Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Only human agents have the relevant mental attitudes required for intentional action
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Anscombe and Davidson ground intentional action in the structure of reasons-responsiveness, not linguistic expression per se.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A creature can be responsive to reasons and act accordingly even if it lacks the capacity to articulate those reasons in propositional language.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore the inference from 'requires linguistic competence' to 'only humans qualify' conflates the vehicle of thought with its functional role.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Empirical studies show great apes, corvids, and cetaceans exhibit goal-directed behavior toward represented future states without language.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If non-linguistic creatures can represent goals and act to achieve them, linguistic competence is not necessary for intentional mental attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Having intentional mental attitudes requires linguistic competence
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Only humans possess linguistic competence
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42