Wolfgang Barz

The key message of this book is that we come to know our own mental states, not by peering inward, but by focusing on the aspects of the external world to which we are intentionally related in virtue of having the mental states in question. Though many philosophers think that the idea of transparency, as it is called, may apply to self-knowledge of some mental states, it is often regarded as hopeless to widen its scope to self-knowledge of mental states in general—for it seems that not all mental states make us aware of aspects of the external world. Barz rejects this view and take pains to show that the idea of transparency does apply across the board: not only to beliefs and visual experiences, but also to desires, intentions, bodily sensations and emotions. For this purpose, Barz carefully rethinks the nature of mind. He thereby develops, among other things, an original account of episodic mental states, challenges the orthodox view of propositional content and presents an account of emotions which integrates aspects of both cognitivist and non-cognitivist approaches.

The aim of this paper is to lay the groundwork for extending the idea of transparent introspection to wishes. First, I elucidate the notion of transparent introspection and highlight its advantages over rival accounts of self-knowledge. Then I pose several problems that seem to obstruct the extension of transparent introspection to wishes. In order to overcome these problems, I call into question the standard propositional attitude analysis of non-doxastic attitudes. My considerations lead to a non-orthodox account of attitudes in general and wishes in particular in light of which the problems presented in Sect. 2 disappear.

Das Ziel des Aufsatzes besteht darin, den Streit zwischen Fregeanern und Direktreferentialisten zu schlichten. Dieser Streit dreht sich um die Frage, wie wir uns die Proposition zurecht legen sollen, die durch einen Satz der Form „a ist F“ zum Ausdruck gebracht wird. Fregeaner vertreten die Auffassung, daß es sich bei dieser Proposition um einen Komplex handelt, der sich aus der Eigenschaft F und dem Sinn von „a“ zusammensetzt. Direktreferentialisten hingegen nehmen an, daß die betreffende Proposition anstelle des Sinns von „a“ das Einzelding enthält, auf das sich „a“ bezieht. Ich versuche zu zeigen, daß beide Auffassungen nicht unverträglich sind. Denn es ist ein Fehler, nach der Proposition zu fragen, die durch einen Satz zum Ausdruck gebracht wird. Es gibt viele durch einen Satz zum Ausdruck gebrachte Propositionen, die jeweils unterschiedlichen theoretischen Zwecken dienen. Fregeanische Propositionen werden benötigt, um den Beitrag zu erklären, den die Inhaltsklausel zur Wahrheit eines Glaubenssatzes beisteuert. Singuläre Propositionen hingegen werden gebraucht, um zu erklären, welchen Beitrag die Inhaltsklausel zur Wahrheit der im Glaubenssatz beschriebenen Überzeugung leistet.The aim of my paper is to settle the dispute between Fregeans and proponents of direct reference. The dispute revolves around the question of how we should conceive of the proposition expressed by a sentence of the form “a is F”. Fregeans hold the view that the corresponding proposition is a complex composed of the property F and the sense of “a”. Proponents of direct reference maintain that the respective proposition contains, in place of the sense of “a”, the individual “a” denotes. I try to show that these claims do not conflict. For it is a mistake to ask for the proposition expressed by a sentence. There are many propositions expressed by a sentence serving different theoretical purposes. Fregean propositions are needed to explain what the content-clause contributes to the truth of a belief-sentence, whereas singular propositions are required for illuminating what the content-clause contributes to the truth of the belief ascribed by a belief-sentence.