Davidson's Debt to Anscombe
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9689766 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul Hurley (0000-0002-8964-5774, Claremont McKenna College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 219-233 |
| Publication date | 2020-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0012-2173 • E-ISSN: 1759-0949 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0012217320000050 |
| OpenAlex | W3081941330 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 17 |
Robert Myers’ interpretation of Donald Davidson's practical philosophy gets Davidson right in many fundamental respects. Myers rightly argues that Davidson avoids inconsistencies among internalism, ethical objectivity, and the belief-desire theory by modifying central elements of the Humean belief-desire theory, and that Davidson's alternative legitimizes the extension of his interpretation and triangulation arguments into the practical sphere. But at a crucial fork in the interpretive road Myers loses his way. Davidson follows G.E.M. Anscombe down a different path, one that takes individual desires to be constituted in part by evaluative judgements
Epistemology · Extension (predicate logic) · Internalism and externalism · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Objectivity (philosophy) · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Highly cited | No |
|---|