You are on page 1of 10

f

I
I
26
Donald Davidson
"Mental Events"
Ntnl3\ tVtnl SuC 3S ptCtI\`ln1.tcm0mtnS.
0|t0n$ 8n08Ctt0n$ capture in lhc nomo
Iicl nt of gjl thot. MoW mn this 14cl
bfo0nctdlltCuWlt0lc0mtnl1l0VtnU
n the physic:l OD'd Uoncln tccd0m WlI
mul0tltwtnlSm is 3sl c 0the m
l1up$t Ih1l%uWldclttmnt1m tnt1l$gp
ture n, 3nd m o futtM ep tom, It
n0m0lQln. But 4htb uOnt0m8ln
3llVc even ot $00n0 Wh0 WtcV 8 CottcO
8n8lSlS o tU 8Cll0n fcVt1l$ n0 Conlclwith de
Rm.Aw)'(m0m. lfvl0 3 0t
D notO with 0tltNlntm,o!oma(t |llutc
to 3llun0tt3 lWl$.it W0ul0Wm,another mI-
M
1Wt0mW umplt0nlh8lbh W Wm
d0u0cnO, 8nd lhc 1nom1lou1nm , 0 mtnt1l
cwqundcnt8Mc UMy 3tml$ lh0t0om lo
expain. t nW U 0 # l Ul0culllM. how
this Cu m. l 8m insympathy with 1nlWcn hc
y
it is impsib fmVbkpilr for
the common rnin& to argue frCdom a .. . -ay

Pily mut 1hcrefort umc tMt W1mtW
lradin wll b fon bt,ttn frccom a nlur
nCi ty in lm sme human actions. for U canno
cvc up l|<wmOnure any more than that or fr
dm. WCcn if MW WW Wab To ton-
ttivc how fm i.s b. 11 lmu arcnt
contradiC1ion must con\indn&: <lOIO.For l
lcthov@of freom contrdicts nl|o nature ...
it W QW lo %Dm in compt i tion v1th
natural nc ity.'
cnttalt2cum1n 3tllonS lo mCul8l tVtulS, ub-
Ollulc 1nom8l] ot t0td0m. 8ndthi$is a descrip
tion of my problem. And of cou lt ConutCllon
l1 towt. SIuCt Jnl bcbv\ U tt000m cnIJl$
2n0mly.
"ovVmc try l0otmul1Ic 1 llURmore mtc-
vll
`
lt
.
` 8pp8tcnl coDII0ttl0n `
:
3DulmtnlJl
txcnI1 l1l lW1nl to disuss 1nd hn1ly dislQatc.
Rm8}bWnW Sltmmlngt0m three ptlmlplcS.
c m pttnCtplc aWn$ lh8l at lc$t mc
mcnl8l cVtnl lnltt3Cl t8uwll/ with phyical
tVtnU.1WcCoul0CllllSlt lttn||pt oL3uWl
lnltt8Clt0n.! u$ for cXmpk if $mcont @nk
lt Btsmcmltn xttou1mcnl3l event such B
pnching. D0lln@. calculations. }udmcnl$. 0c-
cisions lnltnttun8l 8Olon1 and c8ngt1 o Wllt
pl8yo1CuWl10l0lnltsinking 0 l tr1m0n
lnpaHtCul3t,l Wuuldutgt that the 8Cl that Mmc-
onc Wnk 1mi1tmrmentails l8l htMwhtS
b/tn 8W1l3lW1$Cu$00by tnl1lcVcnI$ o
H3tn MHand th8I lhl1 blly moVtmtnl ln
luHmu tt unonk to 5|nk
:
'tctCcpllon ll-
lu1lt1lt$hov WuWlll)3 1unmlht ph)SlC8l
| Icmtnlal.l 8 man pri,es that a Stpi$ap
ptmthln. lhtn 3 1lp 3pQto1Clng mu9 h1\'c
1.&u$td hlm l0 C0mc lo Wt1< that 8 ship tS ap
prooching. (Nothing 0cpnd$ ou acc<pting these 1
t1mplM o C3uWl lnlttClon,1
0u QfC0pl0n ond aion po,idc lc
m0Sl 0b\`lou$ c "hrt mcnI1l 1nd ph1u3l
0\<nl1 tnltmcl t1uWll. l Ihln tc2n toul0 b
glVVn ot lt \'lcW lh3l 1ll mcnll cnIS ullt
mately. prhaps throu!h cau51 ttl1Ilon1 wilh
othtr mtnl1l ccnl1. havxauwl inlCtc ou! Il
p5t1l1nI$. ulif t,t, .lDmtnl1lc1cnl1 ll
J\cno pywl t1fnlS 81u9$ or clt 1t-
umtnlWlll uoI IouC!J"m.
tC0n0ptnClCi that hctt lhctc l1ca
olil'' ltt0muSlW 8 l1

c\cnlS ttl1Icd aSQ
1ndtHI 8l un0cstrict delermlnilic !aw.(We
Fr E<ad To.le Fost an J W. S. e .o Ms Ps. 1970.
p. 79-101. Ct TUUQ/T%Uos4{olfw1sR1 Ps. Roted wit p
1q,
24I
ma) term this the Prin.:oplc of the N,>mologocal
Charactrr of Causlot)'.) This pnncipk, like the
ft. will biutc0 he!e Aan aumpto on,though
I shal l say something b)' Y7} of interpretation.'
The tlurd princoplc is that there arc no strict de
terministic laws On th b1is o| hich mencal
e'nts can b predicted and crolaincd (the An
omalism of the Nental).
The paradox I wish to discuss arises for some
one who is inclined to accept thes three assumro
tions or princirolcs. and who thinks they arc incon
StStcnt wlth onC another. The inC'onsistcncy is not.
of couO. formal u-nless more premiss arc added.
cvcnheless it is natural to reasn that the frst
two p1nci]les, that or causl interAtion. and

that
of the nomological character of causlity. together
imp!)' that at leasI some mental c'nts can b pre
dicte and explained on the basis or Ia-.. wile the
principle of the anomalism of the mental denies
_ ikJ.j.)'J)jlosophe ha,r ac.
with or
"ithout argument. the \icw that th< thrcc princi
ple do lead to a contradiction. It scms to m<.
however, that all three principle arr tOe.> that
-'hat must b done is to <xplain away the appear
anc of contradiction; esntially the Xantian line.
The rest of this papr fAls into thre prts. The
fr pan desribs a ve on of the identity theory
of the menWl and the physical that shows how the
thre principles may b reconcile. The scond
prt argue that there cnnot b strict psychophy
icl W this is not quite the principle of the an
omalism of the mental, but on renable asumr
tions entails it. The l&t O trie to show that from
the fac that there cn b no strict psychophysicl
laws, and our other two principle, we cn infer the
trth of a vCion of the identity theory. that is. a
theo')' that identifies at least sme mental events
"'ith ph)-sicl rventS. It is c|car that this "prof' of
the identity theory wll b at bst conditional. sine<
two of itS premiss arc unsupprte. and the ar
gument for the third may be found les than con
clusive. But e\en smron< unpersuaded of the
truth of t h< prcmV may b inteMted to lear
how they may Dreconciled and that they to
etablish a version of th< identity theory of the
mentl. Finally, if the argumrnt is a @ one. it
should lay to rest th \icw. common TO many
friends and some kof identity theories. that sup
prt for such theories cn com< only romthe dis
covery of ychophys Cl laws.
The thrCprinciples will O shov consistent with
one another by deSnbin3view oft he mental and
th< physical that corins no inner contradiction
@lNAODY
and that cntaols the three rorincipl rs. Accord in to
t h1s lVW.mc:nt.3l events arc identical with ph)'Sical
events. Events arc taken to be unrepalable. dated
ind"iduals such as the particular eruption of a vol
cano. the (first) borth or deth of a prson. the play
ing of the lY06 World >nm,or the historc utter
ance of the ,.,ords. "You may fre when read.
Gri dle) .
.
. \'e can easily frame identity statements
about indi,idual events: eamples (true or false!
might b:
The d<'ath of >ott = the death of the author of
ll'ocdc,t .
The aination of the Archduke Ferdinand
= the event that started the First World War:
Thr eruption of Vruvius in A. 7Y = the
caus of the destruc tion of Pompii,
Thr theory under disussion is silent abut pro
ceses. state. and auribute if thes diff er from in
dhidual C\'COlS. -
.
What dos it mean to sy that an event is mrn
tal or physiCl? One natural answer that an evnt
is physical if it is deribable i n a purely ph)-sicl
voabularv. mental if deribable in mental terms.
But if this is taken to su that an event is phy
ical. sy, if some physic preicte is true of it.
then !herr is the following difculty. Asume that
the preicate A tok place at Nos Heads' b
longs to the phyicl vobul:y. then s als must
the predicte 7did not tke plac at Nos Heads'
belong to the ph)'Sical vbulary. ut the predi
cte Adid or did not take plaC at Nosa Heads
is true of every event, whether mental or physicL'
We might rule out predicte that arc tautologi
cally true of every event. but this will not help
since every event is trly desribable either by
'
.\
took plact at Nos Heads' or by > did not take
p|cc at l'os Heads.' A diff erent approach is
needed.
We ma)' call thos verbs mental that express
propositional attitudC like blieving. intending.
desirng, hoping. knowing. prceiving. noticing. re
membring. and 5 on. Such verbs arc chafcteT
ir
.
rd by the fact that they sometime feature in sn
tencrs with subjectS that refer to prsons, and are
com
p
lrd hy embdd sntences in which the
usual rules of subtitution appar to break down.
This criterion is not precis. sinC !do not want to
include thrse xtm when they <ur in contexts
th>t are fully extensional ('He knows Paris,' 'H<
prceives th< mon' may be c, nor cxcludr
them whenever they are not followed by embed
ded sentencrs. An alterative charcterittion of
the desired class of mental verbs might be that they
arr psychological verbs as used when they create
opparentl) noncuensional contexts.
THENLNTA~FHY5|CALCOA5T
jct uSCaIl a dcCnpttOn oIh0Otm'I hc cV0nt
Iha\ ts+`or 1n oJxn $cnIcncc Ol thcOtm cvcn\ x
S+ 1 m<mal dcRri0i0t ot 8 mntal O sen
lena l8nd only tlth0cxDtCon th8t tcpIaO'M`
conI8tns 8I 08sI Onc mcnt8l Vctb C CnIally. ({
nl1lly,soas tO tulc OulLWhcrc th0 dCvttp
ItOn Ot o{n :cnlCncc tSlocally CquvaIcnt lqonc
nOI COnt1tntng mcnlJI o8bul1ty. Ow wc m8
y lh8I 8n 0V0nt S mcnlaI l and Only t tth8S 8
mCnt8I dCvrpttOn. ot l\hc d0vtIpItOn OjxtatOt
nOIDtng ptmtIY) t thctc S J mcnlaI OpnScn-
IcnCc ttuc Ol th1I cVcnl 8IGnc.hyt08lcVcnIs 8tC
IhGVptckOOuI by dcvtpItOn Ot opnnIcnccs
th1t ConIan onlytc pyStOl VO0uIty cwn-
tally.II tsw: tmO8nI \Och8aClctzc8physIC8I
o8bvl1l}DcC8uwt0l1ttVC lUthc mcnlaI II S.o
)O spc8. tC0csstVc tn dcIctmtntng whcIhct8 dc-
nplIGntSmcn\8Otphy$tCl.(hctcwlI Umc
COmmcnl$ ptcndy On Ihc u8lurt Ol 1 phyStC8I
VO80u8Iy. bu\ lhC COmmcnl$Wtll laIl latshOH
olprOVdtng8 CtttcItOn . J
Vn lhc pIo0|<d tC O Ihc mcnll,Ihc dsItn-
gulshtng 1Iurc Ol I mmcnl8l S nOI IhaI IS ptt-
v8Ic, SvbVctVc,Ot tmm8tctt8I, buIIhal tIcxhIb:t
w8t BtcnI8nO Clcd n\cntlGn8lIy. huS nKn-
Iton8l80ItGns 8tC cIcJly tnCludcd n Ihc c8lm Ol
|hcmcnI8l8lGngwIhIhOughU, 8nd WU
|Ot Ihc cVcnI$ ttcd Io Ihc). h8I m8y cm
dOublul IS WhcIhct thc CtIcOn wll ncludc
cVcnts Ih8I h8Vc Ollcn n ContdctO r8dtg-
m8tC G Ihc mcnt8l. lS tI ObVOu5. lGt cxamplc,
thaI lfcItng 8 tn ot wcng 8n 8lIcrIm8gc WtIl
CounI8 Smcnl8lbcntcncc thaltcpsuCh cVcnu
cmmltGm I1tnt OnOncxIcnStOn8lIty',1nd lhc
mc$hOvId bc ttuc Ol tcpGs O t8vJfcls,nV
d8ta. 1nd OIhc vntntctptClO wnItGnS. l Ihw
8t0any.
Mowc\0t. Ic Ct IcrtOn 8CIv1ly cGVcts nGIOny
thc haVngs Ol p8tns and aHcrm8gcs, but much
mOtc stdcS.alc sOmc ccnIonc WOuId nluI
Itxtly 8CC0pI 8S ph)$CaI. IclS thc cOllsOn Ol
l stas tn dtst8ntsp1Cc.htt|: muSIDc 8 putcI
phySC8l pICdic1uP!ItuCoIhtsCOlsOn,1ndOl
Othcrs. but Ituc Ol onIy\htS Onc 8l IhcItmc tI o
Cuttcd.htS pJOCul1t tImc.IhOugh.m8yptn-
polnIcd 8S IhCmc\tmc lhaIJonnOltCIh8t J
pcnCtl sI1DsIOtOlJCtGSShtsdc:l. hc dtSl1nlSIcl-
laI CoIltStOn S th0sIhcvcnI such Ih8t F3and
ts stmuh8n0OvS WlhJOnc8 nOlCng Ih8l 8 pncl
StaHS IOtoIlJCtOshts dcsR.hc cOlltstGnh8snOw
DccnptCkO Oul0y 8 mcnlal dCsCtIp\tOn 8ndmuSt
DfOvnIcdaS amcnt8I ccnI.
hts S\t8I0gyWIptObaUIy wOtk IoshOW cc
0cnI tO b mcnt1l! wc h8Vc ObVOusIy 1Icd IO
C1ptutC Ihc tntuItvc cOnccp\ Ol Ihc mcnt8l. l
WOuId tnsItuCtI0 lOlry lO mcnd IhtS ttGu0c,
0utt tSnOIncCC$ly oI ptcVnlpuI:cS.WcC8n
249
8h Otd pnOt:ttc 0It818nCc wlh thc m0nl1l
S\ncc 1cCtdn\1I tnCIu$OnsCan OnIy sttcng\hcn Ihc
h\plhcsISth3t8tI mcnlI cVcn\S 8I0 td0nltc1l Wt\h
phjstca!c0nl:. W1J wGuIdmaucIwOuld1tl-
utc to tnCludc Wna1d0 mcnI0I C0nIS.0u\ O ths
Ihctc i0cm: tO b nO dangct.
I w8n 1 IO dcCttbc.8nd ptccntly IO 8tucfor. a
vc$tOn OlIhc tdCnIty thcOr IhaIdcnC: th1I Iht
C8n Dc SttcI l3s CGnncCltng Ihc mcnl3I and Ih0
ph)stc8l. hc vcly $Sl0tIIy o SuCh 8 Ihcot Is
1Stl) Ob9utcd by IhC W3) tn hIch tdcnItI
y the
ot+cS 8t0 COmmGnl} dccndc0 8nd 8H8C0d.
Jhatlcs8ylOt. lOt 0xampI. 8gtccswth ptotao-
nlSlSOlldcnItIjIcOIcsth8t! hc9IcgtOund Ot
8cCcplngSuCh IhcOtcs tsthcSuptlOnlhatCOt-
t0la\tOnS Ot la+5 CJnDc cSlJblShcdlnkng cVcnIs
dcVDcd 8S mcnI8l wtth 0\cnlsdcctbcdaspr)-
C8I. 1cS8yS.l S c8Sy lO$0cVhyIhSSsO.unlcss
8 gVcnmcnl8lcVcnI ts1nvtt8blyaOOmpntcd0j
8 gvcn. s8y,D8nptQ Ih0tc SnO gtound lOt
ccnm0oIng8 gcucwlIdcnttIy twccnIhctWG. "1
8ylOt gOcs On (COrtcctlj. I Ihnk) to 8IlOw \hJI
Ihtttmy0c dcntIy wIhOuIOlrc8Ingl8+5.bul
my pnlIntctct Is n nOtCtng thc tntaIOn tO
CGnlvSOn n Ihc St8cmcnI]ustuOIcd.Wh8IC8n
a gtcn mc:Il c\cnI mcnhctcOI 8 pat\tC-
ul8t,08lO.cVcnI.Ot IIwOvldnOI m8lc nIO
Sp8k ol8n tndVtdu8l cvcnt0cngnv8t8bly 8C-
COmpncd0y8nO\hct.8ylOtISfVt0cnIlythtn-
tng Ol ccnI ol 8 gtVcnRnJ.But I thcOnly tdcn-
Itltcs 8tc Ol kndS O cVcnI5 tc dcnII IhcOly
ptcupp:c$COOcl8Ingl1s.
Vnc nds IhcDc tcndcnCyIGbulIdl8v5 ntO
IhcsI8lcmcnI OlIhcdcnIIlythcO;ynIhcpIyptcaI
tcmatkS.

