The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism

Abstract Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare (1969) and Sellars (1969) promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this other...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Analysis (Oxford) 2018-01, Vol.78 (1), p.45-52
1. Verfasser: Grzankowski, Alex
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 52
container_issue 1
container_start_page 45
container_title Analysis (Oxford)
container_volume 78
creator Grzankowski, Alex
description Abstract Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare (1969) and Sellars (1969) promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this otherwise attractive theory, in a series of papers as well as his recent book, Uriah Kriegel has offered a novel reply to the ‘many-property problem’ and on its basis he argues that ‘adverbialism about intentionality is alive and well’. If true, Kriegel will have shown that the logical landscape has long been unnecessarily constrained. His key idea is that the many-property problem can be overcome by appreciating that mental states stand in the determinable–determinate relation to one another. The present paper shows that this relation can’t save adverbialism because it would require thinkers to think more thoughts than they need be thinking.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/analys/anx068
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_analys_anx068</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/analys/anx068</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/analys/anx068</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-e33b7067b76c2571f106094f920ec9d6a7b589e499e636e335820cd0362f874b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFj7tOwzAYhS0EEqEwsmdkMfy2E1_GqgKKVKlLO0e280cE5VLZoaJb34GJ1-uTEBTEynR0pE_n6CPklsE9AyMebGebQxzjA6Q-IwnLpKKa6-ycJAAgKJdCX5KrGN_GCrliCZlvXjEtccDQ1p11DZ6On391wDRgY4e671Jvu9Pxa0ij3WNqyz0GV9umju01uahsE_HmN2dk-_S4WSzpav38spivqBdgBopCOAVSOSU9H68rBhJMVhkO6E0prXK5NpgZg1LIkc41B1-CkLzSKnNiRui060MfY8Cq2IW6teFQMCh-_IvJv5j8R_5u4vv33T_oN_vhYCI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Grzankowski, Alex</creator><creatorcontrib>Grzankowski, Alex</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare (1969) and Sellars (1969) promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this otherwise attractive theory, in a series of papers as well as his recent book, Uriah Kriegel has offered a novel reply to the ‘many-property problem’ and on its basis he argues that ‘adverbialism about intentionality is alive and well’. If true, Kriegel will have shown that the logical landscape has long been unnecessarily constrained. His key idea is that the many-property problem can be overcome by appreciating that mental states stand in the determinable–determinate relation to one another. The present paper shows that this relation can’t save adverbialism because it would require thinkers to think more thoughts than they need be thinking.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2638</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8284</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/analys/anx068</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Analysis (Oxford), 2018-01, Vol.78 (1), p.45-52</ispartof><rights>The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust . All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-e33b7067b76c2571f106094f920ec9d6a7b589e499e636e335820cd0362f874b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-e33b7067b76c2571f106094f920ec9d6a7b589e499e636e335820cd0362f874b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1583,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grzankowski, Alex</creatorcontrib><title>The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism</title><title>Analysis (Oxford)</title><description>Abstract Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare (1969) and Sellars (1969) promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this otherwise attractive theory, in a series of papers as well as his recent book, Uriah Kriegel has offered a novel reply to the ‘many-property problem’ and on its basis he argues that ‘adverbialism about intentionality is alive and well’. If true, Kriegel will have shown that the logical landscape has long been unnecessarily constrained. His key idea is that the many-property problem can be overcome by appreciating that mental states stand in the determinable–determinate relation to one another. The present paper shows that this relation can’t save adverbialism because it would require thinkers to think more thoughts than they need be thinking.</description><issn>0003-2638</issn><issn>1467-8284</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFj7tOwzAYhS0EEqEwsmdkMfy2E1_GqgKKVKlLO0e280cE5VLZoaJb34GJ1-uTEBTEynR0pE_n6CPklsE9AyMebGebQxzjA6Q-IwnLpKKa6-ycJAAgKJdCX5KrGN_GCrliCZlvXjEtccDQ1p11DZ6On391wDRgY4e671Jvu9Pxa0ij3WNqyz0GV9umju01uahsE_HmN2dk-_S4WSzpav38spivqBdgBopCOAVSOSU9H68rBhJMVhkO6E0prXK5NpgZg1LIkc41B1-CkLzSKnNiRui060MfY8Cq2IW6teFQMCh-_IvJv5j8R_5u4vv33T_oN_vhYCI</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Grzankowski, Alex</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism</title><author>Grzankowski, Alex</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-e33b7067b76c2571f106094f920ec9d6a7b589e499e636e335820cd0362f874b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grzankowski, Alex</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Analysis (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grzankowski, Alex</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism</atitle><jtitle>Analysis (Oxford)</jtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>45-52</pages><issn>0003-2638</issn><eissn>1467-8284</eissn><abstract>Abstract Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare (1969) and Sellars (1969) promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this otherwise attractive theory, in a series of papers as well as his recent book, Uriah Kriegel has offered a novel reply to the ‘many-property problem’ and on its basis he argues that ‘adverbialism about intentionality is alive and well’. If true, Kriegel will have shown that the logical landscape has long been unnecessarily constrained. His key idea is that the many-property problem can be overcome by appreciating that mental states stand in the determinable–determinate relation to one another. The present paper shows that this relation can’t save adverbialism because it would require thinkers to think more thoughts than they need be thinking.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/analys/anx068</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-2638
ispartof Analysis (Oxford), 2018-01, Vol.78 (1), p.45-52
issn 0003-2638
1467-8284
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_analys_anx068
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
title The determinable–determinate relation can’t save adverbialism
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T13%3A57%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20determinable%E2%80%93determinate%20relation%20can%E2%80%99t%20save%20adverbialism&rft.jtitle=Analysis%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Grzankowski,%20Alex&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=45-52&rft.issn=0003-2638&rft.eissn=1467-8284&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/analys/anx068&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/analys/anx068%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/analys/anx068&rfr_iscdi=true