How Dretske responds to Chisholm's claim that intentionality cannot be naturalized - Essay Example

Intentionality Explain how Dretske responds to Chisholm's claim that intentionality cannot be naturalized. Do you think that Dretske's response is successful? Defend your answer Intentionality is defined as the ability of an individual to have a free will to make their own decisions and indulge in activities at their own consent. Intentionality is viewed as personal democracy where an individual reacts or thinks depending on their views and preferences (23). However, these definitions only suit the psychological indulgence of intentionality. In regards to deeds intentionality refers to the ability of a person to act at their free will without any influence. In words by Locke intentionality is the act of an individual for a specific reason and intent (23). From this definition one could argue that intentionality can be easily influenced by external conditions. The author further argues that the conditions a person is exposed to can create an intentionality case but based on the options rendered to the individual. This argument hinders the argument that intentionality is a natural factor. The same argument is highlighted by Locke who argues that the intentionality can be expressed in both the natural artificial ways (14). The author further argues that intent can be caused by either a person’s needs or forces that cannot be evaded creating a need. Regardless of the causing factor, the action from the two scenarios is treated as intentionality. However, many philosophers argue that intentionality commences with an individual’s will to commit to an action or decision. The only difference is that the will to commit to actions and decisions is influenced by numerous factors. This ability of intentionality to be influenced has created a debate on whether or not it can be naturalized. By being naturalized, philosophers argue the possibility that people can act under their own preferences without the influence of any other factor. This can be related to the scenario that an individual purchases a commodity not because there are bad consequences for not doing so but for the reason that they need it and have the resources to do so (Locke, 46). The author also argues that a person’s reaction to influence is also part of the determination of someone’s intent. For instance, one can refer it to natural intentionality when a person takes an alternative option when tackling an issue but as artificial intentionality when the individual chooses another option based on threats or any other influencing factor. Chisholm argued that intentionality cannot be naturalized because of the numerous influencing factors that surround us. According to Locke Chisholm argued that for every decision we make there must be a factor that influences or alters a person’s needs or will (87). He further argued that every decision we make is based on the fact that we must take the path to be comfortable. According to Chisholm factors affecting a person’s intent may also be psychological (Locke 102). This also denies the possibility that intentionality can be natural. To naturalize intentionality Chisholm argued that there must be absolutely free will in an action. In his argument need and wants of the people does not allow what individuals do to be natural. For instance, a person’s need for food, shelter and clothing makes ones intention to acquire the commodities an artificial intent (Locke 92). In this scenario, the intent can only be natural if one could survive without food and still have the intent and urge to acquire the commodity. According to Chisholm intentionality is built on artificial factors that man cannot evade. The only possibility to have naturalized intentionality is whereby an individual s considered free spirit in his environment. Locke defines a free spirit by arguing that a free spirit is a form of an individual who does not require influence from any environmental factor to make their decision (112). According to the author this scenario is practically impossible. From this perspective, Chisholm’s claims are fit to be assumed as intentionality cannot be naturalized. Drestke on the other hand opposes the claims by Chisholm by arguing that naturalization of intentionality is created easily by the ability of an individual to be able to use free will in their reasoning and decision making process (Locke 126). According Locke Drestke argues naturalization depends on how effective free will and democracy is used by an individual (57). However, on many occasions this does not happen due to the numerous involvements of environmental forces but it a possible fact in intentionality. Different from Chisholm, who argues that intentionality can never be naturalized, Drestke argues that every individual has the ability to naturalize their intentionality. In support of this argument, Locke argues that every individual is granted the privilege of having many options to choose from in case of a stalemate in decision making (124). The fact that one can choose from the numerous options provided is enough proof that intentionality can be naturalized. Additionally, the fact that intent is based on someone’s psychological want is also proof it can be naturalized. The psychological want of an individual is defined as a natural environmental cause of deeds. Each and every minute there is a person involved a particular activity regardless of their influential factor. According to Locke this chain of deeds is a natural environmental factor that cannot be (212). It is also a natural phenomenon that different people across the society and environment have different views and intent. According to Drestke the probability of having tow people having the same intent is close to zero (Locke 187). To sensitize on this point the author highlights a real case scenario. The author considers a general question about how to handle a certain situation. In the experiment the author consider the opinion and intent of 10 people. To gauge the originality of each decision the author bases the intent according to their proximity to each other in terms of how different could have handled the situation. Out of the 10 individuals selected only one pair had an almost solution to the question asked. Regardless of the needs and wants of the individuals they solutions obtained differed greatly from each other. This occurrence was proof that regardless of the influential factors that individuals base their decision making, intentionality can be naturalized. The same argument was also shared by Drestke who argued that the probability that a person’s intention occurs naturally is not based on their need or want on a specific factor. However, Locke argues that the naturalization of intentionality can only be done if the influential factors are weak and do not have much significance in a person’s life (65). The author further argues that the psychological influential factors are almost similar to majority of individuals. The human perception and thinking is based on the artificial influential factors that people are exposed to in the environment. These on many occasions hinder the rate at which people make natural and independent decisions in terms of intent. Does this mean the naturalization of intentionality is impossible? Does the human psychology act on the natural influence of nature or the artificial influence of their needs and wants? Should the free will to think and come up with decisions referred to as a natural phenomenon regardless of the influential factors? Drestke argument was not successful in terms of contradicting the views shared by Chisholm. This is because is an undeniable fact that the human perception has been easily influenced by their wants and needs. The free will to create intent has been replaced the perception of the people on their wants and needs. As much as Drestke claims are based on proving that even the wants and needs people want are natural factors, Locke argues that it is not a natural occurrence to have intent basing ones decision on ones best placed scenario (164). However, one can argue that the relationship between intentionality and the influential factors is based on the natural occurrence of the person’s needs and wants. In an argument by Locke for intentionality to be naturalized, the process must be generated from an original idea from a psychological point of view (100). The author further argues that if the psychological influence is done by artificial occurrences then the originality of the intent is diminished. Naturalization of intentionality can only be possible if individuals could have enough psychological strength and will to resist the environmental factors affecting their decision making. From the analysis, it is an obvious assumption that the natural psychological drive towards intent has been replaced by the personal thinking towards self satisfaction. The fact that the human psychology can be influenced by numerous factors to settle for a specific intent; this is enough proof that intentionality cannot be naturalized. In referring to Chisholm’s argument Locke argues that naturalization of a decision making process is only possible if every person’s needs and wants in the society are provided and satisfied (31). The probability of this occurrence to be initialized is nil which makes it an almost impossible assumption that intentionality can be naturalized. Work cited Locke, Don. Perception: And Our Knowledge Of The External World. London: Routledge. 2002. Print. Read More