2

Compare Dennett's 3 levels of explanations for behavior of objects with Schopenhauer's 3 forms of Causality.

Dennett is talking about an approach to explain the behaviour of objects.

Explanation is in Schopenhauer terms another name for sufficient Reason.

Behaviour of objects is another name for their acting which is Causality for Schopenahuer.

dennett

Schopenhauer

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Maybe they both 'plagiarized' Aristotle's causes/explanations, material/efficient, formal and final, respectively. These sorts of things were generic platitudes in modern times.
    – Conifold
    Commented 12 hours ago
  • 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).
    – mudskipper
    Commented 12 hours ago
  • @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...
    – Philomath
    Commented 11 hours ago
  • I see... Thanks for the references. But this is all just such a awful waste of time...
    – mudskipper
    Commented 10 hours ago
  • Regarding Intenitonality, it's just another term for Representation. This is sad episode in philosophy. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/108396/…
    – Alex
    Commented 4 hours ago

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Philosopher's borrow. This is quite common in the scholarly tradition. Sometimes it is referenced, though this is a recent innovation and at other times, if the borrowing is distant enough, it is not.

I wouldn't call this plaigarising unless it is actually is a word for word copy.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .