Acta cum fundamentis in re

Dialectica 38 (2‐3):157-178 (1984)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
It will be the thesis of this paper that there are among our mental acts some which fall into the category of real material relations. That is: some acts are necessarily such as to involve a plurality of objects as their relata or fundamenta. Suppose Bruno walks into his study and sees a cat. To describe the seeing, here, as a relation, is to affirm that it serves somehow to tie Bruno to the cat. Bruno's act of seeing, unlike his feeling depressed, his putative thinking-about-Santa-Claus or his musing, abstractedly, about the tallest spy, has at least two fundamenta: it is, as a matter of necessity, dependent for its existence upon both Bruno himself and the cat that he sees. This idea will naturally raise echoes of Russell's doctrine of knowledge by acquaintance. 'I am acquainted with an object', Russell tells us, 'when I have a direct cognitive relation to that object, i. e. when I am directly aware of the object itself' (1918, p. 209). And indeed a distinction in many ways like that between acquaintance and description will find a place within the theory here projected, but there are crucial differences.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Brainstorms.Dennett, Daniel C.
Truth-Makers.Mulligan, Kevin; Simons, Peter & Smith, Barry
Philosophical Papers.Putnam, Hilary

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
A Relational Theory of the Act.Mulligan, Kevin & Smith, Barry
The Ins and Outs of Perception.Smith, David Woodruff

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
176 ( #15,594 of 39,064 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #18,509 of 39,064 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.