SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF TENCE JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Moston University Ears DIRK VAN DALEN, Universi af Ute, Te Neel DONALD DAVIDSON, Uinray of Calor, Berkees THEO AF KUIPERS, Unvrsiy of Grovingo, The Netherlands PATRICK SUPPES, Snot Univer Calorie JAN WOLENSKI Jagiellonian Univer Krak VOLUME 285 INTERPRETATIONS AND CAUSES New Perspectives on Donald Davidson's Philosophy Estoy MARIO DE CARO Le KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDRECHT / HOSTON/ LONDONicing roaming nen moon scan ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Prete MARIO DE-CARO / Davison in Fos DONALD DAVIDSON Easy in Practice PART LANGUAGE, METAPHYSICS, AND MIND ERNEST LEPORE / Davison and Understanding Langage [NEIL TENNANT / Radial treatin. Logi, and Conceal Schemes ‘TED A. WARFIELD 1 Donald Davidson's Fresom SANDKO NANNINE/ Phsialism andthe Anomalism of the Menta PAOLOLLEONARDI ! Anomalous Mons ANTONIO RAINONE / Thiay-ive Yat afier “Actions, Reasons, nd ‘Cases: What Has econ of Davidson's Cast Tsar of Acton? SIMONE GOZZANO Davidson om atorlty and Irtionty PARTI EXTERNALISM ROSARIA EGIDI / “Cro chs credete ein erdess.". What ais foc belie? PETER LUDLOW / Fist Pero Aster and Memory EVA PICARD / Sensory Eviense and Shared Ines MARCIA CAVELL | Owning One's Mind os vo es 7RAFFAELLA DE ROSA.’ Pe bl abot Davis Fate AKEEL BILGRAMI Ines an Seepsion NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS, INDEX OF NAMES: INDEX OF SUBJECTS a PREFACE ‘is volume waces is rgins to sping, 192, when Donald Davidson delivered series of lectures in Rome and n conference ddiced to by Piso. wat ‘rane hy Rosaria Eid ate Department of Psorphy ofthe Univers Roma Tre Orig his book was to eons of he pocedings of tha ontetence, for several exons, however, some jeas psd ele the proj wat aul sated ‘Asa consequence, the Tat of the contr ofthe pes tune ee partly ‘esebles thelist of speakers tending the Rome concence~ and of couse, ‘says publhed here ace diferent rom the pes ht mer rea on thi hon | sho thank Rosaria Fg for he ep sugesions and constant spp 0 this projec. am parvlry graft w Cesire Coez, for is alae ements ‘onthe nro essay I woe forth ole. an woul so ie fo thank Ned Blok, Francesco Fert, Ewe Lepore, Giacomo Maranon, Fva Pier. Rober Pj, Hilary Pata, Parca Saste.snd Ted (Fite) War, forthe profeale las concerning oe oe ofthe es Ihave disused thal esay, To Paria Frabys and Gus Raneatore am grateful for having patil edied the tats Final. am happy to specially thank Denalt Davidson, both for his genous suport during the whale eco in which this wore was prepared. and Tor he ‘lightning conversations had with him when T wat working on bis philsey Feemy dota dsenaten, My inouctry esy was writen daring samme 1998, while was seine an actdemie yea at Harvard Univers, as Furight Viking Schl yay tere was made posible by Iwo fellowes, rane ty the Flight Commission fer Catal Exchange and by the Universit Roma Te For thin a mos atl twbath ths inition Mano De CanaMARIO DE CARO. DAVIDSON IN FOCUS Insta asthe notion of tema philosophy can make sense in the analytic worl Donald Davidson sa stematic philosopher. While be as ever diel ten ‘bout some ofthe most Tundunetal tranches of plosphy. as the lassie Systematic pllosoprs used to do he has never dscssed il ot pole! Se, for earpe), Davidson's andamental combust many elds achat the pion of ngage and meta, estoy and the teary of ato, "he plop of mind andthe teary of explanation form 3 corps, nerd whole in wich any single pari interdependent on the others. This li etre ot Dove's phlowophy gies us cen evience of tt sytematie character sides being 2 major source of is notrous iuky. However, i hi qe fommilaie, bat remarkably viinal pilesopial system, two potions play 2 ‘andaental role: iterpetation sd canon ‘Over the yeas, Davidson's lost a nore a re ase he frm of tn investzaton ofthe possibilty he modalities, the equsies and the inport of Inception At the Begining, Davison aly considered the adoption of the Ineprettive ance as» promising methologcal prospect for he philsophy of lings ‘eee rd ye uy a at ow Oona Over the le tree decades, however, the slwance of imerpeaten for Davison’s phisopy became much reat Tis light It can how be aid without exapgering, that Davos philoso an sch his sic thd fers pont of view, tha it hs Become thing lest an pies ex par errs (tha ty Davison he pilsopr af interpretation te aac ‘orks te sate sense in nbich Hans Georg Gane and Pal Ricoeur ae he Posophers of itretation inthe comtemporary Comme ios). In Farieua, Davids has unceasing rele othe scaled adie ierprettion {te satin in which herp des at have any revi ow deo he Speaker's languase at mena tts) How npn rial eget has ‘ome in Dave's view stow by the ela onIna al, sidson hs comet he concision that mutua iterpectaton i a8 indpensble requisite for lnguage and tho, and 3 necessary condion for eng the cones th, objectivity, Divibovian anuyses Ive also shown that in the accounts of (rail) inerpetatin ances there! nan plays an extent tle the ntion of cay, Avinerpeters in fc we cant tri sigs nh wt cane te cies ae m ee This shows tht causality plys &findamenta role in Davidson's conception of Tangnge and thousht But eausty i nota nee noion. Pasopbers have bed may ileven opines aboot and Davidson himsel, for many yeas, has felted dels om causality apd conaeted stu. However, to Be exact he has never cred much abou the most yal posophica questions rearing this opie {can one give an analis of thi notan sn terms of necesary andor sient ons Could th rere cerca enon el ning such nua? Ith suh a hing a "hacks eation™) Evens, Davidson as “koe mut clay his coeep, He har presented a clasc aaa of the ial fom of singular causal statemens (Davison 1967) alvocted a sharp dsinetion etncen casa relations, concerning event. and casa explanation, comeing sentences (Davidion 1963); expounded on Yr) fluent causal conception of {een (Davidson 1963, 1987; defended the svealed“namoogial conception of ‘saliy".accozding to which every singular ue caus stement eating 190 ent backed bya set (Le, physical lw tha covers thse evens, when Hey fre adoyutely decribed (Davison 1967, 1995), sapere the thesis hat whe Drochology and the other “special ince” cannot lp eleing to eal anceps satire physics cininates the cause notions Rom is veabulry (rvideon 1987), In shor, the notions finteprtaton a eaulity have played pivotal the developmen andthe achievements of Davidoninn reflection Mot ofthe esas ‘nsw wil scutes fo notions a ength, with the an of eating 1o toi claitcaron ~ bath from a general point of view and as regards the ‘lsopy of Dold Davison Daviosowin Foens 3 [LANGUAGE AND INTERPRETABILITY Mary of Diss grees conbutns te pilseeal dete of he lt deen ecomesed replay ot guage He de! he el ton of hear of ering oa langue? pop at nl a! Sic eine hp a Taine fh fe tha ree cle nde ures fps of at lunge ae te soto inguag (hat tery tatondy mean is cenepty saad tthe nto of tere elghnig nals of unease tot ich nether” ‘nis ppt nhs ohne Dadam and ndramting Language”, Ee Lepore dts tno vey bane ues a conten + dae asm Denso’ psp a pags es he Ms Sty devin at tte snc ory ee hin ating tha aoa ga Conpreersis More pestle eo ston comets min (Arsenite fr tata