Propositional Attitudes

Handbook Abstract: Beliefs play a central role in how we understand ourselves, each other, and the world. So it’s no surprise that decades of research across the social sciences have been dedicated to documenting the particular beliefs that people hold. But what makes something a belief, rather than a different kind of representation or commitment? What does it mean to believe? These questions have received a great deal of attention within philosophy, but without the benefit of systematic, empirical investigation. That’s (...) beginning to change as psychologists, anthropologists, and other cognitive scientists broaden the scope of empirical and theoretical work on belief. How does belief relate to perception and memory? Do we have control over what we believe? How did the capacity for believing evolve? Can nonhuman animals have beliefs? Does believing come in degrees? And do we have ethical obligations to believe certain things and not others? All these questions and more are addressed in this Handbook, which brings together state-of-the-art work in philosophy and the cognitive sciences—including, anthropology, cognitive psychology, computational modeling, political science, and more. The result is a resource for novices and experts alike, not only detailing recent progress, but also charting a course for further developments in the cognitive science of belief. (shrink)

We impose our minds onto the world. We create artifacts that reflect our intentions to make them. We make social constructions that mirror our collective agreements. We impress value by our valuing. Discomfort with this power to mold the world in our image has led many to reject such mirroring of mind by world, but this would do away with much of the human realm. Therefore, I offer a realist account of imposition by way of enfolding it within a more (...) general account of how intentional states can produce new intentionally-dependent phenomena. Truth arises only due to beliefs determining that certain facts make them true. Desires forge satisfaction by determining that certain occurrences satisfy them. Impositions of mind are made in the same basic way. They are produced due to imposing attitudes determining how they are produced. We should be no more skeptical of imposition than of truth and satisfaction. (shrink)

Prevailing approaches to interpreting large language models (LLMs) risk addressing the field’s central questions at the wrong level of analysis. As LLMs develop, researchers have turned to “under-thehood” methods to investigate whether LLMs possess states analogous to beliefs, desires, or intentions. These methods typically map internal representations, feature directions, or neural circuits onto folk-psychological categories. We argue that these methods are too fragile to reap the results we need. Instead, interpretability ought to be reoriented toward and grounded in what we (...) call “ecologically sensitive behavioral analyses” which integrates mechanistic tools with severe testing of behavioral signatures across ecological contexts, aligning interpretability efforts with emerging evaluation sciences for AI. We outline a multi-disciplinary trajectory for developing interpretability methods that are both philosophically coherent and practically relevant for the deployment of increasingly capable LLMs. (shrink)

Can robots experience loneliness? This paper argues that even the most sophisticated robots—such as BINA48, the animatronic AI programmed to express memories, reflections, and feelings of isolation—cannot experience subjective loneliness. The argument proceeds through a systematic examination of three major theories of emotion: non-cognitive theories, cognitive theories, and scaffolded theories. -/- Non-cognitive theories, exemplified by the James–Lange tradition, identify emotions with physiological states. On this view, sufficiently equipped robots might achieve something analogous to primordial aloneness, i.e., an evolutionarily basic response (...) to social absence. Cognitive theories, which treat emotions as intentional mental states constituted by beliefs or appraisals, raise the bar further: subjective loneliness requires self-representation and conceptual resources that sophisticated AI systems may appear to approximate. Yet both traditions share a common limitation: they are fundamentally internalist, treating the environment as at most a causal trigger for processes that are ultimately inner and individual. -/- Scaffolded emotion theory, drawing on Sterelny's niche construction framework and developed for affective states by Colombetti & Krueger and Krueger & Osler, rejects this internalist model. Emotions are not merely reactions to environments but are co-constituted by them. I argue for a middle-ground position: scaffolds are constitutive of an emotion's character and content, yet the emotion is realized within the individual, thus preserving phenomenal interiority while rejecting strong internalism. On this view, subjective loneliness is an affective achievement made possible by embodied vulnerability, developmental intersubjectivity, and immersion in the specific historical conditions—industrialization, capitalism, individualism—that transformed primordial isolation into a pervasive modern condition. Robots can be causally affected by environments, but they cannot be co-constituted by them, because they lack the embodied, intersubjectively embedded existence that makes such co-constitution possible. (shrink)

