North American Philosophical Publications

Basic Actions Author(s): Arthur C. Danto Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 141-148 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009161 . Accessed: 10/02/2011 07:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

American Volume

Philosophical 2, Number 2, April

Quarterly 1965

V.

BASIC ACTIONS
ARTHUR C. DANTO
an iS-event, the in this case its cause.

to know?" said Verity, should we want "Well, why a yawn or causing to give one. herself giving and Their Ways Two Worlds I. Compton-Burnett, I

simply

designate is one

Comparably,
example

the movement
event, effect

of S
of

in my
another

other
event,

causes the stone S to move." "THHE man M of a very A This is a very general description familiar sort of episode. It is so general, indeed, or not M has per? that it does not tell us whether formed an action. The description holds in either case; so it could have been an action. Without are to inquire what features further pausing to have been an action, required for it definitely
let under us note merely the general whether performing that there are actions of "causing has be that fall some? description

to be designated similarly and no less ambiguously an M-event, which is its cause. And this M-event, or not it is an action performed by M, whether is to be described as rather generally) (if correctly
causing ofS. something to happen?namely, the movement

thing to happen."
it unclear performed,

Yet,
or

since this description

not an an action action cannot

leaves
been one

of the truth conditions for "causing something to cuts across since this description happen." And
those the two same cases, sense we of may the assume we are employing something expression same the sense stone "causes

to happen"
"causes" that in the man

in both.
just M the causes

Presumably,
S

we
whether

are using
we say or we

I shall now suppose that my original sentence an action performed in fact describes by M the stone S). Of this particular (moving spatial translation of S we may say three distinct and relevant things : that it is (a) an action, performed that was caused to by M ; that it is (b) something this case by M) ; and that it is (c) the (in happen effect of an event distinct from itself (in this case the M-event). That this event can be both (a) and follows from the remarks in the first paragraph. (b) in the special information That?disregarding must hold if (b) does?follows from parentheses?(c) the analysis of causality referred to in the second paragraph. That it is (b) follows, I suppose, from the fact that S is a stone : stones don't just start to
move without something causing them to move.

to move

say that the stone S causes

If it is clear from the latter

the pebble P to move.

sentence that an action

We
all

must

now

look into the M-event

apply to it ? This,

itself. Do
I fear,

three

characterizations

has not been performed,

certain facts about

this clarity will

stones rather than

be due
to

to

any

difference
monly ness of

in the concept
that stones

of causality.
never perform is not

It is com?
actions, to

Let us without investigation. that the M-event is both (a) suppose, however, and (b), for itmight well be. Then itmust also be cannot be decided
(c), and there must then be yet another event,

assumed

although men
our

sometimes
original

do. Hence

the indefinite
due any

distinct
yet the same

from

it, which
M-event,

is its cause. This may

and about be rash it we may to claim

be
raise that

sentence

a further

ambiguity
to certain

in the concept
facts about men, men

of causality,
or to certain

but rather
assumed

question.

It would

facts. The
differences differences

concept
between between

of causality
and performing

allows

us to ignore

as well as stones, an action not. and

I shall persist in speaking of individuals (the man even the stone S) causing things to happen, M, our concept of causality has been classically though
analyzed as a relationship between pairs of events.

we have slid into an infinite regress, damaging or otherwise. But if a given M-event is both (a) and its being (c) (b) and, hence, (c), then ultimately must lead us to a further M-event, which is (a) are (a) and not (b). And unless some M-events are ever (a). That and not (b), noM-events is, if
there are any actions at all, there must be two

to the classical analysis, the movement According of the pebble P is one event, the effect of another I shall, with studied ambiguity, event, which

distinct kinds of actions: those individual M, which he may be to happen; and those actions, M, which he cannot be said
I4I

by an performed said to have caused also performed by to have caused to

142

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

happen. The latter I shall designate as basic actions. In this paper, I shall defend (and explore the I regard as consequences of) four theses which to the theory of action : fundamental
(i) (2) (3) (4) If there are are any actions actions. at all, there are basic actions. There Not basic action is a basic action.1 every a is If a is an action then either performed by M, a basic or else it is the effect action of a of M, chain of causes action is a basic the originating of M. member of which

they nor
anything to

I would
happen

want
in this

to say that
new sense

stones cause
of "cause."

Not
actions

that I wish
to men

to restrict
alone. Other

the performance
individuals

of basic
may, for

I wish first to make quite clear the sense in an individual which does not cause his basic an individual M per? actions to happen. When
forms from a a basic that action both stands a, there to a as is no cause event to distinct effect and

all I know, perform them as well. Some theologians have spoken as though everything done by God were a basic action. This would us, of prohibit to course, from saying that God caused anything of the Universe would be a (the making happen soon for reasons which will basic action.) And, emerge, this would make the ways of God inscrut? able indeed. It may be objected, second, that if we take the mark of absence of a cause to be the distinguishing
a basic action, then we must class as basic actions

a great many
on the ticle, other uniform or

events

that we
accept motion instance

should be disinclined,
as actions of of an at all, e.g., par? decay. isolated

is an action performed a basic action, he does to happen. It will be to possible objections It may be objected,
be other senses of

by M.

So when M performs nothing first that causes it to consider two convenient this. first, that there are or may
than the sense men?

to grounds, rectilinear any

perhaps

radioactive

"causes"

is readily deflected. I have not This objection claimed that basic actions are not caused, but only one does not cause it by that a man performing some other action that stands to it as performing
cause to effect. Moreover, the absence of a cause

tioned above, in accordance with which it would be proper to say that M causes his basic actions
to happen. Thus, ?/raising an arm were an instance

would
action,

not
even

be
if

sufficient
basic actions

criterion
were

for a basic
uncaused. It

of a basic action, an individual who does this might still be said to cause it to happen in some sense of "cause" other than the sense that I reject in to basic actions. I accept this objection: application
there we that may should I am be still urging unless happen such other senses exactly the of the class "cause." same of But distinction and I (i) require within

would
actions

serve only
from an the action as actions.

to mark
rest. can be to Of

off a special

class of

already so much not criteria for

what is course, only a basic action. And I have say what are the general

tried

actions, an there

II

should
thesis causes

therefore
that to

be defending
there in this were new

the verbally distinct

actions sense, were to move individual would be

I have avoided
basic might actions, use, or e.g., in

citing unconditional
part "moving because a any limb," was

instances
expression also could

of
I be

no actions
sense, former example, since either.

he

caused
So, unless a

to happen
there stone that

in the original
actions would, performed of the for

used
happen,

to designate
something and in

something
that

that was
not

caused
an action,

to that
un?

sort, causing never be an

much
is

less a basic one. I think there is nothing

each of its instances an

action

anyone

always

(although

men

might
an

still cause
action is not a

stones And

to move, (ii) this

or not

performing sense of

truth-condition

mistakably language
"M's limb

basic This is reflected action. by in the fact that from the bare description
moved," for example, one could not

for "causing
new

something
"cause"

to happen").
not apply

would

whether

an action
be to absolutely

had been performed.

clear from this the special that

It should,
"M of sense

indeed,
caused a

sentence

a basic action or tell whether M had performed even an action. Nor could one tell this by observing in of the limb without bringing only the motion
differentiating contextual features. I have accord?

happen"?using convenient to

"cause"?

that M
it

had performed is invariant

an action.

Those
the

who
concept

find
of

ingly contented
"M-event," I required

myself

with
it to be

the neutral
a basic

expression
action when

maintain

causality

to the distinction

between

declaring an instance.

an action as little and have Now I wish to specify some of the differentiating not, would performing use as I do. Neither sense for this new of "cause" four contextual and I shall consider features, 1Thesis in detail inmy paper, "What We Can Do," The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 60 (July, 1963), pp. 435-445. (3) is explored

BASIC

ACTIONS

143

cases, all of which might C-j. M suffers a nervous disorder symptomized by indifferently be so that the say, to a tic: spasmodic laughter. This is comparable, by the same description, an M laughs unpredictably, and for "no reason." Such alone leaves it unclear whether description or not. Of the four so are some is mirthless, of course, but action has been performed laughter instances falling under the two first cases. It may cases, three (C-i, C-2, C-4) will indeed be actions, case and that the entire falls under be argued and of these one (C-4) will be a basic action. The C-2, it as the symptom of a nervous that in identifying four cases together might be termed a declension of I have marked off a class of causes for admits the description. Not every such description disorder, con? the case of the full declension, for some appear never to be M's Still, laughter. requires special a as basic actions at all. "Moving in that M's sideration, laughing here is never an exemplified his laughter C-2 sometimes is. is action, whereas under stone," I should think, never, or not ordinarily, C-4. M has the true power of laughing. By this I exemplified as a basic action, though we have seen that itmay be exemplified by an action. I want to mean that M laughs when he wants to without (in contrast with C-j) having to cause himself to controversial begin with a deliberately example contrast with C-2) someone or without and shall decline the expression "M laughs." laugh; (in C-i. M causes himself to laugh. I am thinking here something having to cause him to laugh; without, as in C-3, suffering from the relevant someone to make of cases where does something finally, nervous disorder. This does not mean that M is himself laugh, and does not simply laugh because to do. Thus I may do is of a of something he happens but only that his abnormality normal, ridiculous and laugh because I find it benign sort; i.e., it is by way of a gift. His laughing something an I did not do this ridiculous thing in order when he may, have he wishes, so, but may object: a stream or what at whom to make myself laugh. Again, I sniff a cartridge of of laughter he direct it to be nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide, not knowing the chosen object ever being a chooses, without but just to find out what it is. But, since it is cause of his laughing. are Instances nitrous oxide, I laugh, though I did not sniff to under rare, C-4 falling perhaps I wish to include only cases but these alone would make myself laugh. qualify as basic actions I do something where ridiculous or sniff from a performed by M when "M laughs" is true. I have of nitrous oxide in order to laugh, identified the case not so much by specifying what private cartridge contextual features must be present, perhaps because I think laughter good for the liver differentiating or because I just enjoy laughing and cannot always but by specifying what differentiating contextual or wait to come for someone features must be absent. Notice and that M's something laughing along cause me to laugh. I definitely want to exclude a here differs markedly from the ability most of us distinct covered
comedian who laughs at some reruns of his antic have of of making or we

films
who excite falling

(unless he had them rerun for this special purpose), and definitely want to include someone
deliberately spasmodic under C-i engages laughter. are rare in auto-titillation to episodes in our Doubtless, in normal adults

politeness, a joke when role in an

laugh-like to save don't

amateur

noises, e.g., our reputation see it, or to play theatrical. Most

for for

the

sake

seeing a mocker's of us can

pretend
not of I want

so to laugh : but I speak here of laughing,

"laughing." now to comment on these four cases.

irrelevant is culture, but this is irrelevant. Also the fact that people don't laugh at the nitrous oxide they sniff, though they do laugh at the silly faces they pull, for their own delectation, inmirrors.
C-2. Someone or something other than M causes M to

is the typical case for adults and laugh. This children in our culture. It is for my purposes again a stone sense same to irrelevant whether the cause of M's his the in which is causing laughter also its object, or whether it has an object at all (as move is an action. Causing himself to laugh is the it does not if he is tickled or submitted to nitrous action he performed, though of course the des? it is irrelevant whether, to laugh" leaves it in case "M caused himself oxide). Similarly, cription someone causes M to laugh, as case he the former has in the of the whether stone, unclear, an action or not, an action at all. One could mark that that whether, is, he performed performed did what he did in order to make M laugh. For it difference only by bringing in the general differ? is what M does that uniquely concerns us here. of action. features entiating

laughs under C-i, we may say of his three distinct laughing things: that it is (a) an that M action of M's; that it is (b) something causes to happen; and that it is (c) the effect of some event, distinct from itself (anM-event) which is its cause. M's laughing here is an action in just When M

144

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

In C-2, M does not cause himself to laugh, and one may find reasons for balking at the claim that his laughing, in such a case, is an action of his at
all. a For stone S consider to move, this we argument. may agree When that M the causes action

when
insofar

itwould
as

not otherwise
is an action

have been
already

so. It is only
that blaming

something

is M's. But we of ?'s. So parity M to laughter, by the former, What I must operative, and
C-2 are actions

reject the claim that it is an action suggests that when someone moves this may be an action performed but not an action of M's. do is to show that parity is in? so justify my claim that instances of
in contrast with instances of C-j.

I shall somewhat Well, suggest that artificially M's action here requires this description: what he is not, does is to not not laugh. The double negative in the language of action, a triviality. Logically, is of a proposition of course, the double negative and from a strictly logical that proposition, just point of view, we could say the same thing, albeit causes the more awkwardly, with "The man M
stone S to not not move" as we straightforwardly

someone for doing it, is appropriate. it, or blaming With regard to C-j, however, the laugher stands liable to no special charge of negligence: his fails to be a case of not not laughing, for laughing identification of it as a nervous disorder, or in the syndrome of one, locates it beyond the control of the man who It is, indeed, almost a is so afflicted. case of this : like a hiccough. One might paradigm blame the man for being in a place where his as a negligence, might symptom, easily mistakable break out unpredictably. Or we might blame him for a kind of negligence in "not doing some? again
thing about it," viz., going to a nerve specialist,

assuming plain enough

critical issue, of a

there is a known why

of course,

C-3

cure. At all events, it is differs from C-2. The

of control, and

is the matter

this brings
by way

us to C-4. And
comment on

the rest of this paper

C-4.

is

Most readers, I think, will resist the suggestion that C-4 is a case of action. There is good reason say with "The man M caused the stone S tomove." for this. For most of us, laughing as a basic action is I wish, in fact, to retain that regular inferential allows us to I shall hope to show why this is so, which feature of double negation unintelligible. and showing it will from not not A to A, but for the case of involve a demonstration of proceed thesis (2). Meanwhile, action I wish to exclude the reverse inference. For the reader might ponder the case of negligence, the precise analogue to this in the case of moving an my double negative marks to a negligence is to be ascribed and whether arm, which admits of a full declension. Thus C-i: M causes his arm to move, someone for is a case i.e., by striking it with investigation. independent
So, pending such investigation, we cannot say, on his than other M arm; causes C-2: M's someone arm from or something e.g., by other striking so his as

the basis of knowing

to be we not

that a man

laughs,

that he is

for this reason And with negligence. charged to "not cannot go from "laughs" automatically we ascribe don't since Indeed, laughs."

it; C-j: M arm moves

suffers

to move, a nervous and

disorder, unpredictably,

spasmodically from a nervous

a kind of tic; and C-4: M moves

suffering one or having something to do anything

his arm without

some? without Here,

negligence
my to convention, stone "the Do restated we

to stones,
to not want Someone

it would
from

be
"the

invalid,
stone

given

proceed not moves." to

moves"

without disorder, it to move, causing to cause it to move.

quite thus:

that C-2 then, say, or something other

is to be than M

I am
arm

certain,
is one of

C-4
the

is the

typical case. Moving

basic actions. If we

an
now

standard

causes M in to not not laugh? Perhaps we would, of flaunting usage. What we would be saying, spite is only this : that M was excited to laugh however, and did nothing to inhibit his laughter. And it is
our common assumption that men are normally

to determine in what way this behavior we should have no great difficulty intelligible, seeing why laughing under C-4 is not. seek

is in

in effect, stops capable of doing something which, the flow of laughter from issuing forth in, say, men are called upon to public guffaws. Whether from varies exercise these inhibitory practices hall there is to context: context in the music license to suspend them, to "let oneself go," but at there is not. It is in such contexts only High Mass but blam? that laughter is pronounced a negligence,
ing, surely, does not make of something an action

Ill
Suppose now that moving a stone is an action

to suppose that It is difficult by M. performed a stone admits of a full declension, moving largely because it seems to lack cases for C-3 and C-4. In instances for fact there are difficulties in finding
C-i and C-2 unless we change the sense of possess?

to (M's arm, M's stone) from philosophical I shall be But for the moment legal ownership. ion

BASIC

ACTIONS

*45

stones only with the fact that we move only by causing them to move. This then means concerned
that, in order else to must cause be the motion or of must the stone, something done, happen,

I must make a few preliminary remarks. First, every normal person has just the same repertoire R of basic actions, and having R is what defines a
normal person for the theory of action. Second,

which
stone, Now

is an event distinct
and this which other stands event may

from
to or may the

the motion
cause not be to

of the
effect. a basic

persons
repertoire

may
of

be
basic

positively
actions

abnormal when
includes actions

their
not

it as

action

of M's.
true

But

if it is not,

and
stone

if it remains
is an action

nevertheless

that moving

included in R, and may be negatively abnormal when in R are not included actions included in their Some persons may be both positively repertoire.
and negatively arm. If of no abnormal, e.g., someone who

of his, then there must be something else that M to happen which in does, which causes something turn causes the motion of the stone. And thismay be a basic action or it may not. But now this goes
on forever is performed a case of This means, unless, by M. the agent each at For some point, a every basic action to he action were suppose

laughs as a basic
one capable stone. than basic

action

but who

is paralyzed

in
is

someone's

is empty, he repertoire and hence of no actions. actions,

Such a deprived
our Plainly, our repertoire

entity

is a pure patient, e.g.,

of actions actions, actions though

like a
a

causing time he

something does a,

happen. must in?

repertoire of basic

is greater

being who
of whose

performed
actions were

every possible
basic

action
may with and basic

and all
be con?

do b, which causes a to happen. But dependently then, in order to do b, he must first independently . . .This do c, which causes b to happen. quickly
entails all. If, that the agent could there are perform any no actions action at all at of accordingly,

ceived
the

of: such a being would

however, between I want I am pure now to

be a pure agent. For

beings pure actions patients that say

present, intermediate and

concerned

agents,

the sort described by "causing there must be actions happen," caused to happen by the man who
And these are basic actions.

to something are not which performs them. general.

actions.

But
are any

this argument
actions at all,

is perfectly
there are basic

If there
This is

a proof of thesis (i). Moreover, ifM performs action describable something by "causing
happen," perform an he must action as of what also, part not cause that he does he to happen.

an to

are given to such beings in two distinct senses, each to a sense that of which bears a definite analogy the term has in the theory of knowledge.2 to say that p is (i) In the theory of knowledge, is in part to point a contrast: one is saying given that p is not inferred from some other proposition. when I speak of an action as given, Analogously, to say, in effect, that it is a basic I shall mean
action, and point a contrast with actions we cause

does,

And this is a proof of thesis (4). It would be a proof of thesis (2) if in fact there were actions described as "causing to happen." This would something
then such so not require an action every us to would action accept not is basic. thesis be a (3) basic as true: for and action,

to happen. The notion of givenness is understood this way: p is a starting point for an inference to another and (commonly) different proposition q for which p provides at least part of the evidence.
Analogously, an action a, if a basic action, is a

for the performance of another starting point it is at least part of the cause. action b, of which
"Is caused by" and "is inferred from" are analog?

I do not wish to suggest, however, that the only proof we are entitled to, for the existence of
basic actions, is by that way there of a transcendental de?

ous relations
action,

in the theories been

sentences that

of knowledge that

and of

respectively.

duction,
intuitive

for I believe we all know,

way, are basic

in a direct
actions,

and
and is

(ii)
between not

It has
basic ultimate,

argued
and a

the distinction
of which, other in kinds one

sentences sentence

which know
action.

actions are basic ones. To show that we do this will clarify one of the ways in which is a controversial instance of a basic laughing

context, is indeed a starting point for an inference to another, may, in a different context, itself be
inferred to, and hence an end point in an in

between runs very deep and theory of action almost analogy indeed, theory of knowledge models for some calculus. Obviously, there are things we can say about actions that do not morphic but this means two models M-? and M-J for a calculus G, and suppose very little. Suppose we have same role in M-i an argument that "book" plays in M-^. It is hardly their both being models against stars or that books are not centers of solar systems. I shall use theory-of-knowledge features as a guide of action. When the analogy to see why it will be interesting it does. gives way,

2 The

as though iso they were hold for cognitions, etc., that "star" plays in the for G that we don't print for structuring the theory

146 ference.3 context, an point

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

Analogously, be a starting

action and

a may, while basic,

in

one

with
in the

the negatively
theory of action.

abnormal

person

as defined

it may

in a different one. There is be caused to happen some justice in this latter claim : as we have seen, one cannot tell from the bare description "moving
an even arm" an whether action. a But, basic action is referred now of to, or thinking sentences,

Now
whether two

when
a or

a blind man
uses object of "can"

says that he can know

is red that or not, are there compatible are

certain

senses

with
he can

his abnormality.
infer to "x

He must
from

mean
other

either
sentences

that
or

is red"

perhaps some restriction can be put on the kind of can be given in sense (i). If p is sentence which given in one context and inferred in another, there
might nevertheless be sentences which are never

basic and always are inferred. And a corresponding restriction might hold in the theory of action : even if any action that is ever basic might, under a to be caused general description, sufficiently happen in another context, there might be actions In the that never are basic under any description. one such restriction is often of knowledge, theory
defended, namely that basic sentences are those

that his case is not medically that by hopeless, means of a cure he may be restored to that state of normality in which such sentences may be known by him directly and not, as it were, merely by means of inference. Yet there is a true and in fact an analytic sense in which a blind man cannot
know certain what senses whether accounts such are on certain is red, nor, object so much as know of meaning, a means sentence (the non-analytic The of a para? situation usually false). a

lyzedman
says that he

is perfectly
can move

analogous. When
his arm, he must

he sincerely
mean either

and only those which by sense experience,

sentence ever can be

can be conclusively and that no other

given. But within

verified kind of
the class

or that his situation that he can cause it to move, is not medically hopeless. But, in again a true and
an does analytical not know, sense, does he not cannot move as his arm and so much understand,

of potentially given sentences, a division might be lines of sense-modality, made along the customary i.e., those verified by seeing, or by audition, or by then define an epistemically touch, etc. We might
normal person as one who experiences in all modes.

to move what it means his arm in the way in which a normal person understands this. For this is the kind of understanding that is alone given to
those who have the power be to move their arms in

then be A negatively abnormal person would in at least one such mode, deficient e.g., is blind; and a positively abnormal person then experiences
in has action duce our some some mode "sixth is obvious. second are outside sense." But the The normal analogy means of e.g., repertoire, to the of theory it we

the normal,
cannot

basic way. This

as

kind of understanding
to a negatively

so much

conveyed

abnormal person while he is so. Some of the chief difficulties philosophers

encountered in the theory of action are

have
due to

experience

by sense of given in "given" has as he various has

intro? may : the normal of modes sense that they

the

constitute
normal for points they that

the standard

cognitive
classes various are given part sentences

equipment.
of starting of classes in the acquired. in abnormal

The
points

person inferences for are

their having approached it from the point of view of the negatively abnormal. From that point of There view, basic action is hopelessly mysterious. is, however, perhaps no better way of eliciting the of these things than to quality of our knowledge
think of surrounding endeavoring these to actions remove in the the mysteriousness com? thwarted

actions. not for

These the most

starting sense that Thus we

not mean speak of the "gift of sight," etc. This does

there need to which be a any the super? person structure negatively

of the negatively abnormal person. We prehension some sympathy achieve for his plight by may
ourselves someone imagining similarly confronting can who as is positively who abnormal, perform, we at best can cause basic what to action, happen, a

not infer: he is deficient only at the base: might and then not totally deficient (or if he is, then he is cognitively cannot have any empirical knowledge, toutes proportions gard?es, And similarly, impotent).

and then asking him to give us an understanding of his gift. The fact is that we cannot explain to nor can the the negatively abnormal, positively

3 can be given which it were held that only sentences some awkwardness. have the form not always without Suppose Though x . . ." Such a sentence see a reddish is not easily rendered as the of first-person e.g., "I now reports of sense-experience, x had an unmistakable I suppose, if I both knew that something it can be so rendered, of an inference, conclusion though I might feel secure in inferring taste and that whatever has this taste is red. Then, by tasting x and seeing only its silhouette, senses of "see" which would crucial rule this out, and make that I was seeing a reddish x. Of course there are philosophically to say both "I see a reddish *" and "I see the black silhouette of #." it, indeed, self-contradictory

BASIC

ACTIONS

I47

person explain to us, the way in which action is performed (and this must be in the same way as the impossibility appreciated to a blind man what of explaining red literally looks like, or, if you wish, of our understanding what ultra-violet literally looks like). Suppose? abnormal the basic
just to to take one case?a paralytic not asks us what we

arm ifmoving his arm is not already in his reper? toire of basic actions. So in a sense he is right. If he could make the required effort, he could move
his arm. But he cannot make that effort, cannot

try, for he cannot

move his arm. the Consider

in the only

appropriate
with

sense
someone

analogous

situation

do first when we raise an arm. We

say we cannot answer,

should be obliged
because we do not

know or understand what we do, but because we that there is nothing we do know and understand
first. There is no series of steps move we must run

abnormal, say a deaf man. To ask a epistemically deaf man to try to hear a certain sound is rendered inappropriate by the fact that he is deaf. To try
to hear, say, faint and distant music is to make an

through,
recipe, we

and

since the request

say how we

is implicitly
our

for a
A

cannot

arm.

basic action is perfectly simple in the same sense in which the old "simple ideas" were said to be: out of anything more they were not compounded
elementary than themselves, but were instead the

ultimately
were In do not,

simple elements
then, we we move

out of which
and do, an arm. in

other
another the

ideas
we sense

compounded. one sense, know how

effortful listening. Only those who can already hear can make count as this effort. And what would in the deaf man's case ?He could trying (listening) cup his ear, could place his ear to the ground, could contort his face and close his eyes. All this, is the pantomime of listening. Had he however, or wagged a finger, it would have been as grinned helpful. For there is no one thing that is better than any other in his situation. It is exactly this way with trying to move an arm. It is appropriate
only to ask someone to try to move his arm when

But

in which
that sense

we

do not know
requires

is inappropriate.
an account, and

It is
our

something
e.g., the

externally
arms are

inhibits
and

normal
cannot

movement,
be moved

which

pinioned,

incapacity for giving any such account is what has and induced among puzzlement, philosophers
others, concerning the moving of an arm (and

freely
move

and without
his arm at these

effort. But
all. cases :

the paralytic

cannot

Consider

But this puzzlement other basic acts generally). that we should be dissipated upon the recognition in the inflected have made a grammatical mistake
language as arm" the normal mitted of action. a case We case for have of C-i, normal But look taken when always standard arms "moving in fact C-4 once an is

(a) I am a normal person who has swallowed takes away the power drug which gradually
move effect, minute an arm, negatively intervals. me, rendering abnormal. It gets harder so long I make and as tests harder at five

a to

it is in full

to move

persons

normally. we this mistake,

having for a cause

moving com? is not

my arm. And then I reach a point where I cannot move my arm and cannot try to. I have lost the
power of trying, together with the power for doing.

that

there. And failing to find what we ought never to to find, we complain have expected that we do
not we know know. how It we do move that our we arms. cannot But of course the explain its doing. there is no action, distinct For to be put action into the explanans. itself, is only

to thinks it would be spectacular (b) Someone be able to extend and retract his fingernails, the way a cat does with its claws. We tell him it cannot
be done, and he retorts that no one has ever tried,

manner from the

of

and he means to try. But in what should his trying consist? He could shake his fingers hard, could
order them to extend, there could pray, or could draw

This
basic

is due
actions.

to what
Reference

I am terming
to basic

the givenness of
actions belongs

his

soul up
way, I don't

into a vast
for mean

in the explanantia
done. So the paralytic,

for explaining
as long

how

things are
one,

single wish.

There

is no

rational person.

as he

remains

at all for a normal is no way that no one be is or ever will

cannot understand: dofirst.

Just

raising the arm is what we IV

A paralytic might think there is some effort he is not putting forth, by which, if he did or could put
it forth, he might as a consequence move his arm.

to move his nails and to try to move them with tight gloves on). If a man were prepared (e.g., to suffer some sort of surgery, he might be able to cause his nails to go in and out, but we had not understood that he meant this by "trying." It is after all not the way cats do it. It is more the able
way we move a loose tooth.

But

I want

to say that he cannot

try to move

his

(c) I am a normal

person,

challenged

to move

148

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY so no action as a

a normal
stone is not

stone.

I take the challenge

it has

to imply
some incredible

the

cause

(and

"inner"

cause)

entails,

normal?perhaps

into density, or is fixed to a shaft driven deeply the earth. But I decide to try, and the stone moves a normal stone all along. quite easily, having been that the challenge was not normal. So I conclude the stone It turns out I was being asked to move
"the way cause I move my stone arm." But this is not some?

no refutation I believe, of dualism. For all the distinctions I am thinking of are reproduced within the mental and cut across the world, distinction between If, for in? body and mind. take the description "M images /" stance, we as where / is a mental then it is unclear, image,
it was arm," or, in the case M of has then "laughing" performed a basic an action or "moves or not. an not, The whether if an action, action or

thing I even can try to do. I can, with

ease, a basic the to move. So I can

ridiculous
try to cause

it to move

as well.

But

I cannot
be a

try to move
proper

it as

whole

action?that

would

encounter

with nothingness. One can do with effort effortlessly; and "trying," something apart from the as cause to effect. It is the

an cause to appear in M's only what one can do may mind; image C-j: the effort of will, is not M is haunted by an image which spon? appears action that stands to it and unpredictably?a symp? taneously, recurrently, action already and C-4: M tom, of perhaps a psychic disorder; required circumstances. untoward in being simply produces an image, as I and all those with performed are the to do, able i.e., requisite Doing something with effort is not doing two things, alpha rhythms as a basic more than doing something gracefully is doing action.5 any an arm is not then the result I shall not press for a full parity, though I am two things. Moving of an act of will : it is an act of will. But to speak prepared to defend the view that there is a problem of Other Bodies precisely analogous to the problem of an act of will when the going is smooth is to of Other Minds. All I wish to emphasize is that, behave a little like the dypsomaniac who wants to the know what sorts of pink rats ordinary people see.4 whatever there may be between disparities if per? It should be plain now why of mind and the concept of body, men concept laughing, as a basic It is is controversial. inmuch the same way formed may be said to act mentally action, that they may be said to act physically. because whoever could so laugh would be positively Among to have meant when he cannot what he does. the things I take Descartes and we understand abnormal, said that we are not in our bodies the way a pilot In relation to him, we are in just the same position as the paralytic lack a kind is in a ship, is that we do not always do things, as in relation to us. We of gift. pilots must with ships, by causing them to happen.

declension works for, C-i: M may cause an image to appear in his mind, perhaps by taking a drug; C-2: Someone or something other than M

V It is easy enough to sympathize with those who feel an action is not intelligible unless we can find a causal picture for it. But this is only because they to consist in having a have taken intelligibility causal picture. Dominated by this requirement, some such picture, tend to invent they may their inner selves with entities whose populating job it is to serve the automotive functions demanded But I am of intelligibility. by the causal model we do not strain, and that we use the asking that it is natural to use it. causal model only where
That there are actions, like moving an arm,

We order,

do

not

turn,

as some

it were, elaborate

an

inner

wheel

in of and,

through an external to cause impulse, so to get our boat by doing,

transmission rudder to act shift

turn.

We

directly.

But
is in

then neither
a ship. Or

am I in my mind the way

rather, I sometimes cause

a pilot
things

to happen with my body I sometimes just act with

perform ourselves basic actions. It

and and with my mind, them directly, as when I

is best, however, to avoid

similes. Any

philosophical
only

problems
in

we

have with
with

would

reappear

connection

which

do not

really

require

any

other

action

as

anything sufficiently similar to us to be a suitable analogue. But if we find ourselves unintelligible, is similar to us to be helpful nothing sufficiently to be more clear. likely

Columbia University
4 It is not often difficult speak of trying consists in succeeding and trying then could 5 But I am not sure to see why that there are two distinct it should be thought things in the case of trying. It is because we and failing. if is another. And So, if we can try and also succeed, trying is one thing and succeeding be something one's arm, in not-ra,ising since failing consists raising an arm, trying here must different, it. But this is not the important consist sense of the word in raising for the theory of action. hardly we are positively or those who have no images are whether abnormal. abnormal, negatively