Understanding Kant’s account of desire is vital to the project of evaluating his views about moral psychology, as well as his account of freedom qua autonomy. In Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Kant claims that “Desire (appetitio) is the self-determination of a subject's power through the representation of something in the future as an effect of this representation” (7:251). My goal is to clarify which of the subject’s specific capacities Kant means by the “subject's power,” and what role this capacity plays in desire. I argue that the subject's power cannot be her capacity to act. Rather, the subject's power is best understood as her capacity to generate the psychological states that cause action. I call these motivational states 'activation signals'. Desire consists in the self-determination of the subject’s capacity to generate activation signals by her representation of the object of desire together with an accompanying incentive.

The thesis is a defence of an original position in the philosophy of action. It argues for a pluralist view of actions dubbed Strong Pluralism. One of the key questions of philosophy of action since the early 20th century has been taken to be 'What are actions'? In my thesis I argue that there is no single correct answer to this question. I put forward two positive claims which explain why this is so: 1. That 'action' is ambiguous and can mean either doing or thing done. 2. That not all doings fall into the same metaphysical category because they can have different constitutive structures: some of them are causings, some are events, and others are processes. I demonstrate in the thesis that these two claims can be held coherently, and I identify the resulting view as Strong Pluralism about action. The thesis divides into two parts. In the first part I lay out and offer a defence of the view in question and in the second I discuss how my pluralist view of relates to the three major types of views of action: events, causings, and process views. The first part of the thesis consists of three steps of the main argument of my thesis, each step outlined and argued for in a chapter. In the first chapter I offer an overview of the answers provided to the 'What is action'? question offered by philosophers in the last 80 years. I identify a trend common to these views to advance monist answers, that is, they offer views of action which are committed to 'action' meaning one thing and all actions fitting into the same metaphysical category. I argue that the monist answers are unsatisfactory and monism about actions cannot be maintained. In chapter two I offer an alternative to monism in the form of pluralism about actions. I defend pluralism by arguing that 'action' is ambiguous between doing and things done, and by showing that it is a as suitable substitute for monism. I provide an overview of the four most important ways in which the doing/thing done distinction has been made, and I suggest and defend a further version of it. In chapter three, I outline three possible pluralist views of actions, and defend the view which I call Strong Pluralism. Strong Pluralism is committed to the claims that there are both doings and things done, and that there are doings which have different constitutions from other doings, hence it is correct to think that some doings are events, some are causings, and some are processes. In the three chapters which constitute the second part of the thesis I engage successively with views which have claimed that actions are events, that they are causings, and that actions are processes. I argue in each chapter that there are doings which can be said to belong into the category discussed and I provide positive accounts and examples of when this is so. I offer a categorization of doings which helps us to decide which doings fall into the group of events, which into that of causings, and which into that of processes. Throughout these three chapters I critically discuss the most influential events, causings, and process views and point out several aspects in which they are too limiting or mistaken about doings. The view of doings and things done worked out in thesis helps to resolve long standing issues in the philosophy of action by clarifying what we take to be the object of explanation, knowledge, and evaluation when we discuss actions in ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, epistemology (esp. debates about knowledge of action) and other fields of philosophy. The view can have broader applications in the fields of moral psychology and cognitive science by helping to sharpen our account of what researchers are discussing when they are discussing actions.

