ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Intentionality Best Practices

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mills Davis <lmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:00:46 -0400
Message-id: <01444666-77EF-4255-8E01-9955F063C14C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

Further, intentionality is key to axiology and human reasoning about values.     (02)

Mills    (03)

On May 23, 2014, at 3:30 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (04)

> On 5/22/2014 9:40 AM, John Bottoms wrote:
>> I have come across some views that intentionality is difficult or
>> impossible to implement.
> 
> It's difficult or impossible for those philosophers who try to
> eliminate anything that is "unscientific" or "anthropomorphic".
> Since intentionality, by definition, depends on somebody's intention,
> it is, by definition, anthropomorphic -- or at least zoomorphic.
> 
> But without recognizing the importance of intentionality, it's
> impossible to define anything that depends on goals or purpose.
> That includes business, law, government, economics, and life.
> 
>> There appear to be a number of candidate reasons including lack of
>> consensus, issues with dualism, ambiguity of language or implementation
>> using FOL.
> 
> The lack of consensus is the result of the half century of behaviorism
> in the early part of the 20th c.  In the late 19th c, there were many
> enlightened philosophers such as Peirce, Brentano, and their followers
> who understood the issues.  Husserl was a student of Brentano's, and
> he did his best to reconcile intentionality with the onslaught of
> behaviorism.
> 
> Some of Husserl's students, such as Heidegger, went off the deep end
> with those methods.  The net result is that most analytic philosophers
> were scared of mentioning anything that might trigger a criticism that
> they were being "unscientific".  Fortunately, scientists like Einstein
> had no fear of being unscientific.  Einstein criticized philosophers
> like Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell for their "Angst" about such
> issues.
> 
> More recently, philosophers like John Searle have been getting back to
> intentionality.  But many are still too timid about being criticized
> by the so-called "mainstream" of analytic philosophy (i.e, the people
> who control tenure and promotion). For some discussion and references, 
> see http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf
> 
> I discuss some issues about Searle, Carnap, and others in
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>     (05)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>