Greg Detre
16/11/00
Snowdon
the 2nd + 3rd views of trying/actoin are indistinct
rewiring, say, of left and right arms � if the wrong arm is raised, then is it successful? no, but it is still an action
so success relates to what you�re trying to do vs the actual movement
but you can try and fail but still be doing something
can the agent respond to a command? if so, then it�s an action
e.g. you can't just pass out, but you can e.g. stand up
intending = commitment to some sort of plan, but not �executive�
trying requires intention
is desire active/passive?
passive, in the sense that you find yourself with them, you can't be bidden to want something
intentions have behavioural implications, � probability of trying
|
desire |
belief |
|
active |
|
desire (passive) |
|
intention |
trying |
|
passive |
|
intention (active) |
Davidson: action = events that are intentional under a description, i.e. bodily movements that you intend
intentional if caused by a primary reason � always need a reason for action
Davidson vs trying view = very different
are reasons causal?
Davidson was trying to talk of actions without using action-terms, e.g. trying
whereas trying theories are using action terms
Think � Royal Institute magazine
ask about 4 theories of trying + action
action theory is all about the distinction between the active and the passive
is this distinction artificial?
what are the requirements/entailments of activity?