Intention in Action

John McDowell is a contemporary philosopher whose most influential work has been in the philosophy of mind and language. He questions whether empirical thought is rationally grounded in experience in this Howison Lecture in Philosophy from UC Berkeley. Series: UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures [8/2006] [Humanities] [Show ID: 11509]

Category:

Education

Tags:

• John
• McDowell
• philosopher
• mind
• language

[JuanVoyce]

is this a funeral?

[snowtrot]

John McDowell's work in metaethics is so difficult to understand. I hate reading him! But the work is worth it. Great video.

[TheSophist2007]

@JuanVoyce very funny...

[TheSophist2007]

@JuanVoyce very funny...

[ThePastorGregory]

@franco121760 ..meaningless,meaningless,ever­ything is meaningless.

[bluetoebeing]

@ajaxpc yeah, but McD has to pay for his lunch. And so do you. If you no know of another way, please inform.

[xternalist]

@JuanVoyce Hahaha. Yeah. I think it is.LOL

[ajaxpc]

Isn't this just a pedantic exploration of a confusion? (Searle's confusion, then McDowell's confusion ...)

Attribution of intention is indefinitely corrigible - following Kripke's observation on rule following; and it has an irreducible normative content, since we only attribute it to 'agents'. It is not a kind of empirical fact that someone, or something, is an agent.

If our intentional language has these confusing implications, we just shouldn't push it that hard.

[franco121760]

Mankind is like a mouse that keeps running in circles without real meaning in life!

Man focuses too much on the intentions and in deep thinking theories that ends missing the real point which is in my personal opinion living and using life's precious time in a productive way for him and society

[dontonti99]

To *langengro*. I don't see the problem. DD's problem was about a deviant causal chain: actions might not be intentional, even if the action is caused by an intention. Causal chains aren't enough to make an action intentional. What in McD's talk forces a denial of that? If PI is just IA, given the typical conditions, then McD can say the same. The issue is whether IA, as Searle but not McD understands it, is required for this kind of move.