Skip to main content

Comment: Understanding reasons without reenactment: Comment on Stueber

Journal Article


Abstract


  • This comment on Stueber’s article clarifies the nature of the core disagreement between his approach to understanding reasons and mine. The purely philosophical nature of the dispute is highlighted. It is argued that understanding someone’s narrative often suffices for understanding the person’s reasons in ordinary cases. It is observed that Stueber has yet to provide a compelling counter case. There is also a brief clarification of some of the empirical commitments of the narrative practice hypothesis.

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Hutto, D. (2012). Comment: Understanding reasons without reenactment: Comment on Stueber. Emotion Review, 4 (1), 66-67.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84856487171

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/695

Number Of Pages


  • 1

Start Page


  • 66

End Page


  • 67

Volume


  • 4

Issue


  • 1

Place Of Publication


  • http://emr.sagepub.com/content/4/1/66

Abstract


  • This comment on Stueber’s article clarifies the nature of the core disagreement between his approach to understanding reasons and mine. The purely philosophical nature of the dispute is highlighted. It is argued that understanding someone’s narrative often suffices for understanding the person’s reasons in ordinary cases. It is observed that Stueber has yet to provide a compelling counter case. There is also a brief clarification of some of the empirical commitments of the narrative practice hypothesis.

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Hutto, D. (2012). Comment: Understanding reasons without reenactment: Comment on Stueber. Emotion Review, 4 (1), 66-67.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84856487171

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/695

Number Of Pages


  • 1

Start Page


  • 66

End Page


  • 67

Volume


  • 4

Issue


  • 1

Place Of Publication


  • http://emr.sagepub.com/content/4/1/66