Timeline for Did Daniel Dennet plagiarize Schopenhauer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 7 hours ago | comment | added | Alex | Regarding Intenitonality, it's just another term for Representation. This is sad episode in philosophy. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/108396/… | |
| 12 hours ago | comment | added | mudskipper | I see... Thanks for the references. But this is all just such a awful waste of time... | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | Philomath | @mudskipper The source is the Wikipedia article Intentional stance and the source in that source is: Dennett, D. C., (1987) "Three Kinds of Intentional Psychology", pp. 43–68 in Dennett, D. C., The Intentional Stance, The MIT Press, (Cambridge), 1987. So it was Dennett himself who came up with the tripartite classification. Intentionality, as I am sure you know, has a particular meaning in philosopy. It is sometimes described as 'aboutness'. I think there is a huge difference between intentionality and teleology... | |
| 13 hours ago | history | edited | Mary | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar issues
|
| 14 hours ago | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 4 | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | mudskipper | I believe this summary of Dennet (the quoted one) may be tendentious. There is no big difference between an intentional, teleological or design stance. All of those boil down to the same thing, some assumption of aiming to achieve some end or realize some intention. Can you quote any of Dennett's own texts that make an explicit distinction in three rather than only two different stances instead of quoting someone else's summary? If we do make a distinction, then Schopenhauers "stimulus" doesn't quite seem the same as the "design" one (it suggests some form of vitalism). | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | Conifold | Maybe they both 'plagiarized' Aristotle's causes/explanations, material/efficient, formal and final, respectively. These sorts of things were generic platitudes in modern times. | |
| 15 hours ago | history | asked | Alex | CC BY-SA 4.0 |