gng (rr ol pen by Parr spate) deat mx of ng compro?” (ite seman cores mere ode! gas cmprcesion snag they doy wht an we an om th?” ten tome popes are epic A mo tty pesmi abu he ossbly of amwerag "erate a qu ay athes me a wn hve een dey hp y Davin hk at ont tr a ey ah {Sno tation condita fora lmgogeL) ea cere Seto on ode) th igus compstence at pte, te argo’ aby aerundhewternces ftir spear Howser satin We son que Bhisopbely mre sc Inf ne tte at aden lpn ey ado te oy mtg) ey ‘em aise empresas nots ay open! ee all (Fodor 1987; Schiffer 1987), afebites ae avo inl ey fl sping tat isha of meaning ot ins ating te cmp te enter, wea ing mie a ihe ene! modales of iron, Tso Dunmet, uo ase he of bovinginppopty tbl the (papell owes of 8 cy of rmingoplcycesDnsoeepes ndcrsnndig 4 spear wih the (pie) son hat mcs sees scm | Se des oe sib te py rn we phen mach ea nay wand wes rh amo wage eyo ch ey momar a Meteo y ay a ahus accocdins o Dain. the etna piosophicl question i: What are dhe -ecesary and safe contin for understanding another pons guage” Davison sates very ky tht knowledge of hs tendons! theory of inening conceived asa fico ean for Such an andesaning, whores he ctf sos saying bnowledge of ts (or ah analogous) theory reprenes thos nvncar- condition forth He writes: Davisan’s conception, thereto does st sneer he way in which emprcaly we do inept each other it tly dacommeed. om the phology of interpretation. Move precisely, theory oth Tor 9 rpeake ea ode! hat the ‘hope oles fan ata inert’ yo nderstand wat at pacar ‘peters We i Mary authors ase with Davidson i thinking that smant theres can be oad models of our ably To undsiadLanguaze, and a caelly avoiding the Stribion of any empires! parpve them Du ther authors rae potently esutve doubt i itis the station. why should we care abot seman ‘hows forma angunges? What antes hares ey abou the way lnc anguage i actualy understood? “One posible acer to this dou that we should earfully distinguish whats plilosophialy relevant fam what i competence of since A ey wil come, Pestap, in which scemtins wil salve the empincal question of ierpelaon, Explaining evoationsny?) the way st which indi of the species. omy Sapien understand each other However, in Davison opinion, phisiphy 1 nerd wih he ferent queen of wa wuld in prince make eration rosie (and otic that ths cold algo cance the interpretation of speakers Dial ery ferent rom os. A saying answer to this olen wou feprset great pieophicalachievemon, since we would gain "an important init no th nature a he neon” (Davidson 1994p 127) Phish. Susans, resin wht Is ult nerpretain, no te enter spt Davison Faces 5 uti this ine of natrlzed epsemolog, sus some people will nt be satsied wih this answer. Ths, sae of tem wil try to fen the Semen ‘hearin saying tha they ae perfectly ace since they are goad peop th best stale working ‘npc hypotheses abot langunee comprehension However. sme argrens ave bee fered ht in trove tha seman theories do no help a alin explaining langage ndersanding (Chomsiy 1986 Fodor 1987, Shiller 1987, Sih 1983. In his paper in th volume, Lepore es to defend he seman pposch takin bold stance: he argues tha, inorder loudest Tages se semana knowedge snot jst suficent, ba necessary. Lepore Fst Sesribes and eres ‘he o-semante accounts of ngunge compreenson peste by ey Fo and Seen Schifer.thn, he argos tht, inorder to understand lngusge erty speakers must have ietaigusiepropstins! knowledge, pushy of Lepoe argues at ierpees must fave reatnt for aeoiring bells shout shat ai bythe paer whose rane they hear The rx of i agumen the thesis hates Wes canbe juste only by meting Bell th a least if we do poe won leave the Keli sb what ets sy eiempeehy tnationlied what Would tappe, according to Lepore (wh, in hs team leas, accepts Davidon's coherent view), if we acct purely extemal count. Therefore, been the aterpretr andthe wetlnvisi nation hat isconveyel by hisimeubelts here ea noses eps lationship. This Kind oF infaration, Lepore thinks, sa semantic one and ean be spetfied by sata seman tei. ie, fr example, the ihe fa Davison. Coir in ths way, semantic theories ae not only adequate models of netage tundersandig they can also be sech sping he Kind of meaingustic “role by vite of which speakers do wndersnd nal angus, ‘Some amportant pits hve wo be nied with refrence ots argue 1) Lepore does at wat conn ims aay prc seman ory: he says nly that semantic knowledge of some sot frth conto, sation ‘ongtons meaning condoned fr ings cemehenso, 2) Above I hae followed Lepote's reasoning sn ay ng forthe sak of bevy tat pales have “to know” some sean they. Mote rei Lepore ages that between speakers and semantic nfonaien neces) for anguage ners thre must be some rlanship: ee it woul be bes he oi, he S3y5 10 uy Wo bvenipate wheter sich a rlaonshp i spt: douse oF Pyeologial or weber Rr unconcins, tc explct o impli 3) In sying ha Lore aims oan epatemsloia!econstion of langage derstanding ota pyeholgial ne (he sys he dos not have ce to wha te Psychologie make-up of this lash mst be") in he sate sense in which an pisemolgica analysis of mathemati eon de ot have any poh6 sano De Cane Neil Teoman, in his sys “Radial lepton, Logie, and Coneps schemes" imestgntes two eed questions fist the meaphyial ses nected with ie abun oh interpreter’ ot the interpreted opeaker ot the bass ofthe prepl of chary during Ke process of rae! terpetaion {econ the psu faerie cone shares. ‘According wo Davihon the oes of ral erpreationfequitestht we Mt cur foie (mbch, controversially enough, Davidson, following Quine, orignal ‘tied fo fst vider predate cae pls deity to the Taagage of te Spear for which oe want 10 devise a theory of tah saying Convention T Tenant anges tha hak could be cai oti wo dlleret was eer (I) te oul ap a stong realtek yng wari falls! oe oe Sheri speaker. ot. (2) we could mere pads opt for an anes fppreach (in. Durinaian sense), arenas to) the speaker only the intutkonsaly acceplable heal a els logic In Teanans opinion, the ler ice iat he tants. fis prtsly wth Davison account of adel inerpetaig) is he ost sophisticated a shoul beefed. Wheres in ak 8 ela nterpetr~who, according 1 Tena, ann sp Du ty ope {oes loc (wihl eiate commen) on every aterpreted speaker trol simply be wnabe to gine cnet nerprttion ofthe arentia bala oF ‘pesker commited to itotonstie gi a metaphyseal antes, 24 eu atalaegeter would he och ae eespetfl of he speakers lpia ‘Suimcuphysial convictions his beau exposing ales would make josie to mere a spedier scr a1 metas fai ora 2 meatal {uveast~ depending on the dspsiion of at speaker 1opeforn oF na erin Kin of fferencen parla when confoied wh the inferences of peer tho octet clase Ingie. the ana inerpeter ill ot comer hem 5 falc, but asthe res of etapa comments tha the mere alone can accommodate esr the piel of cai. inte scond ato his say. Teman case = celebrate, ba eonovesa segment hat Davison sedi oder refute the so-called “als of scheme Sd content" — re, the alleged dichotomy Betwcon an wnconeepuazed "giver {the empirical ‘some nd 4 conceal scheme. by whch he pven encepinhzed and organi (ce Davin 1979) According to Drie, is ‘an has dominated mr epistemology “from Descartes to Quine” (Davison "90a, p13), and isha Bos esponibl for many pilosa ers, suchas the-unjstified poplar of epistemologisl reli. Davidson's argent Welbknonn, and ean be summarized fellows" “he premises of hin argent re [the nations of concept shone an emp ~ they sand fl together, 2 ane concep shen possible oly if plait of aematve Aacommensurable) conga schemes rst conten ae complementary Dawiosonn Focus 7 5) concep! schemes are cesar asocined with ngage (8 eonsequenee ‘lth Davdsonan thew at tought require gine) 4 fon seme re reiprcalyncommensirble then the Iangunges with ‘which hey are respectively asocnted wl be mtialyuntanstble From hve premises follows that node fo refute schme-conen ai, i siento prove tat ther anna be mal transl lngnges Mtl rvansaabiliy ifthe saul thing ~ can be pata oF tl Bt the ater, coring to Davidson, totaly inconceivable (he language spoken bya al Creature were ‘tly nomics fru, how eld we now tat his rare ‘speaks a langage a al? And then how could we abut thoughts toi) The erative Hypothesis of x potlyantansaabelngunge, ised, kesinae however, doesnot imply any spectacular epistemological consequence. For scent the Davison seoutt of serrate to under (ee Pamilly) wha a speaker sy, we cana help ating to tht speaker, on the basis he pencipe of cary, age number of te bl” But ence we ave sued tha we share a nrg mmber of lets with cen spear. thre eno room lef oe saying tht that speaker's concept scheme i diferent (0 05 Incommensrale) from ours. So, nether paral or fll sranstbliy can be ‘epaded a5 adequnte foundation forthe ton of incommensuable Schemes, therefor this notion vanities, and 0 does he whole conceptual sytem conected This argument rooted in Davidson's view of rac negro, However, nrestnay enough, Tenant argues for conspanl scheme piraism evn fhe subsanlly accep the Daviionan account fra intertettion, He popes to ittesing Thought exprien. Les gine some exter tll gc ‘tetues whose heretialcbservaton ais vedi ompaison tus 50 tat what is thearetal for them observational for vs. and vice yrs. Nom Tennant matin thatthe conceal scheme of sich alien crests would fe ‘oly ferent rom ours at even iby hypothe we would no he ay percetl experience with such rests, ntl adlierpretton might Sil be possible (for example, in pile, we mig sl be able to coordinate the senloees of those creatures with tuvcondiions exgesed by 2 pia hey formulated in seine English, this i eatee, flows that ere ‘only anecesiary, nt sufcent condita fr sameness in «conceptual sha, Fall, Tenant coticies hit he considers an unjustified anropocenie tendoney of the Davidsnian conception of rade inept, one that i manifest nto striet elated theses Fist the hess atthe univocal charter Sf eth npr hat we shouldbe able ous our language expres in confory ‘ith Convento the ath nits ofthe emtoces of wn langage: end it the view that tansy. manguagecomprahensiblefors fs 8 neces ondton for langunghood, For Tenant, even I ath as univocal haat, 8‘slaive ta concep scheme: 0 mig happen th a hry’ of tah fer some lang cule nen ly na metlangze mbodyng te amecorsp 2, METAPHYSICAL ISSUES, In hisesay ("Donald Davidson's Freedom’), Ted Wari deus an important metaphyseal peesupposiion af Davigonanpilosphy — ane that Davison himself has ever dscsbed at Tenth he alleged compa “between eps feedam re wi) and determin. For centres two pares Have Teen fing each ther on the ue (ihe most cones question, sneaphysis (Hamme 1748, p95]. On ote se thre ae the incompai ‘who think hat inno determiistic word ean there be fe wil othe er se thee are the companbiiss, according to whom there noting in the tion of reaps feeds that makes it imposible obs fee in determine word (Gr many compass even think tat termina ea ncessany onion Fo freedom) ® With read to Ins thane, bowever. Davida Took an anos poston in hs essay "Freedom Ac” (Dsvieon 1973, p63). He sega ompatiisn as obvicna eames (or empatts, ince Habs to Ayer an Srensn. "have dane what ea be done ght evr fo have been ese, to remove the contin: that an make dtr ceo frat feed) as, be described the argument in favor of compan a nothing ote ta he product of persistent pilesopbialcanfisons 1 will wot be dc concer ‘sith sch arguments, since how of are hat ore tan spercly plausible” isa However, i shoul be noticed that swenytve years ago (wen Davidson took up thi cerca poston) the eansesu fr compat wa lost unin, nd srl that ie there was no lek of eons Fo repedingInompaiisn 3 highly implousible eneepon asthe expen oan asec ology omni oer ancigieal dualism ad a some are nati aw ‘getthood. Compatbisn. onthe contr ncempsted 9 ooton of edo that "peared i very wel wih the cas view of ston and pyc only. ‘Giineprescted this notion of feeder ina very lest and sya way "ke Spinoza, Hume an so many ote. count an sate ist the aes ves e dives are Unk iis causal cba. Those lives or nes may themelves early determined as you plese. is fon me an Mel of pute reason to subseibe To deemninim a8 ly a the gutta pips wl et ne {une 1981p. 11). Davison secs to uly sauce to this em However, een the ee will determin debate has Become lel gain, on ‘ey incompaibism fas mich mere crety than wed to een Davidoon ‘wre the dismissive judgment mentored above. Two Fstrs have conte the revival of this eoneepian. Fast of all plophers sich a8 K. Ciba, © Devise cus ° Cine, K.zck. P vanInvagen, and D. Wiggs Have done much t gst Improve the philosophies apps! of incopatibin, patsy the so-called Inerorianacormpatsiim (hat ase rector of wil easing Stems) ‘Ava real of this contemporary piropers whe defend compan can Pu ‘timo much more appealing phisophical contents (or example, many of tem cep onli! monism and fend a casa view of atin). Second, a Ward os ou, a simple. bt seonigly powertel argument has been een presen ‘east compat: the so-called "Consequence Argument” Dilfer versions OF this argument have bee offered all ait at showing tat compaibil ivepaaby Ted, sine, 02 determine univer 0 2 unre which he stad the ratural aws have teen Ted freer. nobody would ever have the Dosubiy to do others that, nobody could enjoy eedom. Acs to Ware the ra hs story we should a the ey Heat, taking a vids dd that compatibiisn gives us, y default, accepable mewphyse of Freedor ‘Also Sandro Nanni, nis essay “Physkan and the Anomaiem of the Mena”, deus the way in wick Davison foes te question of Steins ‘x metaphysical sedan. Mere specify, Nannini costes the ayn which Davidson dat with his question the light of so-alled"anomaloe monn his into philosophy find according to which the psc the mena ‘seo edule ways of describing the secrets" When anomalous on ‘vas Fist nvodced in "Mata Eves (Davidson 19708) t wae prevented 38 ‘wy of recoiling the anomaly of mana events the fre fall under 8 “ait aw,” so that they. Seem 10 estape piscine) with the nomologia aul ade of nate: Davison 1970 (p. 208) wrote: "stat fom ‘he astmnpion hho the casa dependence, and he apomalousnes, of mena ens are undeniable facts. In a thl, Davidbon's idea seems To be the Foloming: i ther psychologiea! desertion, mena events exape dermis (Gace here wl eno rigors ws they can sti hi deserpon in i yi deseritons instead the sune events insti laws and tht ‘i patie nthe namelegieal necessity ofthe natura wel." Tndoattealy, al his sounds ie compatibi (ven though Davidson doesnot sti term but Nats emphasizes po ih ccording fo him should Keep fhe drawing his coneison