tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4826274858731439753..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: "He who intends the end intends..."Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-40652129697380756952012-01-21T09:54:03.894-06:002012-01-21T09:54:03.894-06:00Prof. Pruss,
I don't see (2) being that much ...Prof. Pruss,<br /><br />I don't see (2) being that much of a problem defending. <br /><br />It seems like you didn't account for irrationality on behalf of the person that learns how the pill works but yet this new knowledge isn't affected by the person's reasoning--in still taking the pill to relieve the headache. <br /><br />I also don't agree with your (3) and how it's trivial if by "the intended means" we mean "all the intended means." What matters is that knowledge is subject dependent. So it's not necessarily the case that all the intended means that I know are in fact all the intended means there actually are. For example, a medical student can have a good knowledge of medicine and go to the pharmacy and know that two of the medications will relieve his headache; however, if the pharmacist told him about the other medicines that could relieve the headache, then the student would have more means at his disposal which he could intend to end his headache. <br /><br />So when one has knowledge of the various medications and the ways in which these medications relieve headaches, then we can say the individual is always intending to relieve his headache, but we can be more precise and say the individual intends to <i>block</i> the pain receptors, or to increase serotonin in which <i>overrides</i> the sensation of pain, or etc.<br /><br />Though all of this implies rationality on behalf of the individual. However, for the individual that's being irrational, then the above will not hold up.<br /><br />In all, I don't think one has to take the weakest option (4), but can adopt (2) and we can then qualify (2) so that known means is dependent on the individual subject and not all the known means there possibly are.Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-29834673742710312732012-01-18T16:23:50.814-06:002012-01-18T16:23:50.814-06:00@Anne
Interesting comments. I'm not sure abo...@Anne<br /><br />Interesting comments. I'm not sure about intending the impossible though. Suppose I try to prove a mathematical theorem that (unbeknown to me) is false. Proving it is impossible, right? But surely I intend to do so.<br /><br />"He who intends the end intends a means"<br /><br />I can see the benefit of the indirect article here. My worry, however, is that, where all the possible means of achieving something are, unbeknown to me, undesirable in some way, then it follows, I assume, that I intend one of them.James Bejonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842862598659108841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34641011873296254062012-01-18T13:43:45.081-06:002012-01-18T13:43:45.081-06:00I think leaving out the definite article is a good...I think leaving out the definite article is a good solution to the problem, but it does seem to sidestep a worry generated by the initial formulation which interests me. I take it that one can only intend possible ends, and thus possible means, because no end is possible whose means is impossible. One advantage of specifying the means as in the formulation with the definite article is that it makes readily apparent failures of practical rationality. Suppose I say that I intend to travel outside of the milky way galaxy and you ask me how I plan to get there. If I give a definite response, such as, "by rocketship" and you continue to question how this means will accomplish my end, it will become clear eventually that I can't intend my end. However, if I respond to your initial question by saying, "somehow! whatever it takes!" my practical irrationality (because of the impossibility of my end given the impossibility of the means) is clouded by the open-endedness of my answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com