[Special Issue - Philosophy of Language: New Frontiers in Meaning and Use] - Propositions are abstract mind-independent entities expressed by sentences and believed by believers, they inherently have representational properties, and their having these is basic to them rather than being the sort of thing we should seek to explain. Here I defend this set of views from a line of objection, recently exemplified by Peter Hanks and Scott Soames, which complains that it affords no good explanation of intentionality in (...) terms of propositions. I argue that the complaint is misplaced; propositions have already earned their keep without affording any such explanation. In fact, on the kind of view of the epistemology of the ontology of propositions that I favour, they earned their keep so long ago that we should not think of them as theoretical posits any more than we think of our friends or our clothes as such. (shrink)

This paper defends the thesis that LLM hallucinations are best explained as a truth representation problem: Current models lack an internal representation of propositions as truth-bearers, so truth and falsity cannot constrain generation in the way factual discourse requires. It begins by surveying leading explanations—computational limits on self-verification, deficiencies in training data as truth sources, and architectural factors—and argues that they converge on the same underlying representational deficit. Next, it reconstructs the philosophical background of current LLM design, showing how optimization (...) for fluent continuation aligns with coherence-style evaluation and with a broadly structuralist, relational semantics, before turning to David Chalmers’s recent attempt to secure propositional interpretability by drawing on Davidson/Lewis-style radical interpretation and by locating propositional content in “middle-layer” structures; it argues that this approach downplays the ubiquity of hallucination and inherits instability from post-training edits. Finally, the paper offers a positive proposal: Atomic propositions should be represented in the basic vector layer, reviving a logical-atomist program as a principled route to reducing hallucination. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that expressivism about attitudes is not a tenable position. Although this claim has been often made in the literature, traditional arguments against attitudinal expressivism assumed a dated form of expressivism. In order to show that ascriptions of attitudes cannot be seen as expressive in either of them, the paper discusses two more recent versions of expressivism: quasi-realism and inferentialist expressivism. Quasi-realism escapes traditional arguments against attitudinal expressivism because it allows expressive statements to (...) be true in a deflationary sense. Nonetheless, it is implausible to adopt quasi-realist expressivism with regard to attitudes because this position cannot avoid substantial psychological commitments, despite Toppinen's recent arguments to the contrary. This conclusion also pertains to quasi-realist hybrid expressivist conceptions. The recently developed conception of inferentialist expressivism arguably creates the most accommodating theory for attitudinal expressivism as it does not make any substantial psychological commitments. Still, the criteria of bifurcation assumed in this framework does not support the claim that attitudes play an expressive role. (shrink)

Why do we care about getting mental state attributions right? A common answer is that folk psychology is a proto-scientific theory that allows us to predict and explain the behavior of physical systems. I argue that this position is inconsistent with one of the central practices in which attribution of desire occurs: to advocate for our interests and for the interests of others. I explain how such advocating speech works, and in which contexts such uses of ‘wants’ are the default. (...) I use these observations to argue that there may be an irreducible normative function to folk psychology. (shrink)

Do emotions represent values? The dominant view in philosophy has it that they do. There is wide disagreement over the details, but this core commitment is common. But there is a new comer on scene: the attitude view. According to it, rather than representing value properties, there is a value-relevant way you represent the targets of emotion. For example, in feeling angry with someone you stand to them in the relation of representing-as-having-wronged-you. Although a recent view, it has quickly generated (...) discussion. But the central considerations in favour of each view are left wanting and it is hard to see how to choose amongst these alternatives. I argue that there is an empirical path to a decision. (shrink)

A growing chorus of AI researchers and philosophers posit internal representations in large language models (LLMs). But how do these representations relate to the kinds of mental states we routinely ascribe to our fellow humans? While some research has focused on belief- or knowledge- like states in LLMs, there has been comparatively little focus on the question of whether LLMs have intentions. I survey five properties that have been associated with intentions in the philosophical literature, and assess two candidate classes (...) of LLM representations against this set of features. The result is mixed: LLMs have representations that are intention-like in many— perhaps surprising—respects, but they differ from human intentions in important ways. (shrink)

Stefan Rinner has recently used a version of Schiffer’s puzzle, which invokes Frege’s Constraint, to argue against both the Naive Russellian Theory of Belief and the Relational Analysis of Belief Ascriptions. Furthermore, Rinner argues against the plausibility of responding to the puzzle by appealing to Salmón’s Constraint instead of Frege’s Constraint. In this paper, I defend a response to Rinner’s version of the puzzle that adheres to Salmón’s Constraint, the Naive Russellian Theory of Belief, and the Relational Analysis of Belief (...) Ascriptions. (shrink)

Here I respond to the commentaries in the present book symposium on Relgion as Make-Believe: A Theory of Belief, Imagination, and Group Identity.

