I like this post a lot. It’s very clear and seems to be pointing to something. So did the first post. By contrast the second post felt more handwavey to me. That’s some indication that you may be missing a step in your chain of reasoning. You may want to mentally walk through the second post “showing your work” in more detail as a double check in case you missed something.
Thanks for the feedback. The second post was handwavey—or at least, link-wavey. I basically just gave some links and a brief discussion to indicate that a “causal theory of reference” should be the go-to way to try to understand the reference of desires.
All of which was to support and help interpret one sentence of my last post:
The words and concepts we use for these things—pain, passion, elation, for some easier examples—refer to the actual processes in human beings that drive the related behavior.
But maybe the two stories (Gasoline Gal, and Carol) do that better, than appealing to a causal theory of reference.
I like this post a lot. It’s very clear and seems to be pointing to something. So did the first post. By contrast the second post felt more handwavey to me. That’s some indication that you may be missing a step in your chain of reasoning. You may want to mentally walk through the second post “showing your work” in more detail as a double check in case you missed something.
Thanks for the feedback. The second post was handwavey—or at least, link-wavey. I basically just gave some links and a brief discussion to indicate that a “causal theory of reference” should be the go-to way to try to understand the reference of desires.
All of which was to support and help interpret one sentence of my last post:
But maybe the two stories (Gasoline Gal, and Carol) do that better, than appealing to a causal theory of reference.