[hist-analytic] Davidson's 'Under a description' Trick

steve bayne baynesrb at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 31 15:09:33 EST 2009

A description of moving the laces is 'moving the laces', but how do 
we describe the  movement of the hands that move the laces without 
describing the laces? We can describe killing Polonius using an 
alternative description; there is no alternative even to "moving the laces 
in such and such a way." In addition: and what way is "such a way"?
How do I describe moving my limbs when I am NOT doing anything
with them; and, yet, I can do so intentionally. So where, in such a
case, is the description under which the action is intentional and
how might it distinguish the same actions when they are not? That is
Davidson's problem in that case.



--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Boris Hennig <mail.2 at borishennig.de> wrote:
From: Boris Hennig <mail.2 at borishennig.de>
Subject: Re: Davidson's 'Under a description' Trick
To: "hist-analytic list" <hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 1:37 PM

I don't understand. Davidson says that there is a way to describe the
finger movements: "moving the laces."


> But if I cannot describe how I move my fingers, then it can never be the
> the same reason, simply because there is no description available for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20090131/3b949b9e/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list