to quik a "Nena Even in nt i ao sd ‘hat anomaaus mons sa atop! ovine the Kantian view on for and ‘dein ” However, x Nanni’ reminds vs Ka egy refed the els ‘conpabilst dfinion of feedom (of which Que’ quotation above gives ‘sempeary Frmulton) as making human tings no fer than uring Spit Moreover. Kant advocated an cial view of eed that man eis cone « peculiar version of Kean inerpaiem, coding to which harsh freon Ts footed m the transcendental ditnction betwee the phenomenal and the rouncical word fa ths view as actions ake place inthe phomenal wes hey» ManioDe Caro ‘evereles,they agit fom a noumenial spect ta cts te cause Therefore, Nahi serps Davison elrence to Kant a le ofthe fet hain Mental Enea he was actly thing of feedo inthe Hbearian sense {oerean at we have ust ce, in “Feedom to Act” he plely seemed accep ‘he ainda compatible defini of freedom), Actually, Nanny say the tsomaliom ofthe menial sa sceery condition even ina siento 10 theists nodon of redo, eee ts aparently a ods ith dete (end, theelore, wth compatlsm). However, Davidson als defends plosicaie" and one of the lees of pst i the thesis ofthe univesal Caliy of the physical ts (or determine as they ge So. Nani sees “nomalous moni as ap att pope a view in which ~ nthe spit of Kant njaerminism and Hietaianfedom ae both valid, though a ifr lvele, Specifically deernism woul be vaio he ontological level whereas teed ‘ould only have an pistemaogical relevance snc it would depend on at “pistomi festure ofthe psyholoial language — that i, the prope for which ‘hum evo are describ pochaogca tr, thy ae covered by ious lms) Anyway, accndins to Nanni, sacha view of freedom (ht conceved a5 sr epstemologial, Sa ot otloicaly sounds notion) woud e Toe weak © Telly do josie to ibersran ination Movin to aother sje, Nannini an agus tha he argument for anomalous on vey sil, strand cone tote one that Davidson offered in fiver of hs casa tory of aca io "Actions. Reson and Causes (Davidson 1963), ath these argument can bean atta fo answer the question = What Sethe place of etna in he ysl uniserse”™, wh thao easing {"thind way” Between matraitc and an-aralisie melahysies_ Acorn 10 Nannini Davidson ~ raining Hat ratonalzation (Le, the explanation of a8 action in ems of the reasons for whieh wan performed) ht eau, Bu Bot 3 ‘nomoogialcharsier kes idle stance between the natalia of he lope {piss (who defended atlegial and metodolgsal maism) and the ani ‘tual of the Neo-Wityensenns (who cefised the cual theory of ston, 2d believeth the explnatone of man scenes hve no. and never wil hae, "omoteeal character) Anaegously. aging for anomalous moni (ean tetsreducions theory according to which every ental event Toke dete, tie no tpeidenea, oa. physical event) Davidson mediates beeen tht trai ofthe type ety thers an the annals of tase who ‘else editions. Fly, Nani res a methodslogcl dou concerning he f-sauraltisde of he Dasidsanian conception of the mind in his pin, the {ueson of whether the mental anomalous nmol be soled a prior at Daven sues) insead. shoul be dscvssed the light of empirical fangs in rneroicogy and he cognitive sciences” Its unqueonsble th, string in he ate Seventies. the poopy of tangas ta prosessvely lst prt of Be privileged role tational played In the wor aay lsc” At these tie. ceasing relevance wat seed by Ie Powophy of mind (cf Burge 1952) this context. a sing. amount of Sinesson concerned Davidson's anomalous mons. One of he mst seresing ‘Scr ind otis view concees the question af ment causation how en the etal te cally effective, se Davidson 19990). More special, sme tiers fave agued at Duvison’s conception of the mental" 2 rm of piptenomencl We, the dsceed conception seteing to which no ental ‘rent can case say wie event whatsoever, whether mental or physic) The ‘ret Formulation of ths charge is presented Kim 1992. Accoring % Somalos moni, ay etl even hats acaba elation with anther even a instantiate the tnt law bic covers tha casa elton ony when i Scribd by meas of presen which refer ti plical popes. Ba hen Kin wenden sat sens are the mental popes of tat even causally ‘elvan? How i von ply oth charge? “Arne fave sean, be exp acces physicals omlogy. However, i his say "Aromas Mons” Paolo Leonard egies tht Davidson nS ‘thesis that evens Being mental psa someting hat depends cay ‘the voeabuary with which i described (anette psa by an) ‘ther nme sls st tong”) Thi view is sil connected wih Davidson's “xtosloal acount of easton an even nies (does not eae) sabe event independently of the properties we pick to eseribe I Terefore,acoring © Davideon, charging anomalous mons of epipeamealisn does wot make ay sense: if even desrbed i psa term re ffesive an hey ae ein wih ose ame events described ia pyebalgicl rns, the he ater mast a0 be {uslly ffeine” (Davison 1997) Anny, Davidson's erties have mt eon Satisiod wah i reply km 1985; Sosa 1993) so seems aio Say at his se irs ey onroveri Lana disses the thir premie of nomalaus mois, the oe that states the anomalsn of the mental (the esis hat Tee canal be any Pychophyleal srt lw). Inthe fst ple, Leonard presents some argument tech aim to prove thst psychological replies cold be att (or exp {oud be mints hn args, numbers mena events ar petal) Then he ‘sus that what is peculiar to the phological connections (what makes tem ‘reds othe laws of piss) ot ther aleged ck of tess, but De fact that thy works pater in which thefts ae made relevant, more Ua kas by thew causes In thi perspective, Leonardi obserer that the metal i ‘harateaed by two peculiar etre: ha metal evet canbe connected with nother event diferent pate and hat human begs ca al td en 8,92 ManioDe Cano Finally, Leonard tues hi ateton 40 Davidon's thei that theme supervents o the psi Leonard iingusie some fret senses ih ICeoud be sad tat mental ens spervenson pylons and amperes ha ‘a ceain ay tthe physic! hat scanned bythe exten ofthe metal (a les inthe casein which the metal te ust epiphenomenal). Accord to Leonard ft ensal chains psa events ht ripe in he cies of anal being, hough sc cant be erm, “Anion Reinone's“Thiy-tve Yee afer “Actions, Reasons, sd Causes” What fas become of Davidson's Causal Theo of Acton” ea reopestive ing ito Davidson's causal concep of action (Davidson 196, 9870) Ace etending the keen they ofthe mind (ta ty conte” at We have sen with he Davisonan consi of action) aginst the above mene charges of epipeomenalisn, Raipone sheamer foionalzanons at ty te ‘xplinaton of actions by means ofthe reasons for which they ae sted ou ‘Aceon Davison, eaonalztion have dle nature, since thy eth intesonal an aus Rainone argues tha over the years, Davison even teu het eran remains ail othe moog concen of aueaiy and © ‘ontological manish has mre apd move acemtuste the itentona, Remeneitie feaue of ratoatzatons (a feu tha dntingices them say fom the planation ofthe natural scenes. According to Rana, the exlaany fre of {004 ratlonalation. in Dsidson's conepin, ces ch les fom is Being fa han Hom is being rotons af ction (fom te fa hat, for any even ation, x emt tianlian etfs eons hat tn the oli and reasonably egeremt system of msl sales that we hare to atibte te every ‘ent we mat to meee. ‘Sty related the Davidian theory of action i the sue of ition, hich discussed by Simone Goczan i his say "Daviion on Ratna a Iranaliy™ Two fundamen cases of ratty ae comsre hea (or ales ofthe wil hati the casein whieh an ago inetonally acts aginst beter judement) and elder he “paradox of tonality” in whch a sibjet ois, at the sare ime, wo contactor belie), These psychological phenoment ‘ne tcklsh questions for Davison beeane ofthe funda cle that rata plays in his fleshy (a preeppsition of rtonaiy embodied nthe pile ‘ot chart. aa necesary conditon of any ietaton}. To expat howe ean ometimes break down rationality, Davidion 19856 ares there me ema es Uhatre causes, bat not exon of ou kaon actos However, cven though astsficary explanation of rasa cou be probably ven on his bass, he ease of eden more complied (Davidson 1982, 1985, 1985. To explain the ater phenomenon, Davie has roped 3 dona expinatry princi. the prion of th ind mss independent Stacie. Ratioraliy Would hold inside the sng sve, whee intitry ele could Belong to diferent sacures Hower acting to Gaza Is salion mets wih some dicts (bich, bythe way, Davidson ims des na ‘gnor) Hr the reating mol ofthe mind woul he very comple, second fers that te prions emodel of the mind out! jar the hall proper of Disisa’s conception ofthe mental. These, Gorzano pe ore erent planation af e-devepion fan he belcvesacceplable tm Davisoian po fof view) according wo which ition) would ot rest om the sepa) teence tern parte of the eins, Bt oly frm the inaction betwen Cx indivi thi Tight, 9 subject con be atonal only if 30 judged yan inert |.EXTERNALISNE Inthe first of ce Rayos Lectures he dived at Brown Univer ia November 1997, Hilary Putam proudly noticed thatthe so-called "eternal conception of meaning" he inodved In "The Means of “Meaning” wit eerence natal ind 'erme (Putnam 1978) i accepted toy and often applied octet in feneral by many influeetal analyte pvopters (wih the "conspicuous ‘ception of ole Sear Puna forthcoming Hnte 97) few year eae, 5 Hell had writen wih the fervor af deve: ~The extrait chnception ot rind ition, nating shor of revohonay Ki, gute phltaphic onribtion ofthe ter half the went entry "CHS 199, p20) To this xtelist evluon”, Davidson has pve a elevant cntebation by means of ah ginal ermeetion iat he hs called (somewhat provisions) "angular ‘serlien” Tn genera, extemaiss rete the nels (Casi) asumpsion th ment enteat ie Strid hy the nonctonaltmal properties of he mind (or the fai, inthe cae ofthe s-alsd "Cains com tain"), cording to them, 08 the conrary, content & detemine, at let partly, 8 factors eterna othe mit” Many verskns of enemas fave Ben proposed whic can Be wel lied in erent as, nthe fist place, wa fame of exes conceptions can be dstinguished dependigg onthe kinds of exer ‘Eecminans of content wo which they appa. Aseording To cms! for percep) vernal, met eaten is eset deers bythe callin batvees the subject onthe one hand, and he objets and events the enteral wo he babe hand (Kripke 1972, Pama 1975) Ascari to ca etna, othe entry, coen fs dterined by the scons context in wich he speaker Paced (Witgentein 1953, Barge 1979, Keine 1982) Dass exlicy aseps the fundamental aseamption of eas excl, sting that ie ata ply an ndiapensable rien deterning what we ya believe” (Davison 1983 435) tHe, om the contr, cles all the ost ormon esos of sa ‘femal, since thee siewscinccive content as depending on socal Sage tdManoDe Cano linguistic conventions of wich the speaker could be completely unsware — an tel aapalatale othe for Daven” Te her ey a he volume, “Creo he! codete ho cade”. What, asin or bli?™ Rorarin Ed compares Davis's an Wirt’ eaten tthe sription of Seles, nating three rain snares, Pst bh hse aaa ‘rolutelysefute Caesianian and adveato an etermalst icf thought snd ‘memting, second, bo defen! 9 live conepion of mettal coset third ovitsanding their respective, equivocal eras of incon, bot Witgestem ane Davison recognize th there ah inporantasynmety Reb the may in which we kaw our hots, and er forme a kosldes. Howes, Epi emphases alo thatthe mers resting aloes tween these two authors should ot obscure even more flvas dilrences — in parcl, thet “fsagreement on the ole of conventions i the explanation of meaning ab host ‘Asarmate of fact, Davidson togly refs the mam tenet of Wagener philosophy of language and mind tat the fone nae fn Which that phos atinbutes to soc rule and shored. paces the Asis intemal if we endorse the very feasonble view Dt, it ede to Be Seeptabe, an explanation has o be a leas compile wih our scenic Koad. eee tern eee ee [Ash le CIntreettion Har in Theory, sy ln Practice) elogunty els ts the esa) wren hy Donald Davidon for this volume eas i the ost ‘ppkal Davutonan ise of sneprettion. Too. guestons, a parca are Checssed iy vr enay The fat question peimiaty one. haw ca We tl Sabet rete hnkins, an therefor can be iret? Ins conection Davidson cos pertan! pout, wi Yespect t0 which he has vey sipnifiamty changed his mind. This pom concerns the Swarpman. a famous ‘hlosephisal character, ha war ie vdueed ia Davison 1988. to bit, the Swampinan is a cree whose behavior perfcly fs our standals of ineetnilty: by defnsion, however, there har been no adequate cael ineraction bewean the Swarpman and his envionment so that his words and ‘ough tem to have wo content a al On ths bas Davdon used o conch tha there fo way to sy tht he Swamps had ay thous even i ofcourse be cold acquire hem, hy propery interacting wih the eaitonmnent cad aman ring Tr the present volume, however, Davison thes up 4 sew pation. He ow ‘mansins hawt eg othe quan "how eh We lel wher erature {hiking he bizare scenario involving te Swampman is misleaing. A rita answer to this query an be given only by appealing 10 ur ordinary inuitons, ‘ach, inthe ea! work, tary out be perfey adequate However, the fountracual scenarios so loved ty phitsopers (i contemporary. aly Phiosply thre are many exunpes of his stud) ae enceved eae Tor “onfsing those peso inutons.Terlors, the righ ueton plan have to ask ow do we tell when a rete Is thinking, when we nie ou ord ution and lnniow'? To de question he aster 3, and wo plsophicl Stange fton ~ such the Swaps, that now “emrases” is eetor— Should sop from answering the query comely If we ean commit wih the eee o obo a range of topes in ou atl evant, is conscious andi thinking” ‘The secon questo that Davin discusses here concems te made of ierpetation: how do we manage to interpret each ther, an how sould east fee ths fcr? The main pot rsd inthe te ofthe en. and concerns the Sting diferente between the practi! easiness of inepetation (we do erect, ‘cl her wihou great dct) and he enorme ify sve encumer ‘ecru accoaing or oa irate practi To explain thi fone asymmetry, Davison fects on many fundamental ses ke the holism oF the rent ata! vs, afl thought, primal vs, il simul scheme content thatsm, the omilagicl states of the tral Kinde", the emergence of onepszatin nd hough Avda lays im the mast resent year angle ters is Ariane’ thread Davidson oes us a6 way ut ieectally tious within reason) fal these yates.Nores, “im st sh mi sae my ye pps “howto te may ees ah sh ms ap ly Sotto ers Wee ps ec ‘Shap un nescence cen ‘Gre ota mine op 1003 oo mes soe Ds S| imran erste te Bt ey ening. we te y pip aon fo Reset al ce teem met aa : irc eg eel Neseece i rene! ys ih nny et mate oe i ‘Boal conan aon