Ford, Anton
(2008)
Action and Generality.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
(Unpublished)
Abstract
The philosophy of action defines itself by reference to a pair of canonical divisions. First, among events, a distinction is drawn between that which is a "mere event" and that which is an "action." Then, a second distinction is drawn among actions, between that which is action in some qualified way---because it is unintentional, or unconscious, or unfree, or what have you---and that which is action unqualifiedly. "The standard approach," as Anscombe called it, is to take for granted the genus EVENT, and to hunt for the differentia of action; or to take for granted the genus ACTION, and to hunt for that of unqualified action. The negative aim of the dissertation is to argue against the standard approach; the positive aim is to develop an alternative. I first distinguish three different forms of generality---forms that are associated with the traditional ideas of an accident, a category and an essence. I then ask: What kind of generality is exemplified by each of the two canonical divisions? The standard approach is viable only if both divisions exemplify what I call "accidental generality." In fact, neither does. The division of action into qualified and unqualified action is an example of what I call "essential generality." I argue that, as in all such cases, the question, "What is unqualified action?" reduces into the question, "What is action?" The other division is an example of what I call "categorial generality." The concept "action" refers to a category of a distinctively practical kind: an agent must think that what she is doing falls under this category, if, in fact, it does fall under it. Then any attempt to describe a differentia must be circular: sooner or later it must refer the agent's thought; and the agent's thought must in turn make reference to that which it needed to explain. On the positive account defended here, an action is a certain sort of temporally-ordered system of ends and means. The claim is that the agent herself must think of what she is doing as being such a system---if, indeed, it is one.
Share
| Citation/Export: |
|
| Social Networking: |
|
Details
| Item Type: |
University of Pittsburgh ETD
|
| Status: |
Unpublished |
| Creators/Authors: |
|
| ETD Committee: |
|
| Date: |
29 October 2008 |
| Date Type: |
Completion |
| Defense Date: |
17 June 2008 |
| Approval Date: |
29 October 2008 |
| Submission Date: |
3 June 2008 |
| Access Restriction: |
No restriction; Release the ETD for access worldwide immediately. |
| Institution: |
University of Pittsburgh |
| Schools and Programs: |
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences > Philosophy |
| Degree: |
PhD - Doctor of Philosophy |
| Thesis Type: |
Doctoral Dissertation |
| Refereed: |
Yes |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: |
action; Anscombe; event; genus; species |
| Other ID: |
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-06032008-122655/, etd-06032008-122655 |
| Date Deposited: |
10 Nov 2011 19:46 |
| Last Modified: |
15 Nov 2016 13:44 |
| URI: |
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/7999 |
Metrics
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}