Since the very first steps taken within the realm of philosophy of action the ideas of acting and wanting have intertwined together in a way that it seems impossible to tear them apart again. However, while considering the nature of sub-intentional actions in her “Sub-intentional Actions and the Over-mentalization of Agency” Helen Steward uses them to argue that the connection does not hold of necessity. The origin of the term ‘sub-intentional action’ Steward associates with Brian O’Shaughnessy …
Read moreSince the very first steps taken within the realm of philosophy of action the ideas of acting and wanting have intertwined together in a way that it seems impossible to tear them apart again. However, while considering the nature of sub-intentional actions in her “Sub-intentional Actions and the Over-mentalization of Agency” Helen Steward uses them to argue that the connection does not hold of necessity. The origin of the term ‘sub-intentional action’ Steward associates with Brian O’Shaughnessy and with it she refers to those little things people do usually even without noticing. She mentions things like “slightly rearranging oneself, absent-mindedly scratching one’s head, fiddling with one’s jewellery, [and] leaning a bit more this way or that”. I believe that Steward’s assertion, albeit being fresh and interesting, in an untenable manner challenges something very intrinsic to actions, and thus I am willing to defend the ancient position about the connection between wanting and acting even under such vexed cases as sub-intentional actions.
