Abstract
The problem of satisfaction conditions arises from the apparent difficulties of explaining the nature of the mental states involved in our emotional responses to tragic fictions. Greg Currie has recently proposed to solve the problem by arguing for the recognition of a class of imaginative counterparts of desires—what he and others call i-desires. In this paper I will articulate and rebut Currie’s argument in favour of i-desires and I will put forward a new solution in terms of genuine desires. To this aim I will show that the same sort of puzzling phenomenon involved in our responses to tragic fictions arises also in a non-fictional case, and I will offer a solution to the problem of satisfaction conditions that dispenses with i-desires. The key to the explanation is in the notion of condition-dependent desires triggered by fictions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Paradigmatically, Weinberg and Meskin remark that over the last two decades “two crucial insights have emerged from this research [in cognitive psychology and empirically oriented philosophy]: that there are significant functional similarities between imaginative states and belief states, but that distinct cognitive systems underwrite our imaginative and doxastic capacities” (2006, 178). For example, according to Nichols and Stich’s influential cognitive theory of pretence imagined representations (so the metaphor goes) are stored in a distinct Possible World Box: “Like the Belief Box and the Desire Box, the Possible World Box contains representation tokens. However, the functional role of these tokens—their pattern of interaction with other components of the mind—is quite different from the functional role of either beliefs or desires” (2003, 28). Nichols deploys the same idea when he explores the similarities and the discrepancies between imagination and belief (2004b, 2006). Inspired by Nichols and Stich’s boxology, Doggett and Egan develop their own distinct theory of mind and assume that “mental states are represented by boxes and boxes are individuated by functional role” (2012, 279). Carruthers contends that “belief-like imaginings aren’t real beliefs. They differ from real beliefs in crucial aspects of their functional role” (2006, 99). Currie remarks that defendants of simulation theories about knowledge of the mind of others “can certainly affirm that the internal functional roles of belief and pretence are similar, because the simulationist can say that pretence is off-line belief” (1998, 46, n. 24). And Currie and Ravenscroft develop this insight and explicitly appeal to “functional kinds” (2002, 17).
Yablo (2001) suggests a similar worry for the interpretation of sentences containing reference to numbers interpreted according to a fictionalist approach to mathematics.
References
Carruthers, P. (2003) Review of gregory currie, ian ravenscroft, recreative minds: Imagination in philosophy and psychology. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 11.
Carruthers, P. (2006). Why pretend. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp. 89–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Currie, G. (1995). The moral psychology of fiction. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73(2), 250–259.
Currie, G. (1997). The paradox of caring: Fiction and the philosophy of mind. In M. Hjort & S. Laver (Eds.), Emotion and the arts (pp. 63–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Currie, G. (1998). Pretence, pretending, and metarepresenting. Mind and Language, 13(1), 35–55.
Currie, G. (2002). Desire in imagination. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 201–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Currie, G. (2010). Tragedy. Analysis, 70, 632–638.
Currie, G., & Ravenscroft, I. (2002). Recreative mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doggett, T., & Egan, A. (2007). Wanting things you don’t want: The case for an imaginative analogue of desire. Philosophers’ Imprint, 7(9), 1–16.
Doggett, T., & Egan, A. (2012). How we feel about terrible, non-existent mafiosi. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(2), 277–306.
Gendler, T. S. (2008a). Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105, 634–663.
Gendler, T. S. (2008b). Alief in action (and reaction). Mind and Language, 23, 552–585.
Griffiths, P. (1997). What emotions really are. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kind, A. (2011). The puzzle of imaginative desire. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89, 421–439.
Mele, A. R. (1995). Motivation: Essentially motivation-constituting attitudes. The Philosophical Review, 104(3), 387–423.
Nichols, S. (2004a). Review of Currie and Ravenscroft, recreative minds. Mind, 113, 329–334.
Nichols, S. (2004b). Imagining and believing. The promise of a single code. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62(2), 129–139.
Nichols, S. (2006). Just the imagination: Why imagining does not behave like believing. Mind and Language, 21(4), 459–474.
Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading. An integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding other minds. New York: Oxford University Press.
Prinz, J. (2004). Gut reactions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, J. (2005). Deeper than reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schroeder, T. (2004). Three faces of desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, K. (1997). Spelunking, simulation, and slime: On being moved by fiction. In M. Hjort & S. Laver (Eds.), Emotion and the arts (pp. 37–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, J. M., & Meskin, A. (2005). Imagine that! In M. Kieran (Ed.), Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art (pp. 222–235). Oxford: Blackwell.
Weinberg, J. M., & Meskin, A. (2006). Puzzling over the imagination: Philosophical problems, architectural solutions. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination. New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp. 175–202). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Yablo, S. (2001). Go figure: A path through fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 72–102.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to two anonymous referees for their constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions, to Greg Currie for extensive discussions on the notion of i-desire during a wonderful visiting term at the University of Nottingham in 2009, and to Franck Lihoreau, Erich Rast, Julien Deonna and others for comments on previous versions of this paper presented at seminars in Lisbon and Geneva and at the 20th Anniversary Conference of SIFA in 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salis, F. The Problem of Satisfaction Conditions and the Dispensability of i-Desire. Erkenn 81, 105–118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-015-9731-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-015-9731-4