Wenqi Li

The question of the inner mover of animal locomotion in Aristotle᾽s On the Soul has given rise to interpretative controversy. Some scholars have argued that either desire or practical cognition is the inner mover of animal locomotion, while others have argued that desire and practical cognition together constitute the inner mover of animal locomotion, and still others have argued that desire alone is the inner mover of animal locomotion. This article argues that all three interpretations are incorrect because they all rest on the false presupposition that desiring and practical cognizing are two different activities. Rather, this article defends that desiring and practical cognizing are one and the same activity, and on this basis argues that the inner mover of animal locomotion is one and same activity that is both desiring and practical cognizing, i.e., the inner mover of animal locomotion has desire-cognition duality. This view explains why the same external object is both the object of desire and the object of practical cognition, and why it can cause the animal to move via one unified inner mover that is identical to both desire and practical cognition.

In Aristotle’s moral psychology, deliberation (βούλευσις) is a very important concept that bridges the agent’s desire and action. However, his theory of what kind of desire is connected to deliberation creates puzzle for the reader: on the one hand, he repeatedly emphasizes that wish (βούλησις) sets the end for the agent, and deliberation finds the means for the agent to achieve the end of the action, and on the other hand, his moral psychology suggests that there are three kinds of desires, namely, wish, spiritedness (θυμός), and appetite (ἐπιθυμία), and that, according to this division, all three kinds of desires can set the end of the action for deliberation. The traditional way of resolving this puzzle is to abandon wish as the only kind of desire that sets the end of deliberation and action, and to argue that at least appetite can also set the end of deliberation and action for the agent. The key rationale is that the akratic fails to achieve the object of her wish, but instead achieves the object of their appetite, and thus appetite sets the ends for their deliberation and actions. In addition, although the intemperate achieves the object of her wish, she also achieves the object of her appetite. This article argues against this traditional interpretation. Instead, I defend the view that, first, the end of all actions is set by the wish of the agent, and, second, the starting point of every act of deliberation is the end of the action set by the wish. On the basis of this interpretation, I also explain why the intemperate and the akratic agents initiate their deliberation with the end set by the wish.

Keith Donnellan’s distinction between the attributive and referential uses of definite descriptions has spurred debates regarding the truth conditions of the utterance “the F is G” with definite descriptions used referentially. In this article, I present a semantic account of referential descriptions, grounded in the contextual factors of the utterance, including the speaker’s intention and presupposition as well as the interlocutor’s recognition of them. This account is called the IPR-semantic account, according to which the speaker’s intention (I), presupposition (P), and the interlocutor's recognition (R) jointly determine whether “the F” in an utterance “the F is G” is used referentially or attributively, and the meaning of “the F” is determined by whether it is used referentially or attributively. Moreover, I argue that the meaning of the referential description “the F” is the intended object e, embodied with a property H that has prompted the speaker to presuppose that e is F and to intend to use “the F” to refer to e, as well as the interlocutor to recognize the presupposition and intention. According to the IPR-semantic account, the utterance “the F is G” with “the F” used referentially expresses a singular proposition, namely, that e is G, and it is true if and only if the intended object e is G. Additionally, I argue that the IPR-semantic account not only surpasses some alternative semantic accounts but also outperforms Kripke’s pragmatic account.