Compare And Contrast Dennett On Intentionality And Brandom's
In this paper, I will compare and contrast Dennett's ideas on intentionality with Brandom's. Dennett believes that Brandom is missing a crucial piece of the picture by excluding evolutionary theory from his musings. Brandom, on the other hand, believes that he need not address evolutionary theory, as his project will not conflict with whatever scientists have to say about that story. In a nutshell, Brandom believes Dennett and himself to be taking on different questions; Dennett believes Brandom is missing something crucial. I argue that Brandom is right, and furthermore, that Dennett has missed part of the story Brandom is telling (because Brandom is not the clearest writer).
In his essay, Intentional Systems, Dennett introduces the concept …show more content…
For some phenomena, such as molecular bonding, one might take the physical stance. This stance considers the mere physical states, actions, and reactions of some event, e.g. the chemical processes underlying the fusion of hydrogen and oxygen. Sometimes, however, it might prove useful to take a different stance towards a phenomena (due either to complexity or the desire for satisfactory explanations. In these cases, one might adopt what Dennett terms the design stance.
This stance is appropriate when one believes that the design of some object can be determined. For example, one might prefer to take the design stance, rather than the physical stance, towards a watch. It is true that the physical stance could give an explanation, via description of the gears, smelting processes, and materials used in its construction, but the physical stance doesn't tell us what it is supposed to do. The design stance, on the other hand, is perfectly suited for this task. By taking the design stance, one can determine whether or not the object is functioning properly. The design of a watch is such that the watch ought to keep accurate time. In other words, it is appropriate to speak of the watch as functioning well or malfunctioning. In this sense, the design stance adopts normative properties which the physical stance does
In his essay, Intentional Systems, Dennett introduces the concept …show more content…
For some phenomena, such as molecular bonding, one might take the physical stance. This stance considers the mere physical states, actions, and reactions of some event, e.g. the chemical processes underlying the fusion of hydrogen and oxygen. Sometimes, however, it might prove useful to take a different stance towards a phenomena (due either to complexity or the desire for satisfactory explanations. In these cases, one might adopt what Dennett terms the design stance.
This stance is appropriate when one believes that the design of some object can be determined. For example, one might prefer to take the design stance, rather than the physical stance, towards a watch. It is true that the physical stance could give an explanation, via description of the gears, smelting processes, and materials used in its construction, but the physical stance doesn't tell us what it is supposed to do. The design stance, on the other hand, is perfectly suited for this task. By taking the design stance, one can determine whether or not the object is functioning properly. The design of a watch is such that the watch ought to keep accurate time. In other words, it is appropriate to speak of the watch as functioning well or malfunctioning. In this sense, the design stance adopts normative properties which the physical stance does