Wh(n I sy thaI a sns:uoo IS: DmlnQr0or lh3t
\ibInin tan elcarical dishrge. 1 am v:tg,s m
tht sns or srict idcnIiIy...Ihrrra rOI1wthing
JOa or lltninand anzkctmld Thrrc
is one Iht a W or lightning. which is dtrbcd
trntthcalIy as an electrical disharg 10 th< c3.nh
from cloud Ol tOntzmztctmoccuI:s.'
hc IaSI$cnIcnC0oIhts quOt8ttOntsDthJmIOb
undct\OO 8s :atng Ih0I lCr cVcytghInlnaSh
IhctC cxtSIs 8n cl0c\OC3I dICh1tC IO Ihc c8tlh
ltGm 8 ClGvd Ol onIZcd -1Ict mGIccuIcS Wtth
Whtch I S tdcntcaI. Mct0 wc h8c a0 honcI On-
IGlGgy O tndIVtdu8I 0fnts 8n Can m8kc )t\ct1l
$cn O dcnIt\y. c can 8lSO% hOw\hctc cOuId
Dc IdcnIttc: WtIhOuI C0rtcIJItngIaws.lItSDStbl0.
hOWcVct. IO h8c 8n OnIGIGgV O ccnts wtth thc
COndlItOnsO ndVdu1ItOnspc0thcdtnSucha way
thal 8ny dcnttIy tmpltc: 8 0Gt70l8\Inl8w. Ftm.
lOt c8mplc. SugcsIsI h3\ F0 8ndCb`dcscrDc Ot
tclct IO thc mc c0nI tl 8nd Only tl0 01nd
tc ptOpOOIbtn f = thc JtG0Oy otng.
` iCHtot} 0 c fODO 1A lWfA tHll$ ll
&FX -x).'PO WOH0tf?lH )
J:1 wcDbtalwth mlM31t 8, lh1 mus b a
:.l:.Omlt.R bt\O OHMO( ln dm W-
&uP0nCtSOhn la\t . . Dv$.awmqcn
2..UO Qlihc JlA-DOlA SLate k3cntlly 5 1ha\ thc
IO c10rtx0i1$ `bl[ l0 lA am`otnj rnraIA
!c Davticmccicnuon ....ThctisHQCA-
.\&D|tobration \h0l 0vl0tO||fm or lc1uttIC
n:tty but not the a\c0t0DtlIl0A.'"
M|NHW
lSltH ls#fcVD lCKItlY3HH0\h00Ht.
D0 WT Hll b Dc M tuCc tIul lA 3 WfH4l
SjSlcH TO Dl&lK0l,300 h1$ v- lno"
tHH0l H cHcfl D 00c.
lS lJSl cXaHc lS lH uMu4H3lgy W7the
son 0 WlS DA5H uA0tft0H$l0t8HOA.IAl
0 \DCphsicaI '' O0u3fy lDc tHIfc V00ul
O SOHc lJHuJc L WJ t ftVufCc$ 30t0ulC to cX
Qfc$S 3 ttO3IH HDuAl O HlDcHlIt$, H0 its
0wD $DlA, J

J$ J uHcAl00v1
`
l lC truth QfC0
tlt `lfuc*lH-L. WlO\ IS Htl3. A L \D0
I: W3 HKc lt $IuAl10DCc&fcfU IVt 0ut~ tAtt L'll l$ WIDt O QlCK Oul. Wl\0 0tlHHC
, C[JlltlI0D 0 tOfM 0 t HlAll0B b
00MOQU0HOf 0DD McDCC.c&MAltACc lD l1k
+ U HcHJl H0 Q)cYcAt$ l cHQD
tXA$l0D 0 the truth OK0,Dl l L t$0H$l$-
? r,0tH0cHCC 0CWlS3Dul l5A0 C3IH$ ltAl tfc c5U H0 QIt0IClc 0 $yHl& lo tDt
:` idcn:tt) \H the 0Ac H0 there 3ft thos O
Q}*\lCl V0DVlf). O H3\Vf 0W t0HQlC.
#. 8A0 lOM who 0CH. the tXl$lcHCc 0 p- tt QQlt$ t0lI 3D0 OHly the 1IVc MHlcDCt$ 0 L
_\5lCl lW$,0H lc0l0cfH0\cttt thos tfc tH DC nOg$}C0Q0j%8l l3W lAl0t0tH
0 hl2C Hl$mW1]j JlC|l0l0Pl\$IvtlA ^A0 0HV1
=\hOv vD0CDy l0l$.TcOffI lu$ 0IVt00
lS <l' hN`o`l$ fcQlCt0 Dy Q}SIl Qt0
!".1 Ouf >O N0m0/0m/ m0tt|1m. W0l * lClc \ Qfc0IC8c O|. `IHll3Il/,Wc CH QCK OU\
*""$ \fl there fc OItlUA@ l3W$ 3A0 that tDc tC HcDll cVcUl uSlA@ t Q0tl VfK3DUla`
T-Y7 cn-elate fc 0Dt \H3lCltl$l$ Ol0A VD 3l0At, Dul H0 Qufty Ql QItC\c,HD HUtf
CcQI)) noo mhtmw< COH-
0W C0HQtX, ha. 8$ matter oflaw.thesmcex-
&O0u$0fS0 @f3lcll$H.lHtCl0HMH, lcH$l0H HcD3lQft0KlC.
2% cQlQDcR0HcH31S, analous dualism. It M0u0 H0WW CY0CHl OW H0Hl00$ W
* 7C0DlDc$ 0Ht0l 0u3IH WIl0 t0t@H- Hl$HIt00A0llCtc thre OI@H&tHlQlMuS
Iufc O lWCOffcl3lIA@ t cHUl H0 c
lIly A0
`
cAttly ft ftll0D$ WWCtH IA0IW0ul
7)Cl \\3ItClHl$H). PA0DHll tDcff l$ QR0D~
cVcHlS H0 HUtf how 0CtItD0. ul lWl 3fC tH
..I n:cn1m. DtC SS1C c $illOn I lSD uI$llC' H0 $0 cVtH\S CA IHSHIlc $, aU0
::
O.T~:

tHC Dt cXQlIDC0 Of Qlc0lClO 1H \Dc llD\ O


^0Hl0v$ HOAI$H lOHDlcS H\tf1lt$H lO l\'1. ODl 8S l0DV CYCAl$ M0CVfl0C0lD 0Hc 0I
,2.3.7 ll cVtD$ fc Q]$lC3. Dul reje the D0lcf Wy. The QfIHClQlt of OVWl 1HtICll0
`.5.U$uly C0H$l0clt0#Hl3l 0Hlcfl3l5H. 0cl5 WI cVtDl$ lH cXcASt0H H0 l$ t0tft0fc
Q` C "A\1l QDCH0HcDCA D @IVcAQufclphys
.
DtH0 l0the tHl8~Q]$8l0IC0Dl0y.cQfH
CA03H3l0H$. PH0H3l0uS HORl$H S0W5 A ttDlt 0 l0c A0H3ll$ mthe HcHOl cns
"'.l Dl$0Dl IH lal Il ll0Wc Q$$IDI- CHl$ 0tMOD0 cHl3l. 0f cVtHt$ 3f HcRtl
`
'
"7` AD ll cVtHlS ft HCAWl, Wllt tH$l$llH 0Hv $ 0c$IlD0. The principle of the D00lO@I
~"A.l0HU tt Q]$lC8I.2uC 3Dl3A0H0HISH, tl t0l8tlcf 0 Cu$lIly Hu$OmCNull)I\
~` 0y COIcllIA $ 0f CDHttQ\u3 }$ \Dl when cVc ntS f0 fclC0 3$ CuM H0 ef-
T."."ltS. 0DCS D0l MtH 0 HcIIl the term "re-
fct. \Dc} have 0C$fIQllOHS th3t IA$lAl
`
4lc W.
`~^l5H.IH H CM l\ tS H0l 3Ql0 IA$QIfc \DC It 00c$ HOl $8y ll cVcI true $
`
Huf statement
-.:.tg-but fttX |ODcIV1A@ the n of H
O CuWlIy lH$lAlIlcS lw."
* {-

