The paper discusses the category of one of the most fundamental expressions of agency, those movements of agents that are actions. There have been three dominant views of action since the 1960s: 1. the Causal Theory of Action, 2. the Tryings/Willings view, and 3. Agent Causation. These views claim that actions are: 1. events of bodily movements which have the right causes; 2. specific types of mental events causing events of bodily movements; 3. instances of the causal relationship between agents (...) and events of bodily movements. Among other arguments, a specific interpretation of the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs has been taken by defenders of the Tryings/Willings views and Agent Causation to support their main claims. The paper argues that these three views mischaracterise actions of bodily movements. It argues for this by highlighting some implausible claims and problems of the three views; by offering an interpretation of the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs that does not lend support to these views; and finally, by providing an alternative view of actions. This view is the Pluralist View according to which agents’ movements are the activations of agents’ abilities to move. (shrink)

This paper situates Wittgenstein in what is known as the causalism/anti-causalism debate in the philosophy of mind and action and reconstructs his arguments to the effect that reasons are not a species of causes. On the one hand, the paper aims to reinvigorate the question of what these arguments are by offering a historical sketch of the debate showing that Wittgenstein's arguments were overshadowed by those of the people he influenced, and that he came to be seen as an anti-causalist (...) for reasons that are in large part extraneous to his thought. On the other hand, the paper aims to recover the arguments scattered in Wittgenstein's own writings by detailing and defending three lines of argument distinguishing reasons from causes. The paper concludes that Wittgenstein's arguments differ from those of his immediate successors; that he anticipates current anti-psychologistic trends; and that he is perhaps closer to Davidson than historical dialectics suggest. (shrink)

One of the unconventional features of Wittgenstein’s _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ is its use of an elaborated and detailed numbering system. Recently, Bazzocchi, Hacker und Kuusela have argued that the numbering system means that the _Tractatus_ must be read and interpreted not as a sequentially ordered book, but as a text with a two-dimensional, tree-like structure. Apart from being able to explain how the _Tractatus_ was composed, the tree reading allegedly solves exegetical issues both on the local and the global level. This (...) paper defends the sequential reading against the tree reading. After presenting the challenges generated by the numbering system and the two accounts as attempts to solve them, it is argued that Wittgenstein’s own explanation of the numbering system, anaphoric references within the _Tractatus_ and the exegetical issues mentioned above do not favour the tree reading, but a version of the sequential reading. This reading maintains that the remarks of the _Tractatus_ form a sequential chain: The role of the numbers is to indicate how remarks on different levels are interconnected to form a concise, surveyable and unified whole. (shrink)

This paper examines the relation between the various forces which underlie human action and verbal reports about our reasons for acting as we did. I maintain that much of the psychological literature on confabulations rests on a dangerous conflation of the reasons for which people act with a variety of distinct motivational factors. In particular, I argue that subjects frequently give correct answers to questions about the considerations they acted upon while remaining largely unaware of why they take themselves to (...) have such reasons to act. Pari passu, experimental psychologists are wrong to maintain that they have shown our everyday reason talk to be systematically confused. This is significant because our everyday reason-ascriptions affect characterizations of action that are morally and legally relevant. I conclude, more positively, that far from rendering empirical research on confabulations invalid, my account helps to reveal its true insights into human nature. (shrink)

Rachael Wiseman has argued that we cannot make sense of G.E.M. Anscombe’s Intention unless we recognise that it is an “exemplification of [Wittgenstein’s] grammatical investigation”. While Wiseman is alive to the Wittgensteinian nature of Anscombe’s method, and to her deep Wittgensteinian sympathies, she is not preoccupied with the question of influence. This is the question I am concerned with in the current paper. I argue that in focusing on the concept of intention, Anscombe was homing in on a pivotal concept (...) in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, and that most of the basic elements of her account were being worked out by Wittgenstein during the period when she was his pupil. However, as Anscombe worked through Wittgenstein’s idea’s afresh, in her own more systematic and analytic mode of philosophical investigation, she often cast ideas that were sometimes merely nascent in Wittgenstein’s work in a new light. Moreover, some of her most seminal ideas had their origin in concerns which she did not share with Wittgenstein and were entirely original to her. (shrink)

Kalhat has forcefully criticised Wittgenstein's linguistic or conventionalist account of logical necessity, drawing partly on Waismann and Quine. I defend conventionalism against the charge that it cannot do justice to the truth of necessary propositions, renders them unacceptably arbitrary or reduces them to metalingustic statements. At the same time, I try to reconcile Wittgenstein's claim that necessary propositions are constitutive of meaning with the logical positivists' claim that they are true by virtue of meaning. Explaining necessary propositions by reference to (...) linguistic conventions does not reduce modal to non-modal notions, but it avoids metaphysical accounts, which are incapable of explaining how we can have a priori knowledge of necessity. (shrink)

