Added by: Clotilde Torregrossa, Contributed by: Simon Fokt
Abstract: Brentano was surely mistaken, however, in thinking that bearing a relation to something nonexistent marks only the mental. Given any sort of purpose, it might not get fulfilled, hence might exhibit Brentano’s relation, and there are many natural purposes, such as the purpose of one’s stomach to digest food or the purpose of one’s protective eye blink reflex to keep out the sand, that are not mental, nor derived from anything mental. Nor are stomachs and reflexes “of” or”about” anything. A reply might be, I suppose, that natural purposes are “purposes” only in an analogical sense hence “fail to be fulfilled” only in an analogical way. They bear an analogy to things that have been intentionally designed by purposive minds, hence can fail to accomplish the purposes they analogically have. As such they also have only analogical “intentionality”. Such a response begs the question, however, for it assumes that natural purposes are not purposes in the full sense exactly because they are notExport citation in BibTeX formatExport text citationView this text on PhilPapersExport citation in Reference Manager formatExport citation in EndNote formatExport citation in Zotero format
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. Naturalizing intentionality
2000, In Bernard Elevitch (ed.), The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Philosopy Documentation Center. pp. 83-90.
Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!