yeah icin Eve” resis utp Fen Pre of te Me fio pt Tym i ae ans mt sod sie ebay re ot {Gratwvedeerseemamenainc ny eh ame oe cb2 Manno De Can Gremio cera ey iam nts thease moet ex seacace Ras pyre i saa” i Wor a sc et es of gang te ‘ae tv oa fo Gees pc cde an psa cy ts tuner ea cls se lin She tan hm onsale ‘Bean aa pune og eee coer weer br ng om ent ca tape he pa ee a hea mon Tete sta eve any ce apna rl i lrg ma eis asa a ata a kes {7 nae rc eto ke sae) Oh ame Sevens mop neta of et es ys pe a ‘aise so se nd etm let peo Sar Tass se ae ‘Sana sme epee sp sac ee mat Be pe See icc ec mma ag ae ‘iin Sens serene hen sf ey hea ‘sien teve ute hn Ra eae png em a ‘eigerin vaio ty te es ef We 1TH of Bd Pgh ‘Heaps hdver Sas m Pipi ent of Nea Pe, Mg 2% 1986 Hare an Lanna Page: Ne2% Manin Cano refers ee Coch gan iil ea Pe ay On p10 Ree Reso) ge i ar of Car ra eh ee Fred con Reet ch y's yl iy Pott ihe Very Meno Concept Sch", Paces and Aes of Be oie "ia a ap al on ene Can ah i en hen a Ba “Et Gt cr Phe San 6. pH wtb enya li a i Phd ‘toh es) 88. BIH TA Caen hd Koen D eich ie Ka er ria ia ep Rn pW eons hep nl gi) 8S. 8A ‘nts Dene ge 3S 1 Ys Rap umn om ep Mt phi 95 pe 2.8 Davison Focus n tif Rowan cy ee, EN og eee on teagan aro ee ch Setar och cap es aa atone Grete i et Meta ei emda 824 Se en ee me a Erie mio su 3 Dns 8 oa "tao "Doc 89 emt taney hos Cer 7 onder pp a tt Ne re 9499038 SEn fe ntchrigart s g 3 o rae met eC STEEL er Drone Sst pn ad tn st tom Smt a aid ata ts soa am y Hare ery Paap A) tn © 10 rn iy of tay. ule oo tdonr pedo Pnsag Pr eC pct Ue Sate fi ie tape Rah 1 eg 1" bee Feces er ag ar Piaph er dracon “aki 0p S877 Lg "Te Tage Eagle nap el) 94-4 Cogan Papp of in ice Obi "eh Sar Hat mC Chee Ov 8 sa Eg Cnt ata a ok in gh Rs i a Sdn sone Eten apne i Ms Sa Pty "eg 1 of ere Pt te haf Doan, ot Bhi 6 ssn Pree on Ph of ssa i" a “es 195 en Ca Et ag nnd a roe WC “aod (Mere Ses te Py of Seen.) Une ef Mies Pre i Rpg = tin ls ar 3, Ce rai TT ese Tod sy Coben Pes Cant ihe brey ec ur f Patyo.ppae Se NM Sm Rie mtn eo a Oe tn ou inate ean pe Aiton ot uate noo Ds Cnet of te Me Seite Pagiy of Mink. Coie Ua es StS tant pre en ne nt “fPhionpher Waher Denar Belt 19930 ingen L 8 laptop todo ae er Sapo Eg ‘rity Df nd BI Alcina hep Pat Lon acim tt Ameen od gh Re Wig yd ae, Jaf Tho BagDONALD DAVIDSON INTERPRETATION: HARD IN THEORY, EASY IN PRACTICE The Problem of Oe Minds, a att Formulated ies when we ask ow Trom ou oberations ofthe elsif nother pron, we can l ht that person ho experiences an hough ating ke out va The proble has tot best Solved a east o mst piosopersaisacton. What Bs app instead that the subject as undergone a sor af atrlation’ Where before we wed wo ansver the septic, ow ier aramed that we know, toa sonable ext, Wha Boe. the mats thet The poet ton becomes one of deren ow we ae abe 6 finds out The alogy ith Quine’ suggestion forthe nauaaaton of epistemology i avius H's more thn at aay. for viewed as 8 mater of ‘esrbing how we sea wd, th problem oot minds i sa spec The hil rom eying to answer the skeptic o giving a description isnt as great ‘chang of ube as mio appear. For while We oral problem was a pls for jstcaon, any stsfctery deseo of how hrowledge i ahve ast i Sco sy hat sons We count 5 asiing Knowle eas. Neverthe the ‘lange of veme can te salou The focas on skeplcm deande that We ass the skp poston epesens an ineiile nce an therefore that he problen” must be met with a frhght soluin”. The mere modest eos for escition ofr practices may lead ws to copie ha we cau never bein 4 poston to dub or kaowlodge of ether minds orf an extaral wor. Thief my ‘ow ofthe mater sf we can hak or question ata, we aleady Kaow thre ae ‘ts poop with mings ike ours and that we share word wh hem, Tr wod, weve be fol co underestimate how fica is to desribe how ‘we otc Be mtives and though of eer ano compre what they. ‘One thing that makes thn a devine there! seeunt of erpreton ite omplenty ofthe ierdependenies among the various aide, ad the extent to whic he coment ofa single bought expression Fests on fs place i a network of Tether though and expresions. Those ntedependencis catail "tat the tundertandg of shy patil be, ntemtan, dese, acto, of lence of an get i always coniageat on knowing aly vast amount about the resto Ha gents acudes IF ere possibie wo dover the contents of though one 3 in, is at est posse oma hoa general picture ofa mind could be ult un Hot since prasping the clot of any one Bowen cr wove oF uderance2 Donn Dassen pends om grasping the content of @ muliude, ter is @ problem how an Inept at vetted Cones and thoughts with propositional content hive lg relations to one other therefore behoowes ui we ae comeing tibia partcuir Thought someone, 0 dtenmine Hthat person alo etait he ost ‘vous consequences ofthat thought Does Cros believe he ees ave spider i te camer? We dos, hte ae est many eter things he ust ble: hat wha be secs living anima ht sel locomoing, ht as ay es, ats {puto spn be th tet conniving that wl evade what Senses ‘dangers, tht ha umacen par, hat wll cori To ex Carls looks Sey oF goes ot of the room. No doubt spderthoughts involve far more runsements with futher though, though thee i no one Ut of sch Heusts fea proves necessary an sft condsins for Rav spiderstoughs. AS integers our demands vary, depending nthe cumstances. “There ae those eho ball to Toe af ence atoms. maining hat posse ohave the concept ofa sper and no oter concept (Fodor and Lepore 1092) Thissems tome impottie A retreat be geet proramined 0 eaves any ways appropri tothe presence ofa pier, and might Seem ‘afr oat to such 2 crete the ence of a sper Bu Would sich a ‘tribution e joe Here teresa diving ine. If having concep i spy 1 ‘Tucemue objects ot propeics of one sot or another, then te mos peimitve imal ave te anceps of et culo, mitre and 50 even pas ast Shih, mins and competi ui baing & cane to place objec in 3 {htsoy the a crear with concept capable of howe fro place something {neater feo pin tht ones thee and opinions are roe oer, thy retro fest hey tein pat et by te elatons to ether judgments CConier Aloe Alexa parr who, when pesoted wih a umber o objets he av ever seen before, and sted, Alex, Whats the sme? will ase. Fgh “Color if thatthe rightanewer Alot, we ae tld ean name my things, sk for tem ia English, say what color shape they ar, ad how many there are ore or less (Peppers 1998) Does Alex have the ences ofthe "hngshe“nane",o of ea, shape or umber? The evidence desma suppor the ‘es hat he des, forthe evidence Inte nly tha ex responds in Ways he hs en conditioned to respond. Tere no ean 1 uppose Alex jin Pease thee is roan To supp he recognizes the post of enor Alex's pevfonsane cane explained mien more simpy than by ansuming ough with ropostina conten These refetion einforce the tess thr propositional thot requires 3 ‘etn of thought in ode olcte ad Key oe. have spoken of Dohis ener, bt of coarse here are my si thoughts: quesons uz, eis, Saul, inentons, suspicions, longings gos pans ahd thse re jst a fe Thoughts tc nirons are fred on the Basie of wishes and eo ictions steer aTION: Han Is TORY, EASY IN PRACTICE 3B gent calles the probable conssquences of her pose actions om the Bai of ‘Stnstes of th chance sucess and he relative sength of ene: we re proud ‘ot ourslves esau we