Abstract

Intellectualists hold that knowledge-how is a species of knowledge-that, and consequently that the knowledge involved in skill is propositional. In support of this view, the intentional action argument holds that since skills manifest in intentional action and since intentional action necessarily depends on propositional knowledge, skills necessarily depend on propositional knowledge. We challenge this argument, and suggest that instructive representations, as opposed to propositional attitudes, can better account for an agent’s reasons for action. While a propositional-causal theory of action, according to which intentional action must be causally produced “in the right way” by an agent’s proposition-involving reasons, has long held sway, we draw on Elizabeth Anscombe’s insights offer a path toward an alternative theory of action. In so doing, we reject the implicitly Cartesian conception of knowledge at the core of the intentional action argument, while hanging on to the idea that mental states are representations of a certain kind. Our argument provides theoretical support for anti-intellectualism by equipping philosophers with an account of non-propositional, practical content.

Highlights

  • Many philosophers hold that skill requires knowledge-how and some hold the converse, as well (Pavese, 2016a, 2016b)

  • What’s more, intentional actions can be modeled by an Aristotelian practical syllogism, the premises of which map onto desires and means-end beliefs, while the conclusion appears to map onto the intention (Anscombe, 1957; Davidson, 1963, 1970; Goldman, 1970; Audi, 1986)

  • Springle’s Practical-Epistemic Access (PEA) analysis of representation provides a way of unifying different species of representation, including propositional representations and her problem-solving account of intentional action enables her to unify her analysis of intentional action with her analysis of representation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many philosophers hold that skill requires knowledge-how and some hold the converse, as well (Pavese, 2016a, 2016b). We’ll block direct defense of the premise by arguing that embodied instructive representations, as opposed to propositional knowledge, may better account for practical knowledge, and the psychological states that constitute intentions more generally. These assumptions are summed up in the theses that an agent’s subjective reasons for acting are her propositional representations of facts, and that the intentionality of actions derives from their being caused by an agent’s propositional attitudes These assumptions seem natural to many philosophers, we think, because they encode an implicitly Cartesian conception of all knowledge as reflection. Anscombe’s insights offer a path toward an alternative theory of action that denies the problematic aspects of PCT and the Cartesian conception of knowledge it encodes while hanging on to the idea that intentional actions essentially involve psychological representations of a certain kind.. We think this upshot offers a powerful basis for the defense of anti-intellectualism

The propositional‐causal theory of action
An alternative to the propositional‐causal theory
The problem‐solving account of intentional action
Embodied instructive representation
Problem‐solving dispositions
Instructive dispositions as embodied instructive representations
Generative directedness
Anscombe’s theses
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call