, it must also be conceived from the 1st person perspective, from the point of view of the reasoning subject. I discuss some of the unavoidable limitations of conceiving the processual aspect of reasoning from such an essentially external point of view, and draw attention to some of the advantages of adopting the 1st person perspective, with the aim of showing why no adequate theory of reasoning could completely dispense with it. (shrink)