Y$ D0llU@ Dul 3 C0HQlcX HtUfl CVcD,


1. Onh.)
.'fu@ lc g0$lll0H 0QOD 0cHMS there
" R0QySlCl WS, I :s 0D$$tDl with the
-1.. 3l HcDllCf&tcf$lC$ fc Hsme sns
".tDl. 0t $uQCIVcDICD.0H Q\$lC3l C3ftlcf
: C ouch SuQlV<HlcHCt Hl@0lD lKcUl0 HcAD
`J'`cfC tUU0l>lOCVCD$tKc lA ll Q0)SlCl
\$ Du 0l|lCllU lH sme HtDI fC$C\. Of
`.-1`3 O0]tC\tAU0lllCI lU $0Oc DcUl fCS|"Kl
+*'?J\ llcP1H@ID $OHc Q|tl ft$tCl. LQH
:<SuQlVtHlcHCc O lI$XlA0 0O$not CA\3Il
*" ~"l!l tfOu0 lW0f 0c0HIl0H. I ll 0I0,we
::~ ft0uO H0Il Qt0OlM 0 0tMfQIV, O0
II
t Dl0}JUSt DfuIt0.0ClWA lCpla of lt
HtH1l 3I0thr Q\$tt.3A0tr Qlt of the
HHllCl 0 3 W0!0 D $]UlX. $0ul0 AD\ 0C
SlfIAt0.Kl Qt0Vc0 that a tDHSIS\tAl l8Uvat
t4DHD\ \uA0tf S0RC natural >sumptions) OH\lH
A 0{H MHltUCc `F \IVc 0ll A0 OAl)l0c fut
$CA\CAtt$ O \l lDuc. 0vf H0 WcP
QfC$$t0.then "e W0u0 expct Qf\ l03[ lDcft
tH D H0 Q}$ttl 0H MHlcHtc `?A lOt of l
H00Hl the cfHl$ VIDsme HcH3l QfDI-
THE MENTAL-PHYSICAL COAST
D l8Cl, O\w\Cl, DOllDg C8Dsy 8D0U!the tfC-
0u6\Dll) of the HcDl8l deserves O Dc C8lC0 8
QfO 8D0 lh( klD0 O lIIc0uCIDlll!] l5 0ltN0.
Ol ll 8DOH8lOUSCOD\SW is COIfCCl.DuI O0l] c:n
CVcI`y CC0!8l CVCD O uDlQuClj SlDglC0 Ou US\ng
ODy Q]y$lC8 CO0CC!S. Du! SIDCc lc DuHDt Ol
CVc0lS h8! 18llS undor ech mental predicte may.
for all Wc kDOW. ODlC. !DCfc H3] Wtl cXIS! 8
QjS\68l OD 9D!CDCc C0X!cDS\VC Wl!h c8C
CcD4l lc0l68!c. !DOUgD to 0On5trUC l W\g:I \D
VOlVClc tedium Ol 8 lc0gj 8D0 V0lD5IlU6llVc 8l
!Cf08l:OD. D0CC0, CVCD ll DhllU0c lS DOl8SSuCC0.
Cfc SccH5 uO COHQclI0g lC8SOD lO 0cD that
Clc COul0 D C0XlchS\Vc fc0lC8!cS. ODC CCDl3l
8D0 ODCQSl68l.
CCSl5lS rather that the WC0l8l is 0OWOl0g
'
ically irreucible: ther< H8y DC true gChcl8l Sl8!c
HcDl5 relating the mentl and the physicl. Sl8lc
ments l8l 8VcthC logicl form Ol a 8DU hc]
8IC nO! cv|'kr(in a S lrOng ScD9 lO b 0OID0|.
l by 8Dul0l] fcmOtC chance WtWtICto SUWDlC
Oh a nonstocb3iic lIU0DOQ]l68l0Cl8ll-
llOD,W WOUl0 8Vc nO ren lO Ol\cY ll COIc
than roughly IUc.
O Y by 0CCl8lDg that lclc 8lC n |stlO)
pychophysicl laws, pach on the empiricl QIc
ScIVcS Ol 9cDCC~8OfH O&u0rt38g8lDP Wl6h
QDIlO5OQCMarc O!cDw? Of COut9. to ju0gc
8 S!cCCD! l8WllKC OI llcg8l IS DO\ tO decide its
truth Ou!Ig!.fcl8c to c 8CCcQ!8DCC Ol a gCD-
cI8 S!8cWcD OD tC bSof lhS!8DCcS. full0g ll
3Wl:kC HUSI O a QI\OI\. U 5u6D O8!IVY 8ItOt
lSH 0OSnot Iuitslf jUSlll]QllO$OD].lOl\ngCD-
t8I C glOUh05 Of 0cCI0Dg O trust 8 5!8!cWchI
on !c D8SlSOl \IS lh5!80CcS Wlll ID luO x gOV-
CMt0by theoretical 8h0CHQlIlC8lCOhCcO5DOIlO
b distinguished from lOSC Ol VlC0Cc. l lhCC
Ol SuQQO$0 l8W$ inkiugthe Ccul8l and the QD]5-
l68 l5 0l ctcDl,it can ODy D OC8uMto 8llOIDC
QOWlDlly Ol5uC l8v5would amount to C8Dglhg
the 5uDjcC. ] C8Dg:Dg c SuDj CC8D Dclc,
deciding DO O accept C CIlCIlOD Ol lhcCc0!8l
in terms Ol the VO8Dul8lj Ollhc QlO[\!lO08 at
lilV0Cs. l5 SOO 8D5WCf C8hDO! QfcVcD! luODCl
I8C\C8llODS Ol lc QIODlcH.DOWtYf. lOI lDfN lS
DO Clc8f llDC OWccD C8Dng the SuD)C6l 8D0
CD8DglDgWD8!ODc y$ ODan Ol05UDjcCl,WDCh IS
lO 8dmi . in the present CODlCX8l lC85!.!D8l !Dcfc
is 0O ClCt llhC D!WccD QDllO5OQh] 8n05\cn0t.
cIc lDclC 8fc nO DXc0 DOU008lIC5 Ohl Dc
:Cl0 DcVct D\Sk trespas.
l WIll 5D8tQD Ouf 8Qf0l8lOD OllhC a nOWO
logical C8f8ClCI of HCD8l-QDy5lCl gCD0ml\2
.
!lODS lO COD5l0cI 8fcl8!t0 H8l!cflhC l8llUlCO 0C f.
iD\!ion8l OD3VlOI5C. Why 8fc Wc willing (8S I
assume 8lc|O 8D00OD lDc 8UCHQO glVc CX-
Ql\C\ 0CDllOhSOHCDl8l C00CCS IDcICSOl O
7
h8VlOt8l OD(5 fOl- 5Ufcl ', juS OC8u5C all 81u8
!Il(5 8lC CODSQ\6uOUSy lD80CQ08IC. 8lWl ll lS QC
C8uM Wc lC JxISu80c0. 8S WC8rC in II C85c of SO
W8DV OlD0 lUfCS Ol 0CDhltOD8l fC0U6!lOnl5DI
(natralism lD ClDlCS, lDSlUCcDllSW 800 Ol8-
\OD8ll5H lD Ic 9\cDCcS, lDc C8US8l Dc0O` O!
Wc8DlDg_ QDcDOHC08lSDl, 8D0 M O0hc C8l8
0gucOl QhllD5OQ]S 0clC8lSJ.that lCtC l5 5}S!cC
D !DC l8llulCS.OuQO$W!l)1say. DOI uSlDg D]
WcD!8l CODCcQlS. D8! \I is lOf 8 W8D lO XlICV0
!DCtC lS lllC ODN8l$.0C llDCWcCOu0 l8kCtS l\5,
hch 8 CcO8l0 SOUn0 \S fDUCc0 iD the man's
presence \S !DCfCllc Oh N8t5|CQlD0u6C5 8D
O!hCl1CS).But of 6OUtSt !lS $Ov5CQcl!C\0S
IDclt is life OD N8I5 ODl if c u00ClSI8n0S tD
lSh. S Qfu0uClOD Ol lhcMUD0 W8S lhlcDlOD8,
800 w a ItSD5C O DC MuD05 B CC8Dl0g
smething lD tDg:5D.D0s Ou.fOf c8D 0l9OV-
ffC00CR6lcDC,W800anew QfOV50.C!DOH8l
tcr how WC Q8lCh 80C Dl the OnmcDl8l COD0I-
lOhS, W 8W&yS fnd the hO for an dditional
CO00:llOD|fOVl0C0 he nOies. understands. ClC.|
!h8lis HcD!8 I0cat8Ocf.
D
A S'IIklDg lc8lUIcOauempts at 0cfniloD8l fc-
0uClOD l5 OW little McH5 O lDgt O0 the QuC5-
tion O synonymy btwc.n 0cDDlhS and 0cfDi-
C00uH.MICOUlM. Dj imagining OuDlCltX8CQlm
Y`Cw0WIl C UlWS O synonymy. UI Ac l
lcOOl8llufcQfOCQlS8MfODgcf CODClU$lOD.1l Wc
Wclc O DD0 an opn 9hlchCc CO06t0 in DCD8V
\Of8l lclHS 8D0 CX8C!ly C0XcDSlVt "'ith SOCc
WCD!8l QIc0lC3lc. DOlDIDg Cu0 reasnabl) pr
Su80CUSthat WC 80 lOUD0 ll.Cknow too HU6D
80UI lOug800 DC8VIOflOtrust cX86I8D0uDl
IWl58cWc0l5 1l0XlDg DcH.CllclS 8D0 0cSlfC5
\$Suc lD O8VIOl ODl] 8S W0\0C0 and WC0l!C0
DfUOhcr bliefs 8D0 desires. attitude 8D0 8UcP0
ID.WllOU!llH\.Llc8t]l\S hOl\SW Ol lhc CcD-
tal relm l58 6luCboth lothc8ulODOH8u0to tDc
8DOW8lOuSC8l8ClClOCHCDll.
CV fCC8lkS 8QIO 0CDl!lO08l !D8VOf-
\SW|rO de at O5lhints Olwhy Wt5hOul0 0OC-
DCl DOHOlO68l 6ODDC6l\OD5OlWccn Ic HCDl8
800 lDc D]$lC8. Dc CcD!l&l C lDV7ItS uOct
6ODSl0Cl&!lOD.
lWIkC Sl8CHCD5 8tc gc0I8 5l8!CWcDlS !8I
SuO COUDlcll8CIu8 8h0 SuDjuDC!\Y Cl8lC5,
800 8fC SUQOC0 D' ClI IDS8D0C5. ,6I6 is \D
C VlcW) DO uO0QucS!lOD-DcgglDg CICDOD Oc
l8Wl\XC. WDl6 lS DOI 1O say there 8lf O1C85ODS ID
Q8D\6ul8t C lOt a ju0gCCnt. Wlkcuc$$ 15 8
W8l!cl Ol 0CgICc. W:CD l5 not O 0cD that there
W8y O C8WOyOD0 0CD8lc.Ph0 W\lD\D llCJ!S $;!
D] C COD0\lODS O COWWUDlC8!:On. IDctc is
rom lOf HuCD V8ll8IOD OWCcD lD0\V10u8lS in
!DC pauern of statements to WDICV8I\Ou5 0cgICc5
Ol hOC0Og\C8lly 8lC 855\g0C0. 0 8l C5t lC
7Z MINOOOOY
spccts. nomologicalily is much like analyticll)'. as panicular case there is regularity <hat could O
one might expct since both arc linked tommnin formulated sharply and wi1hou1 ca.,cal.
'All emeralds arc grcn'ls lawlike in that its in In ourd3ily 1rafc with events and 3ctions tnai
stancs cnfrm h. but