This dissertation focuses on questions regarding the metaphysical and psychological possibility of self-deception and attempts to show that self-deception is a phenomenon best characterized as both motivated and intentional, such that self-deceivers can be held responsible for their deceptions in a stronger sense than that of being merely epistemically negligent. In Chapter One, I introduce the paradoxes of self-deception, which arise when one attempts to draw a close analogy between self- and other-deception, and I discuss the various ways in which one might characterize an unwarranted belief as irrational. I go on to show how the various ways one understands interpersonal deception may mirror the various accounts one might give of self-deception. I concluded the chapter with a brief discussion of the role of empirical studies in philosophical investigations of irrationality. In Chapter Two, I look more closely at a particular kind of intentionalist account of self-deception, namely the claim that we must suppose the existence of a partitioned mind to make sense of the so-called "internal irrationality" of the self-deceiver. I discuss both stronger and weaker versions of this theory, in an attempt to show that it tends to raise more metaphysical worries than it solves. I argue further that if there is such a thing as divisions within the mind, an account of self-deception centered around such divisions will not get the intentionalist about self-deception what he or she wants. In Chapter Three, I move on to discuss non-intentionalist accounts of self-deception. Such theories have gained in popularity in recent years, due to their appeals to explanatory parsimony. Against these theories, I argued that there are certain phenomenon we take to be central to self-deception that Mele, Barnes, et al. cannot account for. I therefore propose that a more robust account of self-deception is necessary to make sense of these phenomena. Chapter Four attempts to provide such an account. I claim that if we focus more heavily on the diachronic process by which self-deceivers elicit and/or maintain their beliefs over time, what emerges looks much more like an intentional project aimed at the manipulation of one's evidence or evidential standards than a mere more-or-less unconscious process of motivated biasing. I suggest that such a view can escape the paradoxes of self-deception, while at the same time making sense of the features lacking on non-intentionalist accounts. Finally, in Chapter Five I examine the morality of self-deception. I argue that self-deceivers are not only epistemically but also morally responsible for their self-deceptions, and that self-deception generally represents a moral failure on the part of the moral agent, regardless of the normative moral theory one adopts.

Mainstream philosophy of action and mind construes intentional behaviour in terms of causal processes that lead from agent-involving mental states to action. Actions are construed as events, which are actions in virtue of being caused by the right mental antecedents in the right way. Opponents of this standard event-causal approach have criticised the view on various grounds; they argue that it does not account for free will and moral responsibility, that it does not account for action done in the light of reasons, or, even, that it cannot capture the very phenomenon of agency. The thesis defends the standard event-causal approach against challenges of that kind. In the first chapter I consider theories that stipulate an irreducible metaphysical relation between the agent (or the self) and the action. I argue that such theories do not add anything to our understanding of human agency, and that we have, therefore, no reason to share the metaphysically problematic assumptions on which those alternative models are based. In the second chapter I argue for the claim that reason-explanations of actions are causal explanations, and I argue against non-causal alternatives. My main point is that the causal approach is to be preferred, because it provides an integrated account of agency by providing an account of the relation between the causes of movements and reasons for actions. In the third chapter I defend non-reductive physicalism as the most plausible version of the standard event-causal theory. In the fourth and last chapter I argue against the charge that the standard approach cannot account for the agent’s role in the performance of action. Further, I propose the following stance with respect to the problem of free will: we do not have free will, but we have the related ability to govern ourselves—and the best account of self-determination presupposes causation, but not causal determinism.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:11:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 2686026 bytes, checksum: 2f29740e81ac80840b4af73265b347c1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-11-04 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The objective of this thesis is to justify the exercise of a metaphysical rationality as a philosophical program of knowledge, as from the philosophy of action from Maurice Blondel. In this purpose, we will try to evidence the philosophy of action as a metaphysical phenomenology or a phenomenological metaphysics guided by a rigorous critical demand, the one from the critics to the superstition, expression of a more original logic, the one from the moral life. We will approach this interpretation according to L Action (1893) and of two writings fundamentally linked to it, Principe élémentaire de une logique de la vie morale (1900) and Le point de départ de la recherche philosophique (1906). The problem which is central to it, which we call the problem of possibility of the exercise of a metaphysical rationality as a philosophical program of knowledge or, simply, the problem of metaphysics, will be accomplished there, having in view the confrontation of three challenges: 1) To indicate how the question that deals with the surpassing of metaphysics or about the success of the criticisms to the metaphysics remains rationally open; 2) to show how the philosophy of action is pledged with the metaphysical