Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The Humean conflation of motivating states with propositional content illicitly treats the vehicle of motivation as identical to its object.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Motivating states necessarily have propositional structure; desires are always 'desires that' or 'desires for X'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between vehicle and content is metaphysically unclear; motivation requires representational content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hume's account successfully explains motivation without requiring the vehicle-content distinction the critic invokes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Motivating states like desires have non-representational phenomenal properties distinct from what they represent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Treating vehicles as identical to content conflates the physical/mental substrate with its semantic content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A desire's felt quality can motivate behavior even when its propositional content remains unclear or unstated.
?
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.