This essay discusses Peter Langland-Hassan's approach to "explaining imagination" as it plays out in his recent book of that title. Langland-Hassan offers a theory of “attitude imagining” that avoids positing what he calls a “sui generis cognitive attitude.” This theory attempts to explain things like pretend play, hypothetical reasoning, and cognition of fiction; to explain them using only (what he calls) more “basic” mental states like beliefs and desires; and thus to explain them without positing a distinct cognitive attitude of (...) imagining, as many theorists do (including me). In other words, “attitude imagining,” for Langland-Hassan, is whatever explains those things (except for a distinct cognitive attitude of imagining itself). Despite the theoretical interest of this approach, I argue it is ontologically pennywise and pound foolish: for a slight savings in ontological complexity it dramatically reduces explanatory power. (shrink)

Philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and AI lack a unified model to explain how systems form meaningful propositional attitudes—states like belief, desire, and intention. This work introduces and defends the Trialectics framework as a response to this theoretical gap. We propose that any system capable of forming meaningful propositional attitudes—that is, internal states with truth-evaluable, compositionally structured content that can be rationally evaluated and guide goal-directed behavior—must instantiate three interdependent functional capacities: Reference (R), the ability to establish semantic links; Inference (...) (I), the capacity to process and transform content systematically; and Preference (P), the function of internal evaluation and goal-orientation. The central thesis is that these capacities are not modular but mutually conditioning: meaningful content arises only from their dynamic entanglement, where reference shapes and is shaped by inference and preference, and so on. By embedding evaluation (P) within the cognitive loop, Trialectics offers a naturalized solution to the problem of normativity in reasoning and reconciles representational requirements with enactivist critiques by defining reference functionally rather than metaphysically. The framework’s utility is demonstrated by showing how it implicitly structures existing cognitive architectures (e.g., BDI, Active Inference) and provides a powerful diagnostic and design tool for AI, particularly concerning alignment, generalization, and interpretability. Ultimately, Trialectics posits a fundamental architectural condition for any system—biological or artificial—to achieve the flexible, offline, and rationally evaluable propositional attitudes characteristic of sophisticated intelligence. (shrink)

I defend a view of the attitude of desire against a close rival. Both views are versions of “the guise of the good” thesis. The guise of the good says that a desire for P involves P appearing good in some respect. I defend a content-based account of value appearances against an attitude-based account. On the content view, a desire for P represents P as good while the attitude of that desire presents P’s value as true. In other words, a (...) desire for P presents it as true that P is good. The attitude view says that a desire represents P non-evaluatively while the attitude of that desire presents P as good. In other words, a desire for P presents P as good. The attitude view struggles to explain the relationship between the qualitative character of desires and appearances of value. It must either implausibly deny that there is a close relationship between the two, or explain the relationship by introducing a poorly motivated, revisionist mental ontology. In the present state of the debate between the two views, this problem tips the scales in favor of the content view. (shrink)

Mind as Metaphor develops a new approach to the mind. This approach is called mental fictionalism. It claims that our concept of mind is fundamentally metaphorical: we project the “outer world” of human culture (especially spoken and written language) onto the “inner world” of the mind. This inner world is a useful fiction: it does not exist, and yet talking as if it exists allows us to make sense of people’s behavior. The result is a view that sits somewhere between (...) Cartesianism and behaviorism. If Cartesianism takes the metaphor of the inner world metaphor too seriously, behaviorism fails to take it seriously enough, overlooking the crucial role it plays in our concept of mind. (shrink)

This book defends a novel theory of singular concepts, emphasizing the pragmatic requirements of singular concept possession and arguing that these requirements must be understood to institute traditions and policies of thought.

