Talk:Intentionality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

My psych professor claims that intentionality means different things depending on whether or not it is capitalized. I think he said "intentionality" meant aboutness, while "Intentionality" meant consciousness -- though it might be the other way around. Anyone else heard of this? Maybe this is particular to one or two authors. --Ryguasu

There seems to be a conflict in how the term is used by Americans and by continental philosophers. Georg Henrik von Wright, according to Vincent Descombes, makes a distinction between "intentionalist" and "causalist" philosophies of action, which would make intentionality a philosophy. Searle's intentionality is more of condition or trait of something. Shoehorn 09:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] v. Intension

Uhh, I'm pretty sure these pages are a bit mixed up. What is described as Intension here should be on the Intention page. As in Intentionality. At least that is my understanding from reading.. (Page 58 onwards) "Why Humans Have Cultures" by Michael Carrithers, 1992, Opus / Oxford Uni. Press.

-- FeFiFoFum 22:43 Jan 8, 2004 (GMT)

I don't think so. If you want to argue the point, can you be more specific? Banno 23:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was really suprised Daniel Dennett wasn't added to the list, as he wrote on Intentionality quite extensively


There are three different things, which need three different articles:
- Intentionality as a feature of acts, i.e. voluntary as opposed to involuntary actions.
- Intentionality as a distinctive feature of conscious mental processes (Brentano, Husserl, etc.).
- Intensionality (with an "s") and extensionality as logical properties of expressions (this should include intensional logic).
Some have argued that there is a relationship between the first kind of intentionality and intensional statements, but this is controversial. It should be referred to in each of those articles. KD
No. Intension as defined here is properly referred to. Some logicians and philosophers have argued that intensionality and intentionality are the same, or that intensionality (connotation in definition) is a criteria for intentionality. I find your statement "What is described as Intension here should be on the Intention page. As in Intentionality" as a bit confusing. Amerindianarts 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's confusing, but note it was posted by someone else. As for your "No" - I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. This article states: "intentionality (-tion-) is not to be confused with intensionality (-sion-), a concept from semantics." I too think something needs to be said about the claimed link between intenSionality and intenTionality, but that they both need to be kept quite separate from the first sense of intentionality I mentioned - voluntary acts. KD Dec 7

[edit] "other uses:" Folk Psychology

I'm fairly certain that intentionality does not have a different meaning in reference to folk psychology.

"Human perceivers consider a behavior intentional when it appears purposeful or done intentionally -- that is, based on reasons (beliefs, desires) and performed with skill and awareness." - From the article: 4/26/07 9:35pm PST

The f\relationship between folk psychology and intentionality is that many philosophers believe that folk psychological states should be characterized as propositional attitudes, i.e. intentional attitudes. Folk psychological states, like beliefs and desires, display intentionality. I believe that. I desire that. Changing the article presently. If you disagree a\or care to engage me on this topic, please reply to my talk page as well as this discussion.-Shaggorama 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV "Quinian Double Standard"

Do adherants to "Category C" intentionalists actually use the term "double standard" to describe their position? I would assume that this is particular description is polemical. -Mak 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing and footnote citations

This article is essentially has no footnotes per WP:FN and WP:CITE. The books listed in the References and Further reading sections have no ISBN's. Please see WP:MOS for guidelines for article organization. Regards, Mattisse 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)