20030
|
If one event causes another, the two events must be wholly distinct
[Hume, by Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Hume's maxim is that if one event cause another, then the two events must be wholly distinct.
|
|
From:
report of David Hume (Treatise of Human Nature [1739]) by Wilson,G/Schpall,S - Action 3
|
|
A reaction:
[Anyone know the original reference?] So we are not allowed to say that one part of an event caused another. The charged caused the victory, so they are two events, but in another context the whole battle is one event.
|
20020
|
If one action leads directly to another, they are all one action
[Davidson, by Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Davidson (1980 ess 1) agreed with Anscombe that if a person Fs by G-ing, then her act F = her act G. For example, if someone accidentally alerts a burglar, by deliberately turning on a light, by flipping a switch, these are all the same action.
|
|
From:
report of Donald Davidson (Action, Reasons and Causes [1963]) by Wilson,G/Schpall,S - Action 1.2
|
|
A reaction:
I would have thought there was obviously a strong conventional element in individuating actions, depending on interest. An electrician is only interest in whether the light worked. The police are only interested in the disturbance of the burglar.
|
12843
|
With activities if you are doing it you've done it, with performances you must finish to have done it
[Simons]
|
|
Full Idea:
Action theorists distinguish between activity verbs such as 'weep' and 'talk' (where continuous entails perfect - John is weeping so John has now wept), and performance verbs like 'wash', where John is washing doesn't yet mean John has washed.
|
|
From:
Peter Simons (Parts [1987], 4.2)
|
|
A reaction:
How to distinguish them, bar examples? In 'has wept' and 'has washed', I'm thinking that it is the 'has' which is ambiguous, rather than the more contentful word. One is 'has participated' and the other is 'has completed'. I've participated in washing!
|