This paper investigates the necessary functional architecture underlying complex cognitive states such as belief, desire, hope, and fear, specifically those characterized as Meaningful Propositional Attitudes About Something Not Itself (MPAASNI). MPAASNI are defined as states possessing directed propositional content, susceptibility to systematic processing, and an internal stance conferring functional significance within a system. We identify three fundamental functional capacities required for such states: Reference (R), providing directed content; Inference (I), providing systematic processing and relation of contents; and Preference (P), providing (...) the internal stance, weighting, and functional significance. The core contribution of this paper is the articulation and defense of the Trialectics, defined as the specific functional mode of operation characterized by systematic and constitutive mutual conditioning among R, I, and P. Through rigorous, descriptive conceptual analysis, we argue that this Trialectic functioning—this deep functional integration where each capacity's state and operation conditions and is conditioned by the others—is not merely one possible arrangement but constitutes a necessary condition for the possibility of any system exhibiting MPAASNI. The necessity is demonstrated by showing that the functional integration inherently required by the definition of MPAASNI logically entails the mutual conditioning described by the Trialectics. This framework, derived non-empirically, applies to attitudes directed towards both tangible and non-tangible domains and posits a fundamental structure necessary for intentionality, rationality, and other sophisticated cognitive phenomena dependent on meaningful propositional attitudes. (shrink)

The general aim of this paper is to investigate how philosophical problems with the notion of mental content affect the debate about legislative intent. Specifically, the aim is to define and criticize the metaphysically strongest-possible version of realism about legislative intent, namely “Strong Realism”: the idea that the content of legislation is objectively determined by legislatures that are treated as irreducible group agents that are bearers of corporate, functionalist intentions. Against this view, it will be argued that legislatures are insufficiently (...) complex to meet the criteria of being bearers of sui generis propositional states. The failure of this strong, most idealized version of realism heralds bad news for all forms of realism as trying to weaken this position will not deliver the right theoretical goods. Thus, the failure of Strong Realism gives us reasons to prefer a constructivist/fictionalist approach to legislative intent. (shrink)

Certain combinations of sounds or signs on paper are meaningful. What makes it the case that, unlike most combinations of sounds answers to these questions are based on the idea that words stand for something, but it is difficult to say what words such as good, if, or probable stand for. This book advances novel answers based on the idea that words get their meaning from the way they are used to express states of mind and what follows from them. (...) It articulates a precise version of this idea, at a time when the shortcomings of the traditional answers are hotly discussed. (shrink)

The (dis)continuism problem asks if episodic memory is continuous with imagination. Given its close proximity with the cognitive sciences, philosophers have traditionally taken this issue as part of a larger naturalistic framework in the philosophy of memory. Some philosophers have argued that such naturalistic methodology entails the need for philosophers to also take the mental attitudes of remembering and imagining into account. However, the naturalistic methodology is concerned with making ontological claims on the basis of the relevant explanatory terms inside (...) the framework of the empirical sciences. It is unclear whether attitudes have such a role in the cognitive sciences, specially cognitive neuroscience. Without such an account of their relevancy, one could argue that it is unlikely that “remembering” and “imagining” have any significant role in naturalistic philosophy. Such is the _exclusion argument_. In this paper, I offer an account of how mental attitudes indirectly correspond to neural mechanisms to show how the exclusion argument is not sound. This account, named _interpretivism_, not only supports pluralism about (dis)continuism, but also indicates how empirical and epistemic meanings of “remembering” could be integrated in our thinking about memory. (shrink)

What is perception? What is, if any, its content? What is the contribution of perception to knowledge? This book addresses these questions clearly and directly. The chief thesis the author argues for is that perception has conceptual, propositional, and world-dependent content. After criticizing those theories of experience that conceive it as contentless (the causal-linkage approach and naïve realism), the book examines the nature of perceptual content. Here, the author critically scrutinizes different varieties of non-conceptualism and claims that the content of (...) experience is partly conceptual. Having established that thesis, the author defends the propositional-attitude view, according to which perceptual content is propositional in nature. A crucial step in the book comes when the author explores the world-dependent character of such content. He holds here that the content of experience is composed of concepts and the presented objects, such as they appear from the subject’s point of view and determined environmental conditions. This view allows him to state that perception provides non-inferential knowledge of the truth-makers of our judgments and beliefs. Furthermore, and importantly, that view sheds light on how the mind relates to the world. (shrink)

