How Many Ways are there Not to Act?
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-1-19-37
Abstract
Introduction. The article offers a formal analysis of negative action sentences. The goal of the article is to define the notion of non-action, propose a classification of types of nonaction, and to describe the situations of agentive non-doing.
Methodology and sources. We propose to interpret the passage from von Wright, which deals with possible interpretations of negative action sentences, as the description of types of non-action. With the help of formal tools of the logic of action, we show the difference between the supposed types of non-action as the difference between the sentences of the subject language, interpreted in different models, each of which sets specific conditions for the choice open to an agent. We offer definitions for the detected types of non-action and illustrate the differences between them with several examples.
Results and discussion. We trace the embodiment of von Wright’s original ideas in modern logic of actions and then conclude the existence of a simplified interpretation of refraining in this tradition, which entailed many paradoxes when an agent refrains from everything that she does not do. We show how our analysis expands the scope of possible reactions of an agent, so that the paradox of refraining, noted by the formal and informal schools of research of this phenomenon, becomes vanishes.
Conclusion. We propose to consider the list of types of non-action, the definitions of which we obtained as a result of a formal analysis of refraining, to be an exhaustive list of alternatives available to the agent in connection with any possible state of affairs in theory.
Supporting agencies: The author thanks Vladimir I. Markin for his help in finding the materials of the IV Russian-Finnish Colloquium on Logic in 1985.
About the Author
G. V. Karpov
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gleb V. Karpov – Can. Sci. (Philosophy) (2010), Senior Lecturer at the Department of Logic
5 Mendeleevskaya line, St Petersburg 199034
References
1. Von Wright, G.H. (1986), “On the logic of norms and actions”, Philosophical papers, Transl. by Muravitskii, A.Yu., Progress, Moscow, RUS, pp. 245–289.
2. Belnap, N. (1975), “Before Refraining Concepts for Agency“, Erkenntnis, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 137–169.
3. Xu, M. (1994), “Doing and Refraining from Refraining”, J. of Philosophical Logic, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 621–632.
4. Xu, M. (1995), “Busy Choice Sequences Refraining Formulas and Modalities”, Studia Logica: An International J. for Symbolic Logic, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 267–301.
5. Horty, J. and Belnap, N. (1995), “The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability, and Obligation”, J. of Philosophical Logic, vol. 24, pp. 583–644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01306968.
6. Belnap, N. (1991), “Backwards and Forwards in the Modal Logic of Agency”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 51, no. 4. pp. 777–807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2108182.
7. Belnap, N. and Perloff, M. (1988), “Seeing to it that: a canonical form for agentives”, Theoria, vol. 54, iss. 3, pp. 175–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1988.tb00717.x.
8. van Benthem, J. and Pacuit, E. (2014), “Connecting Logics of Choice and Change”, Nuel Belnap on Indeterminism and Free Action, in Müller, T. (ed.), Springer, Cham, CHE, pp. 291–314.
9. Walton, D.N. (1980), “Omitting, Refraining and Letting Happen”, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 319–326.
10. Blinov, A.L. and Petrov, V.V. (1985), “On the «paradoxes of inaction» in the logic of actions, Intensional'nye logiki i logicheskaya struktura teorii Intentional logics and logical structure of theories], Metsniereba, Tbilisi, USSR. pp. 19–20.
11. Brand, M. (1971), “The Language of Not Doing”, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 45–53.
12. Clarke, R. (2012), “What is an omission?”, Philosophical Iss., vol. 22, iss. 1, pp. 127–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2012.00221.x.
13. Austin, J. “«If» and «can»”, (2006), Tri sposoba prolit’ chernila Three Ways of Spilling Ink], Transl. by Kiryushchenko, V., Aleteya, St. Petersburg Univ. Publishing House, SPb., RUS, pp. 232–261.
Review
For citations:
Karpov G.V. How Many Ways are there Not to Act? Discourse. 2022;8(1):19–37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-1-19-37
Views:
267
Email this article 