Reasons as causes
To explain an action is to give the agent's beliefs and desires, and the explanation holds because those beliefs and desires caused the action. Rational explanation is a species of causal explanation.
The Twentieth Century to Today · 1917 – 2003
戴维森 · Donald Herbert Davidson
Reasons are causes, anomalous monism, truth-conditional meaning, radical interpretation and the principle of charity, the myth of conceptual schemes: in a series of papers he wove mind, language and action into one whole.
If we cannot find a way to interpret the utterances and other behaviour of a creature as revealing a set of beliefs largely consistent and true by our own standards, we have no reason to count that creature as rational, as having beliefs, or as saying anything.
Source: Radical Interpretation (1973)
Davidson was born in Massachusetts and spent part of his childhood in the Philippines. At Harvard he studied classics and philosophy, acted alongside Leonard Bernstein and studied with Whitehead. During the war he taught navy pilots to identify enemy aircraft, then returned to Harvard under Quine and took his doctorate in 1949 on Plato's Philebus. He taught at Stanford for fourteen years, collaborating with Patrick Suppes on decision theory, running experiments and developing his own philosophy there.
He did not publish a major paper until he was forty-six. 'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' (1963) opposed the prevailing view that the reason for an action is not its cause, arguing that rationalising explanation is a kind of causal explanation, since otherwise we could not say that someone acted because of a reason. 'Truth and Meaning' (1967) proposed that a theory of meaning for a language is a Tarski-style theory of truth for it: to know a sentence's meaning is to know under what conditions it is true, a programme that made semantics central to philosophy. 'Mental Events' (1970) introduced anomalous monism: every mental event is a physical event, yet there are no strict laws linking mental and physical descriptions, so the mind belongs ontologically to nature while remaining explanatorily autonomous.
He moved to Princeton in 1967, then Rockefeller and Chicago, and in 1981 to Berkeley, where he remained until his death. 'Radical Interpretation' (1973) asked how an interpreter facing a wholly unknown speaker could understand meaning and belief from behaviour; the answer is that meaning and belief must be assigned together, and the only starting point is the 'principle of charity', taking the speaker to be largely right and rational, without which interpretation cannot begin. 'On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme' (1974) drew the consequence: there can be no conceptual scheme wholly untranslatable into ours, since if it were untranslatable we would have no reason to call it a language; the basic premise of relativism is incoherent.
Late in life he proposed 'triangulation': thought and language require a triangle of two creatures and a shared world, and without others there is no concept of objectivity. He denied that language is a shared conventional structure, saying 'there is no such thing as a language', only passing theories between interpreter and speaker. His papers are all short, collected in a few volumes, and each opened a field of research. He died at eighty-six after knee surgery; his widow is the philosopher Marcia Cavell.
To explain an action is to give the agent's beliefs and desires, and the explanation holds because those beliefs and desires caused the action. Rational explanation is a species of causal explanation.
Every mental event is some physical event, yet there are no strict laws between the mental and the physical. Mind is part of nature but cannot be reduced to physics.
To understand a sentence is to know under what conditions it is true. A theory of meaning for a language can take the form of a Tarskian theory of truth, explaining infinitely many sentences from a finite vocabulary.
To understand others one must assume they mostly believe what is true and are mostly rational. Not kindness, but the condition of the possibility of interpretation.
The idea of 'different conceptual schemes' is incoherent: if a scheme were wholly untranslatable we would have no reason to call it language or thought. The third dogma of empiricism, the scheme–content distinction, should also be abandoned.
The concept of objectivity requires at least two creatures responding to a shared world and interpreting each other. Without others there is no distinction between truth and error.
Quine was his teacher at Harvard and lifelong interlocutor; 'radical interpretation' reworks Quine's 'radical translation', understanding meaning from behaviour but through truth-conditions rather than stimulus meaning.
Anomalous monism is a Kantian solution: the opposition of mind and nature is kept at the level of description and abolished at the level of ontology, letting freedom and causality coexist.
He repeatedly compared anomalous monism to Spinoza's doctrine of attributes: one event, two mutually irreducible descriptions.
'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' opposed the Wittgensteinian consensus and reasserted that reasons are causes, that Humean causal explanation applies to action.
He read Davidson's philosophy of language as the latest form of pragmatism: without the 'scheme–content' distinction there is no relation of representation between language and world.