This started as a book about desire. I was hoping to complement what I had said about belief in my (2022). To believe something, I argued, is to be positioned to do, think and feel things in light of a possibility whose obtaining would make one right. I argued that believing is not representational, that belief states are not causes or causal powers, and that the objects of belief are ways the world might be and not representations of things. Believing (...) is not so much a response to the world as a way of being positioned in it, a way of having an environment, as Frege put it. (Frege 1956, 306) I was trying to put the believer as a rational agent positioned in a world at the heart of my account. I hoped an account of desire could round out this picture of a rational agent’s psychology. But as I thought about desire, I came to see that two ideas about the nature of goodness, one negative and one positive, were really at the heart of my thinking. The negative idea is that there is no such thing as what philosophers have variously called intrinsic goodness or simple goodness or absolute value. I guess I am a nihilist about that. The positive idea is that our world is rich in what I will call sortal quality, what others have called goodness-of-a-kind or attributive goodness. I came to think that sortal quality is at the heart not just of desire but also of pleasure and moral worth. A picture of moral psychology had come into view. And so I re-organised the book. I still say a lot about the nature of desire, or ‘wanting’ as I prefer to call it, and I think my view does complement my externalist view of belief. Wanting, I will argue, is a matter of falling short relative to a standard one falls under, failing to be as good as one could be. If believing is about having an environment to respond to, then desire is about fitting into it well. And so my book offers a comprehensive picture of a moral agent in a world where nothing is simply or absolutely good but where many kinds of things, including people, can be very good and even splendid. (shrink)

Suspension of judgment is often viewed as a member of the doxastic club, alongside belief and disbelief. In this paper, I challenge the widespread view that suspension is a commitment-involving stance on a par with belief and disbelief. Friedman's counterexamples to the traditional view that suspended judgement merely requires considering a proposition and being in a state of non-belief are criticized. I introduce a refined conception, emphasizing that suspension involves a proximal causal link between examining a proposition and the resulting (...) non-belief state. This episode manifests as an incapacity at making a judgement, occurring under specific circumstances. The refined view clarifies the nature of suspended judgement. (shrink)

It is common to explain agreement and disagreement in terms of relations among mental states. The main purpose of the present discussion is to present an alternative way of thinking about the relationship between mental states and agreement and disagreement. The idea is to connect agreement and disagreement with the individuation of mental states. More specifically, for at least some mental states, standing in the same relations of agreement and disagreement is both necessary and sufficient for identity. This provides us (...) with a framework for discussing issues related to agreement and disagreement. It is for instance well-known that de se beliefs raise questions about agreement and disagreement. The present framework allows us to discuss such beliefs while relying on assumptions that are interestingly different from the standard assumptions in the literature. While most of the discussion focuses on beliefs, there are other mental states, such as desires, that can seemingly also stand in relations of agreement and disagreement. This raises questions about how far the framework can be extended. (shrink)

Physical translation of a mental content must involve a set of causal antecedents A and a set of causal consequents B which instantiate properties that figure in strict laws as antecedent and consequent conditions respectively. Only if there are double-role events in common between A and B capable of migrating to purely A or to purely B in future depending on the role that the mental content play then, psychological anomalism can be established but without any need to give up (...) the type-identity of mental and physical events. This paper argues that belief and desire are explanatorily inextricable likewise. (shrink)

In this paper I outline the PAIR account of joint attention as a perceptual-practical, affectively charged intentional relation. I argue that to explain joint attention we need to leave the received understanding of propositions and propositional attitudes and the picture of content connected to it behind and embrace the notions of subject mode and position mode content. I also explore the relation between joint attention and communication.

The skeptical solution is based on two assumptions — the rejection of semantic facts and the denial of semantic nihilism. On the basis of the non-factualist interpretation of this solution, these two assumptions are reconciled by stating that meaning ascriptions possess non-descriptive function. Nonetheless, Alexander Miller argues that this position is self-refuting since, as despite its non-descriptivism, by rejecting any kind of semantic facts, it inevitably leads to semantic nihilism. In this text, I demonstrate that Miller’s argument is not sound. (...) I argue that a coherent non-factualist way of formulating the conditions of correct use of meaning ascriptions may be performed by rejecting the closure principle of assertibility of meaning ascriptions. On this basis, I demonstrate that argument formulated against non-factualist interpretation by Miller may be refuted. What is more, I argue that rejection of the closure principle should be regarded as the central aspect of Kripke’s skeptical solution. (shrink)

I argue for the existence of imaginative beliefs: mental states that are imaginative in format and doxastic in attitude. I advance two arguments for this thesis. First, there are imaginings that play the functional roles of belief. Second, there are imaginings that play the epistemic roles of belief. These arguments supply both descriptive and normative grounds for positing imaginative beliefs. I also argue that this view fares better than alternatives that posit distinct imaginative and doxastic states to account for the (...) same phenomena. Along the way, I demonstrate the theoretical significance of imaginative beliefs by showing how they pose a challenge for standard taxonomies of the mind, clarify the sense in which imagination is occurrent and voluntary, explain the justificatory role of the imagination, and point to a deep but underappreciated symmetry between imagistic and non-imagistic thought. (shrink)

