Intention (was Re: Unhooking famous violinist)

[andie nachgeborenen]

Miles' proposal than we drop the concept of
"intention" from human relations and the explanation
of human behavior is a fun bit of philosophical
speculation, but this is not serious politics. It is,
incidentally, possible to be a determinsit and believe
that there are intentions that are causally efficious.
This position is called compatibilism. As for testing
the existence and causal efficacy of intentions, you
can and do do it every time you act. I form an
intention to respond to you, and lo! I find myself
typing this note. 

But more to the point, there is absolutely zero payoff
in esscalating a political discussion to metaphysics.
I have been trying drag the abortion discussion out
that realm in my contributions here. Let's get back on
track. We will never get enough agreement or, or
interest in, the metaphysical questions to have these
bear on politics in a useful way, at least in a free
society.

jks

--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> > OK, so what is your deep scientific alaternative
> to the idea that
> > beliefsa nd desires are important in explaining
> human behavior? Are you
> > an elimininative materialist in the manner of Paul
> and Patricia
> > Churchland? And even if you you, why do you think
> this is relevant to
> > seriiosu political dicsussion?
> >
> 
> I know it is a very popular idea in our society to
> attribute social
> behavior to individual psychological states and
> processes.  It is the
> basis of our economic system, our legal system, our
> marriage customs.
> However, philosophers have been trying to rebut the
> notion of
> determinism for millenia, psychologists have
> rigorously studied
> human behavior for about 100 years, and no one has
> been able to
> logically and/or empirically demonstrate that
> intentions are a
> causal force that influences behavior.  Radical
> behaviorists
> (Jim F. on our list?) point out that any claim that
> behavior is
> "intentional" cannot be empirically tested.  Even if
> a person
> says "I ate that apple because I wanted to", a
> behaviorist can
> plausibly claim that this statement itself is
> determined by
> factors other than intent.  (See, e.g., the
> cross-cultural
> research on individualism/collectivism, on how our
> emphasis
> on personal choice, intent and responsibly is far
> from
> universal.)
> 
> I'm not bringing this up to be clever (or to waste
> bandwidth).
> The fact that intention is not a topic for serious
> political
> discussion, despite the fact that there is no
> powerful
> evidence that demonstrates its existence, is curious
> to me.
> Why is this unsubstantiated concept so prevalent in
> our
> society?  --To apply crude Marxism: perhaps because
> it
> facilitates capitalist social relations?
> 
> Miles
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com