The Unity of Normative Thought.

Practical cognitivism is the view that practical reason is our will, not an intellectual capacity whose exercises can influence those of our will. If practical reason is our will, thoughts about how I am to act have an essential tie to action. They are intentions. Thoughts about how others are to ac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy & Phenomenological Research Vol. 104; no. 3; pp. 639 - 659
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell May2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=158260558&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 158260558
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318205
        PPO
      jtl: Philosophy & Phenomenological Research
      issn: 00318205
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: May2022
      vid: 104
      iid: 3
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158260558
        10.1111/phpr.12798
      ppf: 639
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 782KB
      tig:
        atl: The Unity of Normative Thought.
      aug:
      su:
        Cognitive psychology
        Human beings
        Delusions
        Intention
        Critical analysis
      sug:
        subj:
          Cognitive psychology
          Human beings
          Delusions
          Intention
          Critical analysis
      ab: Practical cognitivism is the view that practical reason is our will, not an intellectual capacity whose exercises can influence those of our will. If practical reason is our will, thoughts about how I am to act have an essential tie to action. They are intentions. Thoughts about how others are to act, though, lack such a tie to action. They are beliefs, not intentions. How, then, can these thoughts form a unified class? I reject two answers which deny the differences between such thoughts about myself and those about others, one of which says that all such thoughts are intentions, the other that all are beliefs. I then reject a shared assumption which says that a class of those is unified only if all its elements are all of one type of thought. I instead argue that this class is unified even though some elements are intentions, others beliefs, because such beliefs depend on those intentions in various ways.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy & Phenomenological Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy & Phenomenological Research
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N