Abstract In slogan form, the thesis of this paper is that beliefs are self-verifying fictions: We make them up, but in so doing, they come to exist, and so the fiction of belief is in fact true. This picture of belief emerges from a combination of three independently motivated views: (1) a phenomenal intentionalist picture of intentionality, on which phenomenal consciousness is the basis of intentionality; (2) what I will call a “self-ascriptivist” picture of derived representation, on which non-fundamental representational (...) features are a matter of our ascribing contents to ourselves or our mental states or contents; and (3) a representationalist picture of the attitudes, on which the attitude components of mental states (e.g., the “belief” bit of a belief that P) are represented contents. This paper outlines and motivates the view of beliefs as self-verifying fictions, compares the view to alternative views of belief, and contrasts beliefs on the resulting picture to other belief-like mental states. (shrink)

Attitude verbs like ‘believe’ and ‘want’ exhibit neg-raising: an ascription of the form a doesn’t believe that p tends to convey that a disbelieves—i.e., believes the negation of—p. In ‘Belief is Weak’, Hawthore et al. observe that neg-raising does not occur with verbs like ‘know’ or ‘need’. According to them, an ascription of the form a believes that p is true just in case a is in a belief state that makes p more likely than not, and so—excepting cases of (...) complete indifference—a will either believe p or disbelieve p. I expand and revise this explanation: so-called ‘weak’ attitude verbs are used in ascriptions of an opinion about some subject matter S—a kind of selection from among the elements of S—and these ascriptions are themselves responsive to conversational topics that presuppose that the subject of the ascription has an opinion about S. ‘Strong’ attitude verbs denote more direct relationships between subject and world. (shrink)

To the sceptic's contention that I don't know that I have hands because I don't know that there is an external world, the Moorean replies that I know that there is an external world because I know that I have hands. Crispin Wright has argued that the Moorean move is illegitimate, and has tried to block it by limiting the applicability of the principle of the transmission of knowledge by inference—the principle that recognising the validity of an inference from known (...) premises generates knowledge of the conclusion. I argue that, in the presence of some plausible assumptions, blocking the Moorean move does not require limiting the applicability of the transmission principle. Then I argue against Jim Pryor's contention that the Moorean argument transmits evidential support from its premises to its conclusion. (shrink)

Are feelings an essential part or aspect of emotion? Cases of unconscious emotion suggest that this is not the case. However, it has been claimed that unconscious emotions are better understood as either (a) emotions that are phenomenally conscious but not reflectively conscious, or (b) dispositions to have emotions rather than emotions proper. Here, I argue that these ways of accounting for unconscious emotions are inadequate, and propose a view of emotions as non-phenomenal attitudes that regard their contents as relevant (...) to one's motivations. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction The Theory of Reference as Folk Semantics The Theory of Reference as Proto‐Science Metaphysics Before Semantics How Then Do We Do the Metaphysics? Conclusion References.

Apa itu yang ada? Kita akan membilang seluruh objek di sekitaran kita: lampu, buku, langit, matahari dan lain-lain. Tetapi bagaimana jika seseorang bertanya, “Apa yang kamu inginkan?” kita akan menjawab “Aku ingin kapal pesiar, iPhone, Taylor Swift.” dan objek lain yang terpikirkan. Bagaimana seseorang dapat menjamin bahwa kapal pesiar yang kita pikirkan sesuai dengan kapal pesiar yang ada?. Artikel ini membahas perlakuan proposisional Quine dalam memahami identitas objek tanpa eksistensi yang mengemban status ontologis (keberadaan) dari proses kuantifikasi level-pertama.

This paper argues that functionalist metasemantic views, such as Conceptual Role Semantics and Interpretivism, face a Euthyphro challenge. The challenge, put roughly, is this: functionalist metasemantic views reverse the order of explanation. According to such views, representational mental states have the contents that they do partly because they play certain roles in our mental lives. According to an intuitive picture of the roles that representational mental states play in our mental lives, however, these states play the roles they do partly (...) because they have the contents that they do. Since explanations—even partial ones—are asymmetric (call this principle ‘the Euthyphro Principle’), we can’t accept both this intuitive picture and a functionalist metasemantics. Hence, we should reject all versions of the latter. This paper can be seen as an attempt to better articulate an intuition that has been suggested in various forms in the literature. The paper proceeds as follows. First, it shows that functionalist metasemantic views imply certain ‘partly because’ claims. Second, it argues for the Euthyphro Principle. Third, it defends the intuitive picture of representational mental states and shows that it implies ‘partly because’ claims that conflict with those made by functionalist metasemantic views. Finally, it considers ways of relaxing the intuitive picture and finds them all wanting. (shrink)

