Abstract

There is a robust and lasting consensus among theorists that the satisfaction of desire cannot consist in its extinction. I argue that the consensus is wrong and based on a flawed argument. The resulting theory is also attractive in its own right and provides a middle ground between cognitivism and motivationalism about desire. In particular, the theory suggests a plausible distinction between the psychofunctional roles of belief and desire. The naturalistic reduction of representational content also receives a much needed boost within a simple teleofunctionalist framework. Roughly, the representational content of desire is reduced directly to its biological function. More sophisticated representations are then explained as guiding action towards the most effective or biologically optimal termination of desire.