tradition and 3) to evidence how, in the exercise of its specific rationality, and by the fidelity to the criticism to the superstition, the metaphysics can be represented as a legitimate program of knowledge. These challenges will be considered in our text through the development of three parts, not perfectly coincident with them. On the first of them, we will try to introduce the question of the sense of criticisms to the metaphysics, eventually widened as criticisms to the philosophy and to the own western way of thinking or knowing. This initial discussion will give us sufficient rudiments to, on the second part of our thesis, orientate the interpretation of the two blondelian writings previously mentioned linked to the L Action (1893) so as to specify the sense of knowing or thinking , as being an elucidation task of the prospection by the reflection, and the sense of the stérēsis logic that substantiates it. Provided with this new comprehension of the act of knowing or thinking, we will be able, then, to overcome the motives that are insinuated , on the criticisms to the metaphysics, against the own possibility of metaphysical rationality whose roots date back to numerous antinomies related to the interpretation of knowing and thinking as restricted to represent and to the insoluble hesitation of having to justify the adaptation between being and thinking to establish the rational legitimacy of a program of knowledge. Finally, sufficiently elucidated about the real sense of knowing or thinking and overcome the general and undifferentiated condemnation of metaphysics, on the third part of our research, we will accompany the expansion of human action, following the text from L Action (1893). Confirming the acquisitions of both former parts of our thesis, we will try to evidence there how by the exercise of criticism to the superstition, expression of logic of moral life, the science or philosophy of action will be taken to recognize the confluence between the question related to the sense of human life (practice) and that related to the sense of being (metaphysics), so as to found a metaphysical phenomenology or a phenomenological metaphysics. This will be erected about a comprehension of metaphysical rationality in which being and phenomenon do not oppose and it is sustained a program of philosophical knowledge critically rigorous, that is, related to the totality of human experience and, for that, open to the hypothesis of the transcendent (possessive knowledge of being), through the way of a metaphysics to the second potency. / O objetivo desta tese é o de justificar o exercício de uma racionalidade metafísica como programa filosófico de conhecimento a partir da filosofia da ação de Maurice Blondel. Nesse intuito, procuraremos evidenciar a filosofia da ação como uma fenomenologia metafísica ou uma metafísica fenomenológica norteada por uma exigência crítica rigorosa, a da crítica à superstição, expressão de uma lógica mais originária, a da vida moral. Aproximar-nos-emos dessa interpretação à luz da L Action (1893) e de dois escritos fundamentalmente a ela ligados, Principe élémentaire de une logique de la vie morale (1900) e Le point de départ de la recherche philosophique (1906). O problema que lhe é central, a que chamamos de o problema da possibilidade do exercício de uma racionalidade metafísica como programa filosófico de conhecimento ou, simplesmente, de o problema da metafísica, será aí trabalhado tendo em vista o enfrentamento de três desafios: 1) indicar como a questão que versa sobre a superação da metafísica ou sobre o sucesso das críticas à metafísica permanece racionalmente em aberto; 2) mostrar como a filosofia da ação se compromete com a tradição metafísica e 3) evidenciar como, no exercício de sua específica racionalidade, e pela fidelidade à crítica à superstição, a metafísica pode ser reapresentada como legítimo programa de conhecimento. Esses desafios serão tratados em nosso texto por meio do desenvolvimento de três grandes partes, não perfeitamente com eles coincidentes. Na primeira delas, procuraremos introduzir a questão do sentido das críticas à metafísica, eventualmente alargadas como críticas à filosofia e ao próprio modo de pensar ou conhecer ocidental. Essa discussão inicial nos dará elementos suficientes para, na segunda parte de nossa tese, orientarmos a interpretação dos dois escritos blondelianos anteriormente referidos ligados à L Action (1893) de modo a precisar o sentido de conhecer ou pensar , como sendo uma tarefa de elucidação da prospecção pela reflexão, e o sentido da lógica da stérēsis que o substancia. Munidos dessa nova compreensão do ato de conhecer ou de pensar, poderemos, então, superar os motivos que se insinuam, nas críticas à metafísica, contra a própria possibilidade da racionalidade metafísica, cujas raízes remontam a numerosas antinomias ligadas à interpretação de conhecer ou pensar como restritos a representar e à consequente e insolúvel aporia de se dever justificar a adequação entre ser e pensar para estabelecer a legitimidade racional de um programa de conhecimento. Finalmente, suficientemente esclarecidos a respeito do verdadeiro sentido de conhecer ou pensar e superada a condenação geral e indiferenciada da metafísica, na terceira parte de nossa pesquisa, acompanharemos a expansão da ação humana, seguindo o texto da L Action (1893). Confirmando as aquisições das duas partes anteriores de nossa tese, procuraremos aí evidenciar como pelo exercício da crítica à superstição, expressão da lógica da vida moral, a ciência ou filosofia da ação será levada a reconhecer a confluência entre a questão que diz respeito ao sentido da vida humana (prática) e aquela que diz respeito ao sentido do Ser (metafísica), de modo a fundar uma fenomenologia metafísica ou uma metafísica fenomenológica. Essa será erigida sobre uma compreensão de racionalidade metafísica segundo a qual não se opõem ser e fenômeno e se sustenta um programa de conhecimento filosófico criticamente rigoroso, ou seja, voltado para a totalidade da experiência humana e, por isso mesmo, aberto para a hipótese do transcendente (conhecimento possessivo do ser), por meio de uma metafísica à segunda potência.