People reason not only in beliefs, but also in intentions, preferences, and other attitudes. They form preferences from existing preferences, or intentions from existing beliefs and intentions, and so on. This often involves choosing between rival conclusions. Building on Broome (Rationality through reasoning, Hoboken, Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118609088, 2013) and Dietrich et al. (J Philos 116:585–614. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20191161138, 2019), we present a philosophical and formal analysis of reasoning in attitudes, with or without facing choices in reasoning. We give different accounts of choosing, in (...) terms of a conscious activity or a partly subconscious process. Reasoning in attitudes differs fundamentally from reasoning _about_ attitudes, a form of theoretical reasoning in which one discovers rather than forms attitudes. We show that reasoning in attitudes has standard formal properties (such as monotonicity), but is indeterministic, reflecting choice in reasoning. Like theoretical reasoning, it need not follow logical entailment, but for a more radical reason, namely indeterminism. This makes reasoning in attitudes harder to model logically than theoretical reasoning. But it can be studied abstractly, using indeterministic consequence operators. (shrink)

Tomis Kapitan’s work on Peirce’s conception of abduction was instrumental for our coming to see how Peircean abduction both relates to and is importantly different from inference to the best explanation (IBE). However, he ultimately concluded that Peirce’s conception of abduction was a muddle. Despite the deeply problematic nature of Peirce’s theory of abduction in these respects, Kapitan’s work on Peircean abduction offers insight into the nature of abductive inquiry that is importantly relevant to the task of making sense of (...) explanatory inquiry in the sciences in general. The view developed here stems from his work and involves disambiguating three forms of inference involved in Peircean abduction in terms of Reichenbach’s and Laudan’s context models of inquiry. Importantly, this includes understanding that abduction involves the context of pursuit. (shrink)

This book offers a defense of the Property Theory of Content, according to which properties rather than propositions are the contents of our beliefs, desires, and other cognitive attitudes. New arguments for the theory are offered, objections are answered, and applications to problems in the philosophy of mind are discussed.

My belief that Socrates was wise, and your belief that Socrates was mortal can be said to have a common focus, insofar as both these thoughts are about Socrates. In Peter Geach’s terminology, the objects of our beliefs bear the feature of intentional identity, because our beliefs share the same putative target. But what if it turned out that Socrates never existed? Can a pair of thoughts share a common focus if the object both thoughts are about, does not actually, (...) really exist? Object-centric accounts of intentionality which explain the aboutness or directedness of thought in terms of the intentional object the thought in question is about, contend that thoughts which share a common focus do so in virtue of both thoughts simply being about the same intentional object. However, Alexander Sandgren contends that such theories face difficulties in explaining a puzzle of intentional identity put forward by Walter Edelberg, in which a pair of sentences seem to differ in truth value but are purportedly logically equivalent on the object-centric theory. If this is right, then it seems that any account which explains intentionality with reference to an intentional object is threatened by this result, whether this object be abstract, merely possible, Meinongian, or otherwise. In this paper, I argue that Edelberg’s Puzzle is analogous to Frege’s Puzzle and the same tools conventionally used to solve Frege’s Puzzle can be used to solve Edelberg’s Puzzle. I then propose a new object-centric solution to Edelberg’s Puzzle which takes into account modes of presentation and which is able to accommodate all the relevant linguistic data. (shrink)

This paper offers a novel argument against the phenomenal intentionality thesis (or PIT for short). The argument, which I'll call the extended mind argument against phenomenal intentionality, is centered around two claims: the first asserts that some source intentional states extend into the environment, while the second maintains that no conscious states extend into the environment. If these two claims are correct, then PIT is false, for PIT implies that the extension of source intentionality is predicated upon the extension of (...) phenomenal consciousness. The argument is important because it undermines an increasingly prominent account of the nature of intentionality. PIT has entered the philosophical mainstream and is now a serious contender to naturalistic views of intentionality like the tracking theory and the functional role theory (Loar 1987, 2003; Searle 1990; Strawson 1994; Horgan and Tienson 2002; Pitt 2004; Farkas 2008; Kriegel 2013; Montague 2016; Bordini 2017; Forrest 2017; Mendelovici 2018). The extended mind argument against PIT challenges the popular sentiment that consciousness grounds intentionality. (shrink)

