Seeing To it That: A Canonical Form for Agentives

J. L. Austin told us that “The beginning of sense, not to say wisdom, is to realize that ‘doing an action’, as used in philosophy, is a highly abstract expression — it is a stand-in used in the place of any (or almost any) verb with a personal subject...” [Austin56; p. 178].1 In that paper he tried to throw light on the question of “doing an action” by looking at the range of cases in which excuses are offered both in everyday usage and in the law, and to arrive at a proper vocabulary for action by “induction” on the proper uses of words. Many years have passed, the lesson has been learned, and it is time for philosophy to go beyond the mere beginnings of sense and progress toward a deeper understanding of an agent doing an action. How should we proceed? Our suggestion is that the next step in the progression toward greater sense and wisdom is to have available the sort of clean and well honed linguistic resource that Austin, and other philosophers, have realized to be necessary. We think that the most promising path to a deeper understanding of an agent making a choice among alternatives that lead to action is to augment the language with a class of sentences whose fundamental syntactic and semantic structures are so well designed and easily understood that they illuminate not only their own operations but the nature and structure of the linguistic settings in which they function.

[1]  David L. Davidson,et al.  The Logical Form of Action Sentences , 2001 .

[2]  J. O. Urmson,et al.  The Meaning of a Word , 1970 .

[3]  David Makinson On the formal representation of rights relations , 1986, J. Philos. Log..

[4]  N. Belnap Backwards and Forwards in the Modal Logic of Agency , 1991 .

[5]  Christian Rohrer Papers on tense, aspect and verb classification , 1978 .

[6]  Carol E. Cleland,et al.  Events and their Names. , 1988 .

[7]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Naming and Necessity , 1980 .

[8]  A. Bressan A general interpreted modal calculus , 1972 .

[9]  Nuel D. Belnap Declaratives are not enough , 1990 .

[10]  James D. McCawley,et al.  The Logic of Common Nouns: An Investigation in Quantified Modal Logic , 1980 .

[11]  Michael Perloff,et al.  A better alternative , 1979 .

[12]  Myles Brand,et al.  The nature of human action , 1970 .

[13]  R. Hilpinen Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings , 1981 .

[14]  A. Montefiore NORM AND ACTION , 1964 .

[15]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[16]  Gilbert Harman,et al.  Semantics of natural language , 2004, Synthese.

[17]  Chien-Kuo Mi The Nature of Human Action , 2002 .

[18]  Irving Thalberg Do we cause our own actions , 1967 .

[19]  Storrs McCall,et al.  Objective Time Flow , 1976, Philosophy of Science.

[20]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Indeterminist time and truth‐value gaps1 , 2008 .

[21]  Hector-Neri Castañeda The structure of morality , 1974 .

[22]  John Austin,et al.  A plea for excuses , 1971 .