Abstract
It has become increasingly common to talk about the second person in the
theory of mind debate. While theory theory and simulation theory are described as
third person and first person accounts respectively, a second person account suggests
itself as a viable, though wrongfully neglected third option. In this paper I argue that
this way of framing the debate is misleading. Although defenders of second person
accounts make use of the vocabulary of the theory of mind debate, they understand
some of the core expressions in a different way. I will illustrate this claim by focusing
on Reddy’s and Gallagher’s accounts and argue that these authors use the notions of
knowing and of understanding other minds differently than traditionally assumed. As
a consequence, second person accounts thus conceived do not directly address the
questions that gave rise to the theory of mind debate. They invite us, however, to
critically reflect upon the way the debate has been set up.