Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Queensland, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.

The immediate object is a determinate resolution of Aristotle's position in Nicomachean Ethics 7.3. over the Socratic problem and in particular the possibility of last-ditch akrasia. My approach seeks interpretational constraints and illumination from considering the argument as a structured whole. Moreover, the passage is a point on which larger issues in Aristotle's philosophies of mind, action, and morals converge: the elucidation offered attempts both to frame and throw light on these. Chapter One makes preliminary moves on several fronts. Firstly it looks briefly at Aristotle's position over last-ditch akrasia in De Anima and Eudemian Ethics. Then it outlines the problems of Nicomachean Ethics 7.3. and classifies previous lines of solution. Thirdly an intuitive picture is given of Aristotle's method and basic stance. Finally some contrasts are drawn between Aristotle's and modern approaches to akrasia. Chapters Two to Five discuss the four Sections of Nicomachean Ethics 7.3's argument. Chapters Two and Three take Section 1 and 2 together and consider two major problems of interpretation. Chapter Two asks whether these Sections concern akrasia at all, and, if so, how. I argue that their concern is direct, general (i.e. not confined to some akratic species), and inclusive (i.e. embracing non-akratic phenomena). Chapter Three asks about the interpretation of "exercising knowledge". Firstly the results of Chapter Two are defended; an aporetic discussion of this difficult issue then follows. Chapter Four examines Section 3. After analysing its structure, it distinguishes three principal issues. I argue firstly that Section 3, like 1 and 2, concerns akrasia directly, generally and inclusively; secondly that the knowledge that the akratic is temporally unable to use (that is 'tied') is his (universal) knowledge of what is worthwhile; thirdly that this failure involves a cognitive failure (I suggest a distortion of the agent's situational appreciation) - and not, as some scholars have recently urged, merely a motivational failure. Chapter Five, perforce selective, tackles firstly various problems of Section 4's argumentative structure, and then the interpretation of 1147a26-31 (the 'normal case'). Finally 1147a31-5 (the 'akratic case') is examined and a case argued for its offering two syllogisms but only one practical syllogism.

No description available.

A different analytical approach to that of the standard causal theory to the explanation of action is proposed. It is argued that the most basic kind of explanation of action is teleological explanation in terms of external reasons. what this amounts to is that an action is the result of a causal process which adapts its results to whatever is objectively practically rational. Explanation in terms of psychological states depends on being able to make this externalist sort of explanation. Central to this account is a theory of causal explanation which depends on the notion of a causal process. A causal process is a real entity distinct from an event. A phenomenon is causally explained when a description of the phenomenon is determined by a theoretical structure which represents how a process which results in the phenomenon works. In teleological explanation, the theoretical structure is that of practical rationality. It is argued that this must be regarded as objective practical rationality. Only purposeful activity can be explained in this way. An account of evolutionary function is provided to show why. it differs from this. This account of teleological explanation, because it does not involve internal mental states, may be used to show how we attribute such states. An agent is essentially a teleological machine. Accounts of perception, beliefs and intentions are provided based on this.

Thesis (Ph.D)--University of Edinburgh, 1992.

No description available.

Thesis--Frankfurt University, 1977. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 198-205).

This thesis is a critical examination of three influential and interrelated aspects of Donald Davidson’s philosophy of action.. The first issue that is considered is Davidson’s account of the logical form of action—sentences. After assessing the argument in support of Davidson’s account, and suggesting certain amendments to it, I show how this modified version of Davidson’s account can be extended to provide for more complicated types of action—sentences. The second issue that is considered is Davidson’s views concerning the individuation of actions; in particular, I examine Davidson’s theory concerning the ontological implications of those sentences that assert that an agent did something by means of doing something else. The conclusion that I seek to establish in this case is essentially negative—that Davidson’s theory is false. The third issue that is considered is Davidson’s theory concerning the logical implications of those sentences that assert that an agent did something as a means of doing something else, which is also commonly known as the causal theory of action. Here I argue against Davidson’s view by providing an alternative, and more satisfying response to the theoretical challenge that generates the causal theory. Subsequent to this I attempt to explain what motivates Davidson’s commitment to the causal theory.

This thesis is concerned with two kinds of 'singular' psychological phenomena. The first is the commonsense psychological explanation of action directed upon particular things and stuffs. The second is the nature of (visual) perceptual demonstrative thought. The two topics are brought together in an account of psychological explanation I call 'de re psychological explanation'. The primary aim of the thesis is to articulate and defend this account. The main thesis I seek to establish is that an adequate psychological explanation of an agent's action upon an object requires a relational or de re ascription of thought that (1) relates the agent to the object and (2) makes reference to a perceptual demonstrative mode of presentation of the object. This thesis is defended in two stages. In the first chapter I argue for the first half of the thesis, that relational ascriptions are necessary in any explanation of an action involving an object. In the fourth chapter I argue for the second half, that it is necessary that these relational ascriptions make reference to a perceptual demonstrative mode of presentation of the object acted on. The second half of the thesis involves the notion of a perceptual demonstrative mode of presentation. This necessitates an account of the nature of perceptual demonstrative thoughts, which is undertaken in chapters two and three. In the second chapter I explore two prominent theories of perceptual demonstrative thought. In the third chapter I sketch a new account 'property-dependent externalism' and argue that it is more adequate than the others. In chapter four, I return to de re explanation and develop it further into a covering-law account of psychological explanation. The rest of the thesis is given over to defending the elaborated covering-law account against two objections. I draw the claws of the first objection in the second half of the fourth chapter and answer the second objection in the final chapter.