In this paper we present a solution to Saul Kripke’s Puzzle About Belief Meaning and use, Dordrecht, 1979) based on Kaplan’s metaphysical picture of words. Although it is widely accepted that providing such a solution was one of the main incentives for the development of Kaplan’s theory, it was never presented by Kaplan in a systematic manner and was regarded by many as unsatisfactory. We agree with these critiques, and develop an extension of Kaplan’s theory by introducing the notion of (...) “conservative” word uses, as well as arguing for the restriction of Kripke’s Disquotational Principle only to such uses. This restriction allows us to solve Kripke’s Puzzle by arguing that the assent of the puzzle’s protagonist does not allow disquotation and ascription of corresponding inconsistent belief, as it contains the non-conservative use of a proper name. At the end of the paper, we defend two of Kaplan’s theses that we find essential for our argument to work: that individuation of word tokens involves taking into account the intention of the speaker, and that different uniquely referring proper names of the same shape should be regarded as different homonymous words. (shrink)

Jaakko Hintikka proposed treating objectual perception sentences, such as “Alice sees Bob,” as de re propositional perception sentences. Esa Saarinen extended Hintikka’s idea to eventive perception sentences, such as “Alice sees Bob smile.” These approaches, elegant as they may be, are not philosophically neutral, for they presuppose, controversially, that the content of all perceptual experiences is propositional in nature. The aim of this paper is to propose a formal treatment of objectual and eventive perception sentences that builds on Hintikka’s modal (...) approach to propositional attitude ascriptions while avoiding controversial assumptions on the nature of perceptual experiences. Despite being simple and theoretically frugal, our approach is powerful enough to express a variety of interesting philosophical views about propositional, objectual, and eventive perception sentences, thus enabling the study of their inferential relationships. (shrink)

Trois questions principales sont examinées dans cette entrée encyclopédique : 1) Qu’est-ce que la suspension du jugement? Quelle est la relation entre la suspension du jugement et l’enquête? 3) Quelle est la valeur de la suspension du jugement?

On the traditional relationalist conception of singular thought, a thought has singular content when it is based on an ‘information relation’ to its object. Recent work rejects relationalism and suggests singular thoughts are distinguished from descriptive thoughts by their inferential role: only thoughts with singular content can be employed in ‘direct’ inferences, or inferences that ‘trade on identity’. Firstly this view is insufficiently clear, because it conflates two distinct ideas—one about a kind of inference, the other a kind of process (...) that grounds inferences—under the title, ‘trading on identity’. Secondly, this leaves us without a notion that can be used as an alternative to relationalism about singular thought. The first notion is no more applicable to singular than to descriptive thought. The second may help us better understand singular thought, but does so, not by replacing the view that singular thoughts are information-based, but by helping us understand the nature of information-based thought. (shrink)

Propositional relationalists about the attitudes claim to find support for their view in what they assume to be the dyadic relational logical form of the predicates by which we canonically attribute propositional attitudes. In this paper I argue that the considerations that they adduce in support of this assumption, specifically for the assumption that the that-clauses that figure in these predicates are singular terms, are suspect on linguistic grounds. Propositional relationalism may nonetheless be true, but the logical form of attitude (...) predicates provides no grounds for thinking this to be so. (shrink)

The contemporary view of the relationship between conscious and unconscious intentionality consists in two claims: unconscious propositional attitudes represent the world the same way conscious ones do, and both sets of attitudes represent by having determinate propositional content. Crane has challenged both claims, proposing instead that unconscious propositional attitudes differ from conscious ones in being less determinate in nature. This paper aims to evaluate Crane's proposal. In particular, I make explicit and critique certain assumptions Crane makes in support of his (...) asymmetry, and argue for a conditional claim: if Crane is right that unconscious intentional states are indeterminate, this suggests that conscious intentional states are indeterminate in a similar fashion as well. (shrink)

On an intellectualist approach to belief, the intellectual endorsement of a proposition (such as “The working poor deserve as much respect as the handsomely paid”) is sufficient or nearly sufficient for believing it. On a pragmatic approach to belief, intellectual endorsement is not enough. Belief is behaviorally demanding. To really, fully believe, you must also “walk the walk.” This chapter argues that the pragmatic approach is preferable on pragmatic grounds: It rightly directs our attention to what matters most in thinking (...) about belief. (shrink)