eleve we have tras oe agcompinhments we adie of fice ‘This lteracton of thoughts of saove sors makes undersonding ber role even more tying. If we wee to ak «chill who propery 2 number of ‘Shy share and He were answer “Color” we would under ermal cxeumstances, {sine had wnerodthe ges new Engh, and intended owe ta wor {o-onvey the fart hat he believed the bjs wer the some olor Thik How mc treme stoning! For ara we could ve jst tine that chil Yo make ta rise under thse ehcumatnce, in which case no thovght al as ree. Inca we think the eld andertan, eat speak English that he gave the answer he id because he made »jpment about 2 propery sale for hin and for de ‘ety that he waned to ive the ight anor, atl belived tha color was the Sigh answer. A hss rss Let me focus on one pareulr problem, that of understanding the spesch of note przn. I we coal tas speakers vay vo Say what they belive ani fue wuld make the ck of erp the words mh easier a 5 though ‘aly ot cy Not ay, fr me thing, hsease we dona always keow what tre cules, Not ery even iF bath we and those we Would understand were infil, for we would eed 0 for a comprchomsive and systema Beary of Irth fr te other’ guage, and we do ao have such a theory for any ata language. But of course we anno ase people mst sy what they Blee 0 tei, Lying common though, Bt RH no he ony, or even the major ease, there sears devi ron the Hera tha they see Teling ves, aig in plays making jokes indilging in on, inventing metapors, exaazeaing, ae fom of the any ways we consciosly depart rm he Hera th. Ye the er froth condone of eras smeting we must et tif we ae 1 grasp wha 2 speaker op to. To make mates wore, speaker my no intend is word 0 the wht hte word ate sito met nthe conan he moh of other Speaks fe want to undestand a pail speaker, we must somehow kno oF find ato nit wt Fat patel speaker aes tobe the Wh onions of is or he uterices. Such knowledge must encompass an undesanding of bh ‘nuentonal and niseatonel depres For what We may suppose Is Sandied ‘age we mst ls be prepared to cape wit ships of te tongue, incomplete and ‘ngrammatial sects, apd so on. How on earth do we ever manage 10 derstand what speakers sy? T's ce enough that we could ot understand any aterance we didnt know reat deal about the speaker, the speaker's Hacgreund knows sumptions “ales, education, and general purposes We must abo se up te multtde of Inemioos with which any given wteranes launched, inion’ to amuse, 10 {vsti ose to proc, to deand to acs. Theres nt jus one sich enon foc any given wang tee ae many One can ied sane 19u Dosa Dawnsen tsk qucston ato amuse a ere Thathe last of. Any aterance mast hve eat al of the flloingltenton: he fatto 1 sane one's roth place e's tone, snd bah in soch a wexy a to produce the desired sounds, the imeoon to ier sounds far il be understood y the aaene as having ein {tera wath conditions the inetion 4 air the words wih a cena force {aserion. question, command he intetan tobe taken by the ance to have (ered thse words wah tat ft heft to promote some Tate, wor Tigusteehd sch at et someone bet on hese, or eanvey the inraton tha ie ue om fie ean what He Abt the It ese tention (he ngs nen) mut be grasped by the auiene ithe speaker tobe "Tore to he question how we ca ell ha a rate, a2 prot oa cil ues sounds (or mikes gestures witha popostoal coment. Wi an aia hat tre How to be cool of ngage, we assume We can Bt ar a signing a font toiteeances by noting» cmelation Dewees one-word senenes (Che, "Bow", "Round, Gavan") and evens and objets inthe enone Which ihe erature seems to be tacking. The corelation I between what we Sipposo beacause dan observed eet Me ernce Dut picking ot a ese ‘sir tichy business ‘There are no cer rules for deeling which features of 8 Staton to mune ae “th” cause Repettons can elimina some canis, but they cont bin to rede the claimants to one mot making te ol po that indtion can't pov the vl (an). We ca cep induction for wha fs wort nd be uncertain about Ack, What ta eu hate stn ese) oF ‘N's "“awer” tthe question" What's the sre?” st he atation of eerin feds and cones in is eps, or the fing of eran opie nerves, othe photons touncing of sufaces we sce a he same colo? AIP these causes and endless ‘oe acon fo the cases where Alex emited the sound, “Cole”. We have no rounds forthowsing ne of thos cases over the other. Bal then we have D> rounds for ating one content rar than ante fois answer hich Tiamat yng, me ve mo eset be any tg oe, fr hee "en thehts Wihot content ‘nthe oer hand, wy we think we can do so much beter se ease of rina aman wi stra lrgutge? This brings vs Bock to where we sated: ow do we teil the dflerence Between uthinkng repos, the tripping of mee ‘dpsions andthe responses of an ama with a esining i? Some Yeas go Tse my sates tomate tha, wile waking ough asamp, as Jesoyed by lghnng, while quite by chance » eft Tacs of meas eened rom ‘cious chemicals ing around. { called this eeation the Swampman. My sory endive Ivreeranion: Haro Toy Easy IN PRACTICE 3s ‘OF couse no ane an lhe dfeece, forthe try tll ws 0, People re simply fooled when they think Swamp Donald Davidson but are he fooled Nhe the think te Swampnan sinking? Fede ey were wre ten a ‘One reaction might be tht his the old indy problem over apa: how an we tll wher Swempman hiking? Hat ik is the Wrong response ‘Any view tht proved we couldn't be song ander sack eooksip condos Should be a mia view, OF course we can Be massely maker unde Seumstances ta osophies cook up ie Stampa, Bas ase.) But ‘ten Seampman can't fot ws freer ie ak wt hy lng enough, is words ‘nl begin be connect othe word the usual Way he wl amet have Fa memories, and he wil ecogrire things. Where we wil emai cnfsed, because the ior ays we will weer he ‘The qution Irae ot whee a peel designed rab, nade, perhaps, of slic chips and he usa sence fiction hardware, could hi. Ter sno good fet to hold tha coud, Sharp's trouble was that his brain sored hing tht could coat his sounds wht wari, nothing to give is hough tnd words a semantic, conten. A rbot might be comstted that woul a the urse of tine make sich connections. asume ee can el if a erature (or ‘machine as heugts, and sing or orinary resources we can often ell what iis ‘hiking he problem sto explain bo. Bot | cofes the Snampman now enbarases me The ain fa sence ‘in stv that inane tings tht aver happen provide «poor tesing round for our itittons conceming concepts like the cancel af petsn, ona ensiues thought These common cancels work aswel a equied in he werd sve know it We bane multiple err for applying most emporant concen the imagined caesar ons tn which thes eke hich normaly go nether, pit in diferent dictions, We ai, what would we sty in sch caste? Who ows? Why ahold we enc? Une e ese actly acct they do we wil slide what oy, jt ne died, der pes from Fre, oak Sus} “aes wher lint prea author and fear ifr i Ie tus we renin Iwate to people (eel then unconscious ates. Seaman simply rates the new minibody question sing ou rdinayInultions and koh, Row do se tll wh creas thinking? Tur nowt he postive: Whi what oot tobe unbelievably iu soon sy in rate? A fuller woud ak alt of elence we would want a Sted Scent of how our baat and ens guns work, and this we do not Mave Butspects of the answer ate svalble 40 all of 