The notion that we are voluntary agents who exercise power to choose and, in doing so, determine some of what happens in the world has been an important notion in certain theological accounts concerning our relationship with God (e.g. 'the freewill defence' for God's goodness and omnipotence in light of moral evil and accounts of human moral responsibility in relation to God). However, it has been claimed that the physicalism supported by contemporary neuroscience research calls into question human voluntary agency and, with it, human power to choose. Emergentist (or non-reductive physicalist) accounts of psychological phenomena have been presented as a way of reconciling the physicalism supported by contemporary neuroscience and the theologically important notion of human power to choose. But there are several issues that remain for the plausibility of the required kind of emergentist account; namely - Does recent neuroscience research show that voluntary agency is an illusion? and Is there evidence for neurophysiological causes which, along with neurophysiological conditions, determine all we do? In this dissertation I set out to address these issues and, in doing so, present an account of voluntary agency as power to choose in the state of being aware of alternatives. I argue that this account allows for the notion that human beings determine some of what happens in a way that is consistent with what contemporary neuroscience shows. Thus, contemporary neuroscience does not undermine this notion of human voluntary agency; or, then, the predominant theological view that we are morally responsible in our relationship with God.

Submitted by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-06-30T14:37:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_LUIZ_PAULO_DA_CAS_CICHOSKI_COMPLETO.pdf: 1758729 bytes, checksum: 5d01f795a90116b18dbf55169d2ce1ca (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-30T14:37:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_LUIZ_PAULO_DA_CAS_CICHOSKI_COMPLETO.pdf: 1758729 bytes, checksum: 5d01f795a90116b18dbf55169d2ce1ca (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-16 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Quando n?s falamos sobre entidades coletivas, a??o ? o tipo de atribui??o mais comum. N?s rotineiramente falamos coisas tais como: ?China suspende todas as importa??es de carv?o da Coreia do Norte?; ?Uber est? investigando acusa??es de ass?dio feitas por ex-funcion?rio?; ?A Suprema Corte estuda o caso de um tiro disparado nos E.U.A. que matou um adolescente no M?xico?; ?Mal?sia retira embaixador na Coreia do Norte?; ?SpaceX lan?a foguete a partir da hist?rica ?plataforma da lua? da NASA.?. S?o essas atribui??es verdadeiras? Com certeza todas elas poderiam ser meramente metaf?ricas. N?s poder?amos tomar entidades coletivas como agentes somente como uma maneira de falar. Neste trabalho, eu argumento em favor de uma posi??o realista a respeito de entidades coletivas e seu status de agente; tornando algumas dessas senten?as verdadeiras. Ultimamente, muitos fil?sofos t?m abordado esse t?pico, mas a discuss?o tende a ser guiada pelo problema da intencionalidade coletiva, o problema de como entidades coletivas podem possuir estados mentais. Meu trabalho tenta trazer mais elementos da filosofia da a??o para a investiga??o de a??es coletivas. Eu tomo como guia o problema da individua??o da a??o, porque esse t?pico aborda quest?es de central import?ncia para a??es coletivas. Especialmente a quest?o das a??es agregadas: a??es que s?o compostas de outras a??es, que parecem ser os casos paradigm?ticos de a??es coletivas, na medida em que a??es coletivas s?o, presumivelmente, compostas de a??es individuais. O problema da individua??o da a??o nos leva a dois conceitos centrais da natureza da a??o: a??o b?sica e inten??o. Neste trabalho, eu mostrarei como uma investiga??o sobre a??o b?sica pode nos ajudar a localizar o lugar das contribui??es individuais em a??es coletivas e como uma investiga??o sobre inten??o pode localizar um elemento fundamental da a??o que ? irredut?vel e distintivamente coletivo nos casos de a??es coletivas. Depois de explorar esses dois conceitos centrais, eu ofere?o uma defini??o de a??o que leva a s?rio o lugar da inten??o como guia para identificar quando um evento constitui uma a??o. / When we talk about collective entities, action is the most common kind of ascription. We regularly say things such as ?China suspends all coal imports from North Korea?; ?Uber is investigating harassment claims by ex-employee?; ?Supreme Court considers case of a shot fired in U.S. that killed a teenager in Mexico?; ?Malaysia recalls ambassador to North Korea?; ?SpaceX launches rocket from NASA?s historic moon pad.? Are those ascriptions true? For sure, they could all be metaphoric. We could take collective entities as agents just as a way of speaking. In this work, I argue in favor of a realist position regarding collective entities and their status of agent; rendering some of these sentences true. Recently, many philosophers are addressing this topic, but the discussion tends to be guided by the problem of collective intentionality, the problem of how collective entities can have mental states. My work tries to bring more elements of philosophy of action to the investigation of collective action. I take as a guide the problem of action individuation, because this topic addresses questions of central importance for collective action. Especially the question of aggregate actions, actions that are composed of other actions, which seems to be the paradigmatic case of collective action, insofar as they are presumably composed of individuals? actions. The problem of action individuation leads us to two central concepts on the nature of action: basic action and intention. In this work, I will show how an investigation on basic action can help us locate the place of individuals? contributions in collective action and how an investigation on intention can locate a fundamental element of action that is irreducible and distinctively collective in collective action cases. After exploring these two core concepts, I provide a definition of action that take seriously the place of intention as a guide to identify when an event constitutes an action.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mirian Gado Fernandes Costa.pdf: 1148833 bytes, checksum: 46a8a99b18e76a6f2ddb95575b9011a9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-28 / Paul Ricoeur was concerned, in his political essays, with a philosophy of action linked to the willingness of human coexistence. In order to understand Politics as an activity based on coexistence, we should recognize concepts such as power, sovereignty, violence, as permanent features in the task of stabilization of life in common. Thus, we should revisit some philosophical works that illustrates this unique capacity of men. This work discusses Paul Ricoeur s political paradox concept, which was first brought to light in 1957, in the article he wrote analyzing the Hungarian Revolution. Focusing on Ricoeur s work, this text intends to clarify the political paradox concept, as well as to explicit political power problems such as its relative autonomy with respect to social-economic relations. The Hungarian events illustrate such problems, but this work also demonstrates how Ricoeur s analyses unfolded into a universal reflection about the political realm. Ricoeur discussed some of Hannah Arendt s papers; according to the later, Politics is the source of meaning for human life and a long-term political project is the only possibility of historical immortality for us, mortals. Some of these discussions brought up at the end of this dissertation, aim to shed light on the reflection about the political paradox and the problematic of power / Paul Ricoeur preocupou-se, em seus textos políticos, com uma filosofia da ação voltada para a vontade de coexistência dos homens. Para entendermos a política como a atividade estabelecida na convivência entre os homens, somos convocados a reconhecer conceitos tais como poder, soberania, violência, como traços permanentes da tarefa de estabilização dessa vida em comum. Para tanto, devemos revisitar as obras filosóficas que reflitam essa capacidade singular dos homens. Este trabalho apresenta reflexões em torno do conceito que Ricoeur chama de paradoxo político , um conceito cunhado e discutido pela primeira vez em 1957, num artigo seminal, referindo-se aos eventos da Revolução Húngara. À luz da filosofia política desse autor francês, busca-se esclarecer o paradoxo político, explicitando os problemas do poder político e sua relativa autonomia em relação ao econômico-social. Os eventos húngaros ilustram a abordagem dos problemas enunciados, mas o trabalho demonstra como, a partir daquele estudo, a reflexão se desdobrou em uma reflexão universal sobre o político. Ricoeur analisou alguns textos de Hannah Arendt, para quem a política é a fonte de significado da vida humana e o projeto político de longa duração é a única medida de imortalidade histórica que é possível a nós, homens mortais. Algumas dessas análises constam no final desta dissertação, e têm o intuito de iluminar a reflexão sobre o paradoxo político e a problemática do poder