an emer31ds arc grue' is must t (ortscn or understO. we prforce maJt


not, for 'grue' means 'observe bfort timet and ust of the sketchy summar gneralizahon. for VC
green, otherwis blue,' and lf our obrvations do not know a more acurate law. or if we do. "-
were all made bfore r and uniformly re,ealcd lack a desription ofthc panicular events in which
green emeralds. this would not b a reaon to ex we arc intereted that would show the rclcv3nct o1
pother emeralds 10 be blue. Nelson Goman the law. But there is an impnanl distincuon 10 l
has suggested !hal this shows !hal some predical<s. made within the category or the rude rule ul
'gruc' for example. arc unsuited lo lav (and thus thumb. On the one hand. there are gencrliz.a<ion$
a cri1crion of suitable predicates could Jtad to : cri "''hos POSilivc instances give us reason lO bli('\\
lcrion or the lawlike). But il SCnlS to me lhc lhe gcncraliuuion itself could b improved h) add-
anomalous character of 'All emeralds arc gruc

ang further pro,

isos and condi1ions St31cd in lhi


shows only that I he predicates 'is an emerald' and sme general voabulary as the original gcn<ralt7-
'is grue' arc not suited to one another: gruenes is tion. Such a generalization pints Uthe form and
not an inductive propenyof emerads. Gruencss r)
,oabulary of the fnished law: we may \ that 11
however an inductlvc prony of ntill%of other
is a humJnomrcgcner1ittion. On the other hand
sons. for lnst:mce of cmcrirc$ (Something is an
therL art: gcnralittions which when instantiated
__mCg heforW .. ---may
.
give-us ren -lithere is--preci.-i:w --

old, and otherwise is a spphire.) Not only is 'All at work. but one that can b stated only byshiftin
emerires are gre' entaile by the conjunction of 10 a diferent vobular. We may call such gen
the lawlike statements 'All emerlds art green' and
er8li18lions Itrtrr0n0mc
'All spphires arc blue,' but thee is no ren, as l supp most or our practical lore (and sc
far as I en M. to rje the deliverno of intu- ence) is hcleronomV. This s becaus a law can
ition, that it is itslf lawlike." Nomolol stte hop Ub preis. explicit. and BexCplionlcs as
ments bring together preicl thai M know a ps ible only if it draws it concepts from a com
priori are made for ech other-know, that .in-
prehensve clos theory. sidCl theory may or
depndently of knowing whether the ev sup- may not b deterministic, but it is if any t"e the
pns a WnnVt on btn them. 'Biuc,"re,' and ory is. Within the physicl sienV W do fnd
'green' are made for emeralds. sppir. and homonomic generalizations, generalizations such
IS grue,' 'bleen.' and `u` are made for sp- !hal if the evidence supprts them. we then have
phalds. emerircs. and emeros reason to blie' they may be sharpened indcl
The direction in which the disuson sems nitely by drawing upn funher physical concepts:
headed is th

s: mental and physicl preicla are there is a thretical asvmptole or prect coher
not made for one another. In pin1 of lawlikenes. ence "ith all the evidcce. prfect preietabilil !
psychophysicl statements are more like 'All em

(under the terms of the srstem). total explanation
eralds are grue' than like 'All emeralds are green.' (again undrr the tcnns of the systeml. Or prhaps
Before this cIatm Splausible, il must b seri- the ultimate ther is probbilistic. and the osymp-
ously moifed. The that emeralds examine tote is kthan prftion. but in that V5 there
Dfom lare grue not only is no ren to blieve will b no buer to b had.
all emeralds are grue. it is not even a rean (if we Confdence that a statement is homonomic
know the time) to bieve cunobsf c:mcr corretibic within its own conCptual domain. de
aids are grue. But if an event or a cenain mental mands that it draw its concepts from a theory with
>M has usually ben aCmpaniOby an event of strong constituti\'c elements. Here is the simples1
a Cruin physical O.this ofien is a goo reson ps ible illustration: if the lesson carries. 11 will be
to expct othcr cass to follow suit roughly in pro- obious that the simplifcation could be mended.
ponion. The generalizations that emby such The measurement or lcncth. weight, tempera

practical wisdom are assumed to b only roughly turt. or time depnds (among many other things.
true, or thc:y are explicitly state in ptobzbtIsttc of cours) on the existence in ea case of a two-
terms. or they arc insulated from countcrcxample place relation that is transitive and asymmetrc
:
by generous C[ clau. Their imprtance lies warmer than. later than. hea"ler than. and so
mainly in the suppon they lend singular causl fonh. l.t us tak e the relation longer rhan B our
caims and related eplanations of prticular example. The law or postulate or transhi,ity is
events. The suppon derives from the fact that such 1his:
a generalization. howe,er crude and ,agu. may
provide good reason 10 believe thai underl)ing !he I\) \|A.|)and I(t`.;l- L|A.z)
THE NMAHT>A>T
Unless this law (or some sphisticated variant)
holds. NX canrot easily make sns of the concept
of length. There wll no way ofasigning num
brs to register even so much Branking in length.
let alone the more powerful demands ofmeasure
ment on a ra.io <V. And .his remark g not
only for any .hr<(: items direlly involved in an in
transithity: it is easy to UO (ven a few more
asumptions essntial to measurement of length)
that there is no consisten. asignment of a ranking
to any it= unles (L) holds in full generality.
Clearly (L) aonecannot exhaust the impon of
'longer .han'-thers it would not differ from
warmer than' or 'later .than: We must suppos
there is sme empiricl cntent. however difcuh
to forulate in the available voabulary. that dis.
tinguishe 'longer than' from the other twoplace
trnsitiv prOOicte mmeasurement and on the
basis of which w may .that one hing is
longer than another. Imagine this empirical con.
tent tob pnly given by the plicte 'ox.y)'. 5
we have this "mening ptulate":
lH) .Y! MX1I
that panly interprets {). But now (L) and (+1 tO
gther yield an empiricl thery or great strength.
fortoethCthey entail that there donot exiS1 thr<
objects a. b. and Tsuch that oa,b). ob.c). and
oc.a). Yet what is to pevent this happning i(
'o(x.y)' is a pricte w cn evr. with confdence.
apply? Supp we Ih1nk we observe an intransi.
tive triad: what do we sy? We could count I}
fs. but then we would have no appliction for
the concpt of length. We could sy () gives a
wrong tet for length: but then it W unclear what
we thought ws the OR14Rofthe idea ofone thing
bing longer than another. Or VX could sy that
the objectsunder obsrvation WnoL Bthe theor
reuires. rigidob lt.is a mistake to think we
are forced V accpt sme one of the answers.
Concepts such B that of length are sustinc in
euilibrium a numbr of conceptual pressures.
and theorie of fundamental meaurement ar dis
toned if we force the d=ion. among such prin
ciple B(L) and \MI:analytic or synthetic. It is bet
tcr to sy the whole st of axioms. law. or
pstulates for the measurement ofkngth is O!
constitutiveof the idea ofa system of macroscopic.
rigid. physicl objects. I sugCt that the existence
of lawlike statements in phyical sienC depends
upon the existence of constitutive (or synthetic a
priori) laws like tho of the measurement of
length within the sme concptual d
omain.
Just as we cannot intelligibly assign a length to
any object unless a comprehensive theol) holds of
objects of that MO. wecnnot intelligibly attribute
any propsitional attitude to an agent except
Z53
within the framework ofa viable theory of his b-
licfs. desires. intenuons. and deisions.
There is no asigning bliefs toa person one by
one on the basis ofhis verbal bhavior. hischoiccs.
or other loal sisns no maner how plain and cvi.
<Jcnt. for VY make sns of prt icular bliefs onlr
as they cohere with other bliefs. with prd<rcnccs.
v.ith intentions. hops. fears. expctations. and the
rest. h is not merely. as with the measurement or
length. that c0ch atests a theor and depnds
upn it. but that the content of a propsiuonal at
totude derives from its pla in the pattern.
Credit ins pople with a large degree of cons1S
acncy cannot b counted mere charity: it is un
avoi dable if X are to b ir a psition to accuse
them meaning.fully oferror and sme dcgof ir
ntionality. Global confusion. like universl mis
ake. is unthinkable. not baus imagination bog
;le. but bcaus to much confusion 1cavcs
nothing to be confused about and masive error
erodes the background of true belief aginst which
.lone failure can b construe. To appreiate the
limits V the kind and amount ofblunder and had
thinking we can intelligibly pin on other is to se
once more the insparability or the quCion what
concepts a prsn commands and the question
what he dos with tho concpts in the way of O
lief. deire. and intention. To the extent that we
fail to disver a coherent and plausible pter in
the attitudes and actions of other we simply
foregothe chance of treating them B prons.
The problem is not byp 0ut given center
stage byappeal toexplicit spech havior. For we
could not bin to decode a man's sying if we
could not make out his attitude towards his r-
tences. such Bholding. wishing. or wanting them
tob true. Beginning fromthes attitudes. we must
work out a theor or what he means. thus simul
taneously giving content tohis attitude and to his
words. In our need to make him make sns. X
will try for a theory that finds him cnsistent. a b
liever of truths. and a lover ofthe good(all Dj our
own lights. it goes without syng). Life beingwhat
it is. there will b no simple theory that fully meets
thes demands. Many. theorie will efect a more or
less acceptable compromis. and between thes
theories there ma)' be no objetive grounds for
choice.
The hettronomic chahcter of general state
ments linking the mental and the physical traces
back to this central role or translation in the de
seription of all propositional attitudes. and to the
indetemlinacy of translation." There are no stricl
psychophysical laws bcausof the disrte com
mitments of the mental and physical schemes. It is
a fCture or physical rality that physicl change
can b explained by laws that connect it wth other
NMQ AMUBUY
changes and conditions physically describd. It is Mental. that some mental events at least arc causes
a feature of the mental that the anribution ofmen or cll'ccts or physical ccnts; the argument applies
tal phenomena must be reponsible to the back- only to these. A scond Principle(ofthc Nomolog-
ground of reasons. bliefs. and intentions of the icaJ
Character orCaus:lity) sys that each true sin
individual. There cannot b tight connections bt gular causl statement is backed by a <trict law
ween the realms if each is to retain allegianc to its connccung eventS of kinds to which the events
proper source ofevidence. The nomological irre- mentioned as cause and ell'ct belong. Where there
ducibility of the mental dos not derive merely are rough. but homonomic. laws. there arc laws
from the seamles nature of the world orthought. drawing on concepts from the smc conceptual
preference and intention. for such interdepn domain and upn which there is no improving in
dencc is common to physical theory. and is com- pint of precision and comprchcnsincss. We
patible with there bing a single right v=yofinter urged in the last sction that such laws ocur in the
prcting a man's auituQcs without rclati\'i7.ation to physicJI siences. PhysiCa1 theory promiS(S to pro
a sheme of transl>tion. Nor is the irreducibilit) vide a comprehensive cloed system guaranteed to
due simply to the possibility of many equally di- yield a standarditcd. unique description of every
gjble shemes. for this is compatible with an arbi- ph)s
i
cal event couched in a voabulary amenable
trary choice of one scheme relative to which as- to law.
signmcnts of mental traits arc mode. The pint is It is not plausible that mental concepts alone
rather that when we use the concepts of belief, de can pro' ide such a framework. simply becaus the
sire and the rest. we must stand prepared. as the mental dos nol. by our frst principle. constitute
-cvidenc-acumulatc.to adjustur 4ho1=n4h- ---os 4}~- -much -happn.to.he- -
light of cnsiderations of overall concy: the con- mental that is not itslf a systematic pan of the
stitutive ideal of rationality pnly controls each mental. But ifwe combine this observation with
phas in the evolution ofwhat must b an evolving the conclusion that no psychophysical <tatcmcnt
thery. An arbitrary choice of translation sheme is. or can b built into. a strict Jaw, w have the
would preclude such opponunistic tempring or Principle of the Anomalism of the Mental: there
theory; put differently, a right arbitrry choice of a are no strict Jawsat all on the basis ofwhich we
translation manual would b ofa manual accept cn preict and explain mental phenomena.
able in the light oall psible evidenc, and this is The demon<tration of identity follows esily.
a choic we cnnot make. We must cnclude, I Supp m, a mental event, cused a phyicl
think, that nomological slack btween the mental event: then under sme deription m and in
and the physical isessential as long as we conceive stantiate a Tclaw. This Jaw can only be physical.
olman as a rational animal. according to the previous paragrph. But if m falls
Ill
Te gist of the foregoing disusion. as well as its
conclusion. will be familiar. That there is a cat<
goral difference btween the mental and the phys
icl is a commonplac. It may seem od that I sy
nothing ofthe suppsed privacy of the mental. or
the special authority an agent 0with repct to
his own propitional attitudes. but this appar
ance of novelty would fade if we were to investi
gate in more detail the grounds for acccpti ng a
sheme of translation. The step fromthe eatcgorial
difference btween the mental and the physical to
the imposibility of strict laws relating them is Jess
common. but cenainly not new. If there is a sur
pris, then, it will b to fnd the lawlesness of the
mental serving to help establish the identity of the
mental with that pardigm ofthe lawlike. the phys
icl.
reasoning is this. We arc assuming. under
the Principle of the Causl Depndence or the
under a physical law. it has a physical desription:
which is tosy it is a physicl event. An analogous
argument works when a physial event causs a
mental event. bevery mental event that is caus
ally related to a phyical event is a physical event.
In order to etablish anomalous monism in full
generality it would be sufcient to show that every
mental C\ent is cus or efect of some ph\'sical
event: I shall not attempt this.

If one event cause another. there is a str


i
ct law
which thos events instantiate when proprl) ' de
sribd. But it is posible (and typical) to know of
the singular causl relation without knowing the
law or the relevant descriptions. Knowledge W
quires reasons. but these are a-ailablc in the form
of rough hetcronomic gcneralitations. which arc
Jowlike in that instances make it reasonable toex
pect other instances to follow suit \ithout being
lawlike in the snse of bing indefnitely relinablc.
Applyin thes facts to knowlege ofidentities. we
sc that it is posible to know that a mental event
is i dentical with some physical event withoui
knowing which one (in the sense ofbing able to
TMENTAL-PHYSICAL CONTAST
give it a unoqu physical dsnpoion that
brin( it
under a relevant law). Lvcn t!smeone knew the
entire physical history of lhc world. and every
menial even! were idenlical wilh a physical. il
would no1 follow 1ha1 he could predicl or explain
a single menial even! (so desribed. of course).
Tw fc3lurcs of mental tvcnts in I heir relation
10 1he phyical-causl dcpcndcncr and nomolog
ical independence-combine. 1hcn. 10 dissolve
whal has of1en n1Ma porado. 1he dfocacy of
lhoughl and purpse in lhe malcrial world. and
their freedom lP law. \Vhcn VA Q!\ events
as prceivings. rcmcmbrings. decisions and ac
lions. "" ncccssarilr loale 1hem amid pl\ysical
happenings lhrough lhe rcla1ion of caus and tf
, bul lhal same mode of prtrayal insulaltS
mental even1s. as long as "" do no1 change the
idiom. from the stricl law that can in principle be
call<d upn to exp\in and predict physical phe
nomena.
Mental even Is Ba cs cannot b explained by
physicl science: paricular mental e,nts can
when we know particular identilies. But the expla
nations of mental event
s in which we are typically
interete relate 1hem to other mental events and
conditions. We explain a man's frtt actions. for
exampk, by appal to his deire. habits. knowJ.
eg and pr:ptions. Such acounlS of intentional
bnavior oprate in a cnceptual framework re
move from the direct rech of physical law byde
sribing bth caus and effect. reasn and action,
B a of a prrait of a human ant. T an
omalism of the mental