48, and some of them are of Pllowopbial tres, ‘Weendow nets wih powers. Sa ie water soluble, sat it asthe power of| ison in water Alcohel Ins the power ib, the sun sth per #0 bur us People inetest us at and we ebdow them wth any power, sme permanent, Some tanstey, many somewsee inbetween In soe cise, me hive Explanations ofthese powers, but often the explanations involve apes luther powers. Powes are eas something abou salt cases ode sh wae Something about alcool eaure ns to get ruth Hf we ibe fo mash of ‘uine tat thes ae known physi explains af these paricalr powers ‘xplinatos tht enable ws to dagene wih tala guwers (or desta) and ual. Dt in our every Iver we would have litle ne forthe utile pial explanation of things even if we he tem. We depend on common Sense knowlege of fw things a apo react wt opens othe The seseergans a people have exrarday powers They alls 0 eat 0 our avon! in ole sabe ways, They dots pt BY misepesetig the ‘worl Our eyes. for example, exagacrate the cortat athe bounary beeen “iteremly shaded areas. hie 5 lpi detecting objects agai ackpoand, land our ears cause the sane voit sem erent sgnals fo the rin depending ot ‘wter he voice is behind orn fot of We know te resus rm observation, fut science hss show that these powes of dctiminaion depend om te seme gts theme an na on theta “he bran isthe cena processor a higher mara, While sil in embryo i making connections. some af them withthe word que Mrally around ecomingseruomed tothe sounds fs mtr’ vlc ad lnguage. The nena as many powers, not ony wbvius oes such a being. pained by soe fou oss and Seeking the beast, ut sn sarrsng onesie responding ose wth Smiles. We come equipped to ntice bodies 10 eel them inthe same Way ih siren tiphing, at differen disases, ia diferent pes. Conitoning nat responsible for these ua or for many more that emerge inthe paces of Imation. AS adults we count on these ie, wbich re nothing but depen or us powers. 1 help cope wih the young This gos ot any for the powers ‘hile are bom with, or that are genecly Programmed in all fs, buts for ersonaliy waits hat arent shared by all humans, ch ae greed sadutivens, avarice, courage, reliably, hones, levees, strenght he Vics ad ‘oss We eam which its insu have by observing Mr Behavon, bat me ‘anot observe their powers or wails dca: we postulate these to explain amd cpt bhai Infering these Fentres of human being i, of cous, indispensable 1 our lity understand the ous, ad explain, a 1 some exten pei thi intentional actos. But nothing 1 have tout! on sts how we advance fom nowledge of the simple deposition sich | have aeribed to Alen to the Ir rxt0N: Ha 1 TNO EASY IPRA HCE ” kteton of propositional aude. he pace os. chart with he mle ‘of dspostions we ean mort cai regi. Tse are rough laws of behav nd they inlet discriminatory powers prosie he apogee (ems) and ‘faratersie behavior esa (tee) Someone who sees saber) era ‘over a ether Naor repeatedly we ase prefers saw fce-creay someone ‘who studiously avd foods inbeled "Arial claring” we Conclde can fad English sd dies o fers teal Rooring someone who steps fear Bly Ine face of danger hold ot courageous olay. Such dsriminatory powers take us ito the realm of concepanizaton, ant therefore ack to the question how we know when reponse Teal onceptaiatin ad when a siperdaponton adequately expla wha pong fm Tathbking abou st wor asking where the exeponesconspuaizaton ‘ls with come ffm i the Bs pce. Mato bet hat good pitching. and indeed good thinking eques that our conceps cirespond {0 real dvs rate. Inthe Phaedeur lato inrodsces » pine of the dtc, “that oF viding things by classes where the natal jos are, and ying otek any an the way a bal earver des” Phaerus 263E). The dug of te Tics frees eveything of earth, But he dos ot eet the eternal forms on which the things on earth are modeled hey re tera, and given The concept of orarbitary nara Kinds Tasted a ong tine. Leib, foe understand natura ngage, Fos spans one0 ros Lion (On Fodor's view, linguitic understanding, consists in bing a template for 2 caval network Retween the perceived linguistic sounds ad shapes, tnd the Subsequent internal mena sates esi ale Eh at Me) igh we a Shite wes that: (6 2 “philosophical eer” Soifer means a “eompostona meaning theory”) He concurs ith Fodor that wo stray epee seman i equi or he use of publi guage even the langage has a semanis This supposed tobe the lesson of Seiler’ Harve counterexample Seiler 1987, pp 192207); And. re een, Sehr writes ‘ive tt apo uc ‘ere mm mecca ot se a ey Schifrin bo these pass, dscses only wheter tee need te an ‘erally represented compositional scant, The ae wether thee ee be ay Sor of epistemic relatnshp between speaker and hs smanics ea’ even ase ‘thre 9 eed for porting a sane theory in he rx pce. So, Soler ‘or Foor fright, then te semi’ no, Fado ike 1 3. Abe aly ge ‘Bywoso AN UNDERSTANDING LANGUAG st Here's anther way of tcaing the dite, Suppose tht all partis agree that language eompstenson i bes undrsod in tems of deeUndvect quotation tris ike (Q) Then the det tween the semantics an, wove a tae! to the HhmanFoorSehiller ponte, th manadctonst a whether sich Wansions tev domonsaive or tot, and if they ate demanstave. eed they invoke fmenguisic seman infomation’? The fansduconsts answer no 1 the fst ‘eeston the semaiat anser yest Bo estos Bui how could yanadoton be right? Is ts pin obvious hat spears of alt or example do fact oo arange of emante fas cing OC)? |.°Sta nevada meas tha ts eons 2.0Staneviande” ves swing 5 mre” les os odor and Scie can bth agree ha (1S) and thik ae rhs about tui expressions ty can also greta vey alan speaker knows sachs. Bytthse dt et te ns Seat. Whats whee sich khowlee fs epider enerstanding alan, Aesoring Foe ad Sohie, i . ‘On Fodor's and Scie’ account, ths like (O}(S known a al we ‘own deviate), frexampl, sta because the vg that snowing is tio i as snowing and speakers of Hain use "Sta neviando™ to expres this thought (Sehr, 1993 194, pp. 303-4) TFT krow tat (1) oat (2) 1's omy tecawse Throw fist the ttn or meaning condtons of my own houghts an Sond 1 know tht yond canbe sed to expess this hough. From his oes or fallow tat {esd invoke Knowledge at (1) oat (2) in der 19 tudersand "Sa neviand This party what Fdor means whe be wits that be SS "Griean in spt hoop cenainly ots dtl” (Poder 197, pp. (Se 8, to, 1987p. 5. and Seber 1994p. 329, “soning o Gr, whit pier means bya expression socal pri to ‘wha that expression means to a public lngange: and speaker meaning sell ‘eds to psehologlfstore Fedor and Sear are Giza tothe exten tht They bot hold ta the erat ropes natal ngage eapesions have te) labeeat om (ihe lngeage of) though. Menaese” So, scoring to Fodor and Seifert) semantic Aoowedge we may have about uF awn natal Langage is inconeguctal ply no ole ing competence” ‘Sil one might wonder whether Fode nd Schiller aren't merely postponing the nese, Aer al t's an crpal pothesis wheter peer think inh own fatal linguage. Suppose, as Harman becvs, Ensh speakers 0 think “in Enelsh” Thor wouldn't ello tat understanding astral language rues {omledge a the semantics for English expressions kt doesnt. Even if one could imvinge ee Foro Schiff encode ta one’s ling ment son's om abe lingua (see Fodor 1975, p79 Seller 198, p. 187, undesionding