tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post4169373947322740370..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Are reasons in the head?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-22343237551448186382007-09-17T04:49:00.000-04:002007-09-17T04:49:00.000-04:00"Why did/should I drink the water? "Because I want...<EM>"Why did/should I drink the water? "Because I wanted to" is not much of an answer. "Because it quenches thirst (and I was thirsty)" seems much better."</EM><BR/><BR/>I'm unsure about this. Doesn't "I was thirsty" simply mean "I desire water"?<BR/><BR/>I'm inclined to think that, usually, "because I wanted to" is not false, but just too trivial to be an informative reply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-49275025838894364332007-09-16T11:11:00.000-04:002007-09-16T11:11:00.000-04:00This doesn't sit well with me. Are you saying ther...This doesn't sit well with me. Are you saying there is something cognitive going on, rather than a reflex, when we go to the refrigerator for a drink? If so, then I disagree.<BR/><BR/>But if you are saying that we can identify a cause for that action, and that we call a reason, then I agree.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I can't think of a normal situation (other than a stylized statement in a story or film) when someone would respond, "Because it quenches thirst." Perhaps you could say that if you were asked why you drank one drink over another (water quenches thirst, whiskey does not). But as for why you went to get a drink to begin with, "I was thirsty and wanted a drink" seems like a more plausible response.<BR/><BR/>It's a good question, though.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265489395138702227noreply@blogger.com