<p dir="ltr">This dissertation explores questions of personal change and the power of narrative with respect to both an individual and to the wider social environment. In chapter one, I explore the connections between the various facets of liminality and agency, with a focus on how it is that people can consciously craft specific ways of being an agent. In chapter two, I explore the nature of disagreements that involve our most fundamental commitments from within the context of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s posthumous <i>On Certainty</i>. Wittgenstein was pessimistic that argumentation could help in such cases, yet left it an open question as to whether they could be otherwise resolved. Here, I suggest the practice of storytelling as one strategy to resolve these disagreements. Finally, in chapter 3, I examine recent takes on conspiracy theories that include evaluating conspiracy theories as contrarian claims to secret knowledge as well as highlighting the political function that many conspiracy theories can play. Here, I will develop a claim that is common to both camps: conspiracy theories tell stories. By analyzing the characters and narrative structures at play in conspiracy theories, we can gain a deeper understanding of why conspiracy theorists think they know what they know, why particular conspiracy theories reference certain groups or agents rather than others, and why some tropes appear and reappear in conspiracy theories.</p>

Historien, philosophe et anthropologue, Michel de Certeau (1925-1986) est une figure singulière dans le paysage intellectuel français. Son œuvre représente, par son étendue et sa profondeur, un tournant décisif dans les idées philosophiques contemporaines. Tout en conservant l’essentiel des enseignements concernant l’historiographie et la mystique, il introduit de nombreux thèmes philosophiques et sociologiques pour lire la tradition et le monde moderne. Notre travail consiste à examiner l’idée principale selon laquelle les pratiques sont des usages ou des opérations tributaires d’une situation. Pour cela, de Certeau emploie une panoplie de notions telles que la formalité des pratiques et la stratégie et la tactique ainsi que d’autres concepts connexes dans le but de rendre compte des pratiques sociales et ce que les individus font avec l’ordre qui leur est proposé ou imposé. L’objectif est d’étudier la manière, prudente et ingénieuse, par laquelle les individus contournent les impératifs de cet ordre dans les multiples façons de faire usage du lieu, du temps et de la mémoire. Ces usages indociles se manifestent en particulier dans les pratiques quotidiennes. Ceci nous amène à nous interroger sur l’actualité des analyses de Certeau et leur apport dans les réflexions d’aujourd’hui : sur quelle assise théorique se base-t-il pour étudier la nature et la fonction de ces pratiques? Ses réflexions ont-elles changé notre approche du social, du culturel, du politique? / The historian, philosopher and anthropologist Michel de Certeau (1925–1986) stands out as a singular figure in the French intellectual landscape. The scope and depth of his work represent a decisive turning-point in the contemporary philosophical ideas. Though he retained the bulk of the teachings relating to historiography and mysticism, he introduced many philosophical and sociological themes to read the traditional and the modern world. Our work consists in examining the main idea according to which practices are customs or operations dependent on a situation. In order to do that, de Certeau uses a full array of notions such as the formality of practices, the strategy and the tactics along with other closely related concepts aiming at explaining social practices and what people do with the order proposed to or imposed on them. The purpose is to study the cautious and clever manner in which people bypass this order’s requirements in their manifold uses of space, time and memory. These rebellious customs are particularly expressed in everyday practices. This leads us to wonder how topical Certeau’s analyses are and how much they can affect today's reflections: what theoritical foundation is he relying on to study nature and the function of these practices? Have his reflections changed our approach to the social, cultural and political issues?