Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2011, Vol. 6 Issue (3) : 358-368     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-011-0144-4
research-article |
Acting for Reasons: Reply to Dancy
John HYMAN()
The Queen’s College, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 4AW, UK
Download: PDF(481 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper argues that we need to distinguish between two different ideas of a reason: first, the idea of a premise or assumption, from which a person’s action or deliberation can proceed; second, the idea of a fact by which a person can be guided, when he modifies his thought or behaviour in some way. It argues further that if we have the first idea in mind, one can act for the reason that p regardless of whether it is the case that p, and regardless of whether one believes that p. But if we have the second idea in mind, one cannot act for the reason that p unless one knows that p. The last part of the paper briefly indicates how the second idea of a reason can contribute to a larger argument, showing that it is better to conceive of knowledge as a kind of ability than as a kind of belief.

Keywords reason      action      knowledge      explanation     
Corresponding Authors: John HYMAN,Email:john.hyman@queens.ox.ac.uk   
Issue Date: 05 September 2011
 Cite this article:   
John HYMAN. Acting for Reasons: Reply to Dancy[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(3): 358-368.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.1007/s11466-011-0144-4
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2011/V6/I3/358
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
John HYMAN
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Giulio Tononi, Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
[2] Ady Van Den Stock. The Semantics of Wisdom in the Philosophy of Tang Junyi: Between Transformative Knowledge and Transcendental Reflexivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 39-54.
[3] CHANG Tzu-li. Liangzhi and the Interpretative Obfuscation Regarding Knowledge[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 450-465.
[4] CHEN Yajun. Between Darwin and Hegel: On Dewey’s Concept of Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 104-119.
[5] KE Xiaogang. Reason and Besinnung: Heidegger’s Reflections on Science in Contributions to Philosophy [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 430-443.
[6] López-Astorga Miguel. Logic, Pragmatics, and Types of Conditionals[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 279-297.
[7] ZHANG Liwen. Harmony and Justice[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 533-546.
[8] Joanna Guzowska. The Spatiality of Cognition in the Zhuangzi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(3): 415-429.
[9] XU Zhaoqing. On Kripke’s Dogmatism Paradox: A Logical Dynamical Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 298-310.
[10] Eva Kit Wah Man. A Cross-Cultural Reflection on Shusterman’s Suggestion of the “Transactional” Body[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 181-191.
[11] BAO Yongling. Water, Plant, Light, and Mirror: On the Root Metaphors of the Heart-Mind in Wang Yangming’s Thought[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(1): 95-112.
[12] John Lamont. The Consolations of Boethius[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 69-86.
[13] Olof Pettersson. Plato on Necessity and Disorder[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 546-565.
[14] Hirotoshi Tabata. Frege’s Result: Frege’s Theorem and Related Matters[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(3): 351-366.
[15] ZHAO Yanyan. The Knowledge Argument against Physicalism: Its Proponents and Its Opponents[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(2): 304-316.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed