Abstract
This paper examines a potential problem area for theories of direct reference: that of the substitution of co-referential names within the belief context of a belief attribution used to explain an action. Of particular interest are action explanations which involve cases of repetition — wherein beliefs are held which, though about one (other) individual, are mistakenly thought to concern two different people. It is argued that, despite the commonly held view to the contrary, no problem is posed by substitution in such circumstances to theories of direct reference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BakerL. R.: 1982, ‘De Re Belief in Action’,Philosophical Review 91, 363–387.
BarwiseJ. and J.Perry: 1983,Situations and Attitudes, MIT. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Caruthers, P.: ‘Russellian Thoughts’,Mind 96, 18–35.
DonnellanK.: 1972, ‘Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions’, in D.Davidson and G.Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 356–379.
DrayW.: 1957,Laws and Explanation in History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DrayW.: 1963, ‘The Historical Explanation of Actions Reconsidered’, in S.Hook (ed.),Philosophy and History, New York University Press, New York, pp. 105–135.
HartH. L. A. and HonoréA. M.: 1959,Causation and the Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
HempelC.: 1942, ‘The Function of General Laws in History’,Journal of Philosophy 39, 35–48.
HempelC. and P.Oppenheim: 1953, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, in H.Feigl and M.Brodbek (eds.),Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Appleton, Century and Crofts, New York, pp. 327–328.
KaplanD.: 1970, ‘Dthat’, published after several years circulating in manuscript form, in P.Cole (ed.), 1978,Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 221–243.
KaplanD.: 1989a, ‘Demonstratives’, in J.Almog, J.Perry and H.Wettstein (eds.),Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 481–563.
KaplanD.: 1989b, ‘Afterthoughts’, in J.Almog, J.Perry and H.Wettstein (eds.),Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 565–614.
KripkeS.: 1972, ‘Naming and Necessity’, in D.Davidson and G.Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 253–355, 763–769; also published in 1980 as a book with additional preface, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
KripkeS.: 1979, ‘A Puzzle about Belief’, in A.Margalit (ed.),Meaning and Use, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 239–283.
PerryJ.: 1977, ‘Frege on Demonstratives’,Philosophical Review 86, 474–497.
PerryJ.: 1979, ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’,Nôus 13, 3–21.
PerryJ.: 1988, ‘A Problem about Continued Belief’,Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61, 317–332.
StifflerE.: 1983, ‘De Re Belief Ascriptions and Action Explanations’,Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13, 513–525.
StrawsonP.: 1959, Review of Dray'sLaws and Explanation in History, Mind 68, 265–268.
WettsteinH.: 1986, ‘Has Semantics Rested on a Mistake?’,Journal of Philosophy 83, 185–209.
WettsteinH.: 1988, ‘Cognitive Significance Without Cognitive Content’,Mind 97, 1–28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bryans, J. Substitution and the explanation of action. Erkenntnis 37, 365–376 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00666228
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00666228