uthus a ne ry condi
tion for viewing action Bautonomous. lconc\ude
-ith a scond Q @from Kant:
fl is an indispnSble rlem of 1}ti,e philos
ophy Vsow lhat its illusion ring the con1ra
diction rests on I his. th3t Wthink of
man in a difer
ent sns and relation whe "' call him . AnQ
when w DW him & sub
j
ect to the IaS of na

lur. . . H must therefore 1O that not only can
buoIlhc-svry wll coxist. but lht bth must W
tou@t ui m-,:r.trily rmutd 1n the sme sub
j
e
c
t . . .
16
NLLo
I. l was hdped and inRucne b Om<t BcnncU. Sue
Larwn, and Rich.rd Rony who are no1 responsi ble for 1he
resull My rh was suppncby the Natonal Sience
Foundation and th Center for Ad\anC'd Study in the
hzvpng
2 FlmdD{<'fltol Prtfi( <S o 1hc- .\fttopltfSt(( qf.,wai.
trans. T. K. Abll (London. 1901. pp75-76
3. T claims arc defende in m) Actions. H<
and\u,`` 1;Jmtrn./o Phiosoph,. u (1%)). (685-
2b
and m "'A,ncy," a fonhcommttn 1h pr<nt$
of1m NO\'mbr, 1968, collouium on A&n\, Acaon. qq
Reasn al the Univrity DY1an Vn1&!\. 1ondon. Can
ada lin ..frtl. Aclio. &AA o1m. :1Iby Ron Bint\(.
Rch3rd Bron:uch. aod Auwn1o Mlr |\xmm 5!
81<.n. 19711. p.J~7'l
4. In >.auul Rcla1ios ... Tlh JoI ~Tfuwl1
J1vt 1961). Q. 691-10).1elabrateon\he vic + oruulit'
assum mw. ipuMlinthal the U b<ktcrminist1C
s suon.gcrthan required mthe rcasnm&. a.nd w1!! wnQq
S. m Qn1 QQnQ on usunHnf 1&1 mentl c''nu.
ma lntt0igiby w t h.'' .a w1wn, but i is an ;,
umption thll must l true 1f an ltknltr theor i s. and hCrt
I .m na. tinc. 10 proY th tho hut tofcr ui.)IC it.
6. I am ln<bted t L 6ow1. Cr <rI\(i!U{ 1h+ d1f
I(Uh.
. CIc T/r. MindB ldntl. a SidtIS< . .
Pluluw{hi dlf'.LX XVI ' I 967J. n 202.
8 J. J. C. Sman. Scnshons an.. Otn rrocs" 11,
f'lu/owplurolR

.LXVUI ( 1959t. |. l.!


-. Th quo1
Marcon Q. 16J . I6S of thc r.pnnl,tSon m Th.
Tm~ . V.C. Chappoll 1LnW 0 41R>.
N.J .. 1962). mmcumpk. se D.a,id N. L ^1`^^
Araumcn1 fr U lcntitr mr,`` 1JournDI (t/Phlt<J
/.

LXIII (196 ). Q, 17-J. Here H a mpio is


<xQw1 when L Uments uni\'f'1s 19. l7. fol
nO I an2). I d n Vth.mDAmI. s m con
fu. M1N1wyDWlin& U1Wcity thor) kns
to ourt: thedisai nction bwnnkuiJr WnUanLinds
w (\Oton =v 1W rcubtion Omy thd<.
Y. 1M.MPsyrh<Phycal ldntitrTN-
.AwPltilic~). '"(196), p.131.
10. I ! .. @227-2!. Rihard Brandl and JaqnN:m
poprY Msme crtn in ''T . c or the ldcn
tioyT." <Jo Phi. uv11971. WS 1 ~
Sl7+ They H WW on lher conccpio., of cvnt intit.
th Kntil) they ..make a itmngr daim chan mcrd 1hJ1
thre is a DWW phcnomen..l-physicl comlation" l(l
SISti W11 ds th stronrclaim.
I I . .,nomlous monism,, m<'cor leu e.(hcnl -
n1tcd 31. mbI<miimn b Hcrhcn Fcd. he 'Mrnt31
Jn lhr 'Ph'\Kl; . in CQ( ' Tf,...,;,., anti tht ,\I111J
8w P~r~. . 11. ,HmntSOoSt dttJ 111 th, Plu'Iplu .!

mtMinneapfis. 1958): @d >m2! f. ``


Othct Mif'' Th JouroPluIqy |X1: tl9).
P
tDavid Rl Lu.. MindBo\ ldcntil\' and PS\"c>
Physic.llCobtion."PhiluJ<plurolS;udrn xu 119661. pp
1-1: Chrl Tayt(, Ocit

p 207
. Somcthin& !:k mr p
s,,on

ztcnutlvdy g b Thoma 1{,. h}16m-


ism.
":PMiosori#m't, JXI` (196S). p. l39-l

b.
and bnen tton byP. .11$\&P in Fr<And 11!1'
!.ro. D. f. Pan(Lndon 1%;), PQ.9J^!-
| . Th1int \ha.t ubstituti,ity or \ntity (ail$ '" \|
con1ext of e=anaionis m.e :nnncction with the (lf(nl
subjb NQan Mawlm. "Sientific Mtcralism andthe
ldenhty Theory." Dro. 111 ( 196.t-6Sl. @. 12-124.
a.o . Actions. Rns an Caus` TlrJor1tn/o 111
luSIIPi .t. 1X (196)}, @, 696-99 and "The lndivldultion o(
E\cnu" in Es .s tn Hm ~Cor/ ! llc. <d. .
W1. (Ordrc<ht, 19691.
1). The theme is ckvdop 1n Roerick Chim. Prr
oxn:;bt.NewYork. IQS1), chap. I I.
. UW U=L. M, -
mB'4_V, J7DVt^WT!1'. u1 1,0
4CA H. WU''O~m,l, fmw1A.m
)mdA m9. 318. a JWA %. Vm
wU 1WPnil" 7oWDPFw&+.
uuv {i97),W5. On p. JJ8~JWAd ?,M-187o 1h
yn\1MmW1vM mA#1WVU 4A
WAtcmcnu tkAIW&fp .ICm1K. how
f. 1m1 W R W D1D1 O m 'Ett by \m
Nm." J1IPk4L (19 ,, 778-
.
W T
15. 4tAIVc:T. V,\)A` QmDM 1P
d<1t:m1W1m,a 1A =JolWw U
(mb , IW)NQUv1O. tJ_V1%
d{OAmWWA WA11UA UW
1mn &I1Um. AmWmm"tA{z`&1bm\Qm
urbIu)W tD1rAt a pwU1mchi
OfmrmmD 1wm1wA (i. 22),
1. O . O .Q 1.

You might also like