The aim of this paper is to argue for the anti-causal theory of action by associating separate ideas of action with one another: the logical connection argument, the anti-psychologism of reason, teleology, the disjunctivism of intention and the disjunctivism of bodily movement. I will also defend the anti-causal theory from the famous objection called “Davidsonʼs challenge” and reveal that the fundamental idea of the anti-causal theory is that an intention to act and the action itself do not exist independently of each other.
A normative reason is a consideration that counts in favor of doing something. According to Internalism about reasons, a consideration is a normative reason for an agent to do something only if that consideration is capable of motivating the agent to do that action. Externalism about reasons denies this claim. After surveying the debate between Internalism and Externalism, I defend the oldest version of Internalism, that is, Bernard Williamsʼ deliberative Internalism. My argument is twofold: first I argue that there is a specific motivation for adopting deliberative Internalism, and then try to address the most serious objection against Internalism, i.e., the undergeneration problem.
Previous discussion of skepticism about meaning as it appears in Kripke's Wittgenstein has not provided complete examples of an alternative interpretation of a language. Sakakibara recently gave an instance of a nonstandard interpretation of algebra called interpretation Q. The present paper compares interpretation Q and the standard interpretation C of algebra in three respects: complexity of meaning, engagement with reality, and convenience of use. Although both interpretations are equal in complexity and engage with reality properly, interpretation C is superior to interpretation Q because interpretation C alone allows digit-by-digit calculations, which justifies our asserting that interpretation C is the correct one. Since this way of reasoning does not make mention of the linguistic community we belong to, the present case study suggests that the link between language and community is not necessary.