IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Manuscrito (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960 |
Resumo: | I assess Tamar Gendler’s (2007) account of self-deception according to which its characteristic state is not belief, but imaginative pretense. After giving an overview of the literature and presenting the conceptual puzzles engendered by the notion of selfdeception, I introduce Gendler’s account, which emerges as a rival to practically all extant accounts of self-deception. I object to it by first arguing that her argument for abandoning belief as the characteristic state of self-deception conflates the state of belief and the process of belief-formation when interpreting David Velleman’s (2000) thesis that belief is an essentially truth-directed attitude. I then call attention to the fact that Velleman’s argument for the identity of motivational role between belief and imagining, on which Gendler’s argument for self-deception as pretense depends, conflates two senses of ‘motivational role’—a stronger but implausible sense and a weaker but explanatorily irrelevant sense. Finally, I introduce Neil Van Leeuwen’s (2009) argument to the effect that belief is the practical ground of all non-belief cognitive attitudes in circum-stances wherein the latter prompt action. I apply this framework to Gendler’s account to ultimately show that imaginative pretense fails to explain the existence of voluntary actions which result from self-deception. |
id |
UNICAMP-17_affea38248949dd8d284728b0521f39f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8641960 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICAMP-17 |
network_name_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE?Self-deception. Belief. Imagination. Pretense. Make-believe. The aim of belief. Truth-directedness. Motivation. ActionI assess Tamar Gendler’s (2007) account of self-deception according to which its characteristic state is not belief, but imaginative pretense. After giving an overview of the literature and presenting the conceptual puzzles engendered by the notion of selfdeception, I introduce Gendler’s account, which emerges as a rival to practically all extant accounts of self-deception. I object to it by first arguing that her argument for abandoning belief as the characteristic state of self-deception conflates the state of belief and the process of belief-formation when interpreting David Velleman’s (2000) thesis that belief is an essentially truth-directed attitude. I then call attention to the fact that Velleman’s argument for the identity of motivational role between belief and imagining, on which Gendler’s argument for self-deception as pretense depends, conflates two senses of ‘motivational role’—a stronger but implausible sense and a weaker but explanatorily irrelevant sense. Finally, I introduce Neil Van Leeuwen’s (2009) argument to the effect that belief is the practical ground of all non-belief cognitive attitudes in circum-stances wherein the latter prompt action. I apply this framework to Gendler’s account to ultimately show that imaginative pretense fails to explain the existence of voluntary actions which result from self-deception.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2015-11-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 37 n. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-332Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 37 No. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-332Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 37 Núm. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-3322317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960/9457Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPorcher, José Eduardo2015-11-29T22:54:21Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8641960Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2015-11-29T22:54:21Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
title |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
spellingShingle |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? Porcher, José Eduardo Self-deception. Belief. Imagination. Pretense. Make-believe. The aim of belief. Truth-directedness. Motivation. Action |
title_short |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
title_full |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
title_fullStr |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
title_full_unstemmed |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
title_sort |
IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE? |
author |
Porcher, José Eduardo |
author_facet |
Porcher, José Eduardo |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Porcher, José Eduardo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Self-deception. Belief. Imagination. Pretense. Make-believe. The aim of belief. Truth-directedness. Motivation. Action |
topic |
Self-deception. Belief. Imagination. Pretense. Make-believe. The aim of belief. Truth-directedness. Motivation. Action |
description |
I assess Tamar Gendler’s (2007) account of self-deception according to which its characteristic state is not belief, but imaginative pretense. After giving an overview of the literature and presenting the conceptual puzzles engendered by the notion of selfdeception, I introduce Gendler’s account, which emerges as a rival to practically all extant accounts of self-deception. I object to it by first arguing that her argument for abandoning belief as the characteristic state of self-deception conflates the state of belief and the process of belief-formation when interpreting David Velleman’s (2000) thesis that belief is an essentially truth-directed attitude. I then call attention to the fact that Velleman’s argument for the identity of motivational role between belief and imagining, on which Gendler’s argument for self-deception as pretense depends, conflates two senses of ‘motivational role’—a stronger but implausible sense and a weaker but explanatorily irrelevant sense. Finally, I introduce Neil Van Leeuwen’s (2009) argument to the effect that belief is the practical ground of all non-belief cognitive attitudes in circum-stances wherein the latter prompt action. I apply this framework to Gendler’s account to ultimately show that imaginative pretense fails to explain the existence of voluntary actions which result from self-deception. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-11-29 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960 |
url |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641960/9457 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 37 n. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-332 Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 37 No. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-332 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 37 Núm. 2 (2014): Jul./Dec.; 291-332 2317-630X reponame:Manuscrito (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) instacron:UNICAMP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
instacron_str |
UNICAMP |
institution |
UNICAMP |
reponame_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
collection |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br |
_version_ |
1800216565224833024 |