Many metaethicists endorse a cognitive constraint which links the reasons for which we act or hold attitudes (motivating reasons) to normative reasons (reasons that speak in favour of an action or attitude). As traditionally formulated, this constraint (known as the Taking Condition) requires that an agent’s motivating reasons are mentally represented by her as corresponding normative reasons. In response to the charge that the Taking Condition is overly demanding, Errol Lord and Kurt Sylvan have proposed a reformulation which eschews the (...) need for normative representation (Lord and Sylvan 2019 [“Prime Time (for the Basing Relation).” In Well-Founded Belief, edited by J. Adam Carter, and Patrick Bondy, 141–173. London and New York: Routledge]). As they argue, agents must treat their motivating reasons as normative reasons, where this notion picks out a specific set of dispositions rather than a representational state. I argue that this proposal seriously distorts our understanding of the relation between an action or attitude and the reasons for which we perform or hold it. On the plausible assumption that an account of motivating reasons should not stray too far from this understanding, this response to the over-demandingness charge thus fails. I also provide some directions on how friends of the Taking Condition should instead respond this charge. (shrink)

According to Wittgenstein, mathematical propositions are rules of grammar, that is, conventions, or implications of conventions. So his position can be regarded as a form of conventionalism. However, mathematical conventionalism is widely thought to be untenable due to objections presented by Quine, Dummett and Crispin Wright. It has also been argued that only an implausibly radical form of conventionalism could withstand the critical implications of Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations. In this article I discuss those objections to conventionalism and argue that none (...) of them is convincing. (shrink)

El Tractatus de Wittgenstein es una obra desconcertante para quien la ha leído. Una vez recorridas sus complejas tesis filosóficas, sus últimos pasajes declaran que sus proposiciones se esclarecen cuando son reconocidas como sinsentidos. El libro debe ser leída como una escalera para ser arrojada una vez que hemos subido por ella. Al respecto, hay por lo menos dos posturas al respecto en la literatura: mientras la tesis de inefabilidad sostiene que el propósito del Tractatus es comunicar algún tipo de (...) verdad inexpresable a través del reconocimiento de su sinsentido, de acuerdo con la tesis terapéutica su propósito es exclusivamente identificar el sinsentido de la obra para determinar lo que resulta expresable. En este artículo defiendo una tercera opción según la cual la metáfora de la escalera ―compuesta de tres peldaños sobre la naturaleza del mundo, el lenguaje, y el sujeto― se debe entender desde su significado paradójico. El Tractatus no es una obra que intente comunicar un conocimiento teórico y, sin embargo, arrojar la obra al sinsentido lleva al lector al descubrimiento práctico de una posición ética para ‘ver correctamente el mundo’ a partir de la paradoja de un límite. Palabras clave : Sinsentido; Límite; Sujeto; Lenguaje; Escalera.: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is a baffling work for someone who has read it. Once we have gone throughout its complex philosophical thesis, its last two passages claim that its propositions are cleared up by being recognized as senseless. The book must be read as ladder to be thrown away once we have climbed it up. In this respect, there are at least two accounts in the literature: while the ineffability view contends that the purpose of the Tractatus is to communicate some kind of inexpressible truths throughout the recognition of its senselessness, according to the therapeutic view its purpose is exclusively to identify the senseless of the work to determine what really is sayable. This article argues a third view in which the metaphor of the ladder ―having three rungs about the nature of the world, language, and the Self― must be understood from its paradoxical meaning. The Tractatus is not a work trying to communicate a theoretical knowledge and, therefore, throwing it away to the senseless takes the reader to the practical discovery of an ethical position to ‘see the world rightly’ from the paradox of a limit. Key Words : Senseless; Limit; Subject; Language; Ladder. (shrink)

The present work aims at providing an evaluation of musical formalism, as it was intended by Eduard Hanslick in his treatise On the Musically Beautiful, in the light of Ludwig Wittgenstein's remarks on aesthetics and music. After a short historical introduction concerning the origins of the concept of absolute music within the framework of Romantic aesthetics and the writings of authors such as Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder, E. T. A. Hoffmann and Arthur Schopenhauer, I suggest a definition of formalism on the (...) basis of Hanslick's account of music. I compare, then, Hanslick's view on music with Wittgenstein's reflections on music and aesthetics, referring to both Wittgenstein's early philosophy – especially to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus – and to the later writings – namely to the Philosophical Investigations and the Lectures on Aesthetics. The outcome of the comparison between Hanslick's and Wittgenstein's views on music leads the discussion to an evaluation of the plausibility of the dichotomy between formalism and anti-formalism, and to a reflection on the objects, aims and methods of aesthetics. (shrink)