Jaegwon Kim on Action Explanation and Explanatory Realism

2016 ◽  
Vol null (62) ◽  
pp. 117-142
Author(s):  
이선형
Keyword(s):  
Jaegwon Kim ◽  
Action Explanation

Reasons and the First-Person: Explanatory Exclusion and Explanatory Pluralism

Dialogue ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-42
Author(s):  
NEIL CAMPBELL
Keyword(s):  
First Person ◽  
Jaegwon Kim ◽  
Explanatory Pluralism ◽  
Action Explanation ◽  
Exclusion Argument ◽  
The Way

In two recent papers, Jaegwon Kim offers an account of action explanation that is agent-centered and reasons-based. I argue that, despite his claims to the contrary, Kim’s proposal points the way to a pluralist view of explanation that might resolve the problem of explanatory exclusion and provide a way for nonreductive physicalists to escape the supervenience/exclusion argument.

scholarly journals Action explanation and its presuppositions

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-146
Author(s):  
Lilian O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Explanatory Role ◽  
Psychological States ◽  
Action Explanation

AbstractIn debates about rationalizing action explanation causalists assume that the psychological states that explain an intentional action have both causal and rational features. I scrutinize the presuppositions of those who seek and offer rationalizing action explanations. This scrutiny shows, I argue, that where rational features play an explanatory role in these contexts, causal features play only a presuppositional role. But causal features would have to play an explanatory role if rationalizing action explanation were a species of causal explanation. Consequently, it is not a species of causal explanation.

scholarly journals Factors Determining the Provision of Psychosocial Services for Oncological Patients and Their Loved Ones in Lithuania

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 44-57
Author(s):  
Emilija Gaidytė ◽  
Eugenijus Dunajevas
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Action Explanation ◽  
Public Resources

It is acknowledged by various organizations, experts, and researchers around the world that meeting psychological and social needs is an important factor in cancer treatment. However, there is a shortage of psychosocial care supply for cancer patients and their family members in Lithuania. The aim of this study is to discern the causes of this insufficient supply. In order to find out the possible causes, Jon Elster’s action explanation framework was used. According to the framework, it is possible to deduce these factors: institutional constraints, economical (resources and labor supply) constraints, social preferences, and political preferences. Qualitative research (expert interviews) and secondary data analysis research methods were employed to gather the required data. A data analysis shows that the there are no institutional constraints for the provision of psychosocial care. However, there is a lack of public resources dedicated for the provision of psychosocial care. As a consequence, the main providers of psychosocial care for cancer patients and their family members are NGOs, which heavily depend on volunteer labor force. There is a contradiction in the point of view toward the professionalization of psychosocial care provision. It is the natural position of medical professionals that the provision of psychosocial care should be in the hands of professionals. On the other side, NGOs disagree with such a perspective. The need for psychosocial care is verbalized by experts and professionals; however, the general public prefers medical treatment. Thus, it is understandable why the public resources allocated to the provision of psychosocial care are so scarce. It is also evident that the political parties are not interested in psychosocial care, as it was shown by our analysis of their political programs.

scholarly journals Commonsense Justification for Action Explanation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaohua Yang ◽  
Qiaozi Gao ◽  
Sari Sadiya ◽  
Joyce Chai
Keyword(s):  
Action Explanation

Against Internalism-Parity

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-95
Author(s):  
Christopher Cowie
Keyword(s):  
Reasons For Action ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
Action Explanation ◽  
Moral Error ◽  
Categorical Reasons

An alternative argument is provided for rejecting internalism-parity. It is claimed that, from the perspective of internalism-based moral error theorists, categorical reasons for action are more problematic than categorical reasons for belief. This is because there are considerably stronger arguments for thinking that one’s reasons for action are constitutively dependent on one’s desires than for thinking that one’s reasons for belief are constitutively dependent on one’s desires. Three such arguments are considered: from action-explanation, from reasoning, and from paradigmatic-ascriptions. It is claimed that the first of these three arguments clearly does not apply to reasons for belief as to reasons for action. The applicability of the second and third arguments is harder to ascertain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document