The Classical Theory of Causal Explanation under the Razor of John Searle

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor, Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Iran

Abstract

Regarding the analysis of voluntary action, there are two general attitudes in Western philosophy: causal explanation and non-causal rational explanation. The first view has been the classic and common theory in the history of Western philosophy and thought, but the second has been formed in the contemporary century. According to the first view, the inner elements of the agent, i.e., desire, intention and belief, have a causal relationship with his action, and the explanation of the action based on them is an example of causal explanation. John Searle, a famous contemporary philosopher who defends the second view, lists six assumptions for the first theory and criticizes them. Based on the words of Searle and other proponents of the first view, this article explains, rationally analyzes and evaluates Searle's six assumptions and his criticisms.The mentioned assumptions are: the causality of beliefs and desires for rational actions, rationality as following certain principles and rules, rationality as a separate cognitive faculty, weakness of will caused by disturbance in the psychological antecedents of the action, denial of desire-independent reasons for action and realization of rationality in the assumption of consistent collection of previous desires. Searle believes that these assumptions are incomplete. Some of Searle's criticisms and his positive views are debatable, including that the agent himself is the cause of action, not his beliefs and desires, and that Searle's idea of the desire-independent reason is incomplete and there is a desire in this kind of reason. The rationality includes primary goals and beliefs.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdullahi, M. (2022). A Critical Analytical Study of the “Formal Self” in John Searle's Philosophy of Mind. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 24(2), 73-94. (In Persian) https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_2163.html?lang=fa
Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). Intention, 2nd ed, Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean Ethics, Translated by D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
Carroll, L. (1895). What the Tortoise said to Achilles, Mind, 4(14), 278–280.
Davidson, D. (2001a). How Is Weakness of the Will Possible? in Essays on Actions and Events, pp. 25-43, Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D. (2001b). Actions, Reasons, and Causes. in Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd ed. pp. 3–19, Oxford University Press.
Elster, J. (1983). Sour Grapes Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge University Press.
Hare, R. M. (1952). The Language of Morals, Oxford University Press.
Hume, D. (2007). A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton, Clarendon Presss.
Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Edited and translated by A. W. Wood, with essays by J. B. Schneewind & others. Ernest Cassirer Publications Fund.
Mollayousefi, M. & L. Shirkhani. (2017). Aristotle and Theory of Decision (Prohairesis). Journal of Philosophical Investigations. 11(20), 249-260. (In Persian). https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_16094.html?lang=fa
Railton, P. (1997). On the Hypothetical and the Non-Hypothetical in Reasoning about Belief and Action. in G. Cullity & B. Gaut. Ethics and Practical Reason. pp. 53-79, Oxford University Press.
Russell, B. (1992). Human Society in Ethics and Politics, Routledge.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind, University Paperbacks.
Searl, J. R. (2001). Rationality in Action, The MIT Press.
Searl, J. R. (2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction, Oxford University Press.
Simon, Η. A. (1983). Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press.
Stout, Ρ. (2005). Action, Acumen Publishing Limited.
Williams, Β. (1981). External and Internal Reasons, in Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980, pp. 101–113, Cambridge University Press.
Zakeri, Μ. (1394). An introduction to the Philosophy of action. Study and Editing Organization (SAT), 1st ed. Center for Research and Development of Human Sciences and Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture. (in Persian)
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics