What do you think?
Rate this book
A theory of human action
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
- GenresPhilosophyMetaphysics
230 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1971
4 people are currently reading
43 people want to read
About the author
Alvin I. Goldman
21 books21 followersAlvin Ira Goldman was an American philosopher who was emeritus Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a leading figure in epistemology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 1, 2013
Over the years, I have found this rather technical book to be very useful. It gives an account of the complexity of human actions. It starts with the following connundrum. “Suppose that John does each of the following things (all at the same time): (1) he moves his hand, (2) he frightens away a fly, (3) he moves his queen to king-knight-seven, (4) he checkmates his opponent, (5) he gives his opponent a heart attack, and (6) he wins his first chess game ever. Has John here perfromed six acts? Or has he only performed one act, of which six different descriptions have been given?” p1.
The second answer to this question – what Goldman calls “the identity thesis” was provided by Anscombe, Davidson and others. Against this, Goldman argues that if each of these actions – moving the hand, frightening away the fly, winning the game etc – was identical to the others, then they would all share the same properties; but in fact, they are all quite different, one from the other. Goldman therefore argues, in contrast, that each of these is a separate action even though each is related to the other. P2
Relationships between actions of this kind are often described in ordinary English by the word “by”. “We say, of a person that he performs one act ‘by’ performing another. We say, for example, that John turns on the light ‘by’ flipping the switch, or that he checkmates his opponent ‘by’ moving his queen to king-knight-seven. As used in these contexts, the term ‘by’ expresses a relationship that holds between acts, between John’s act of flipping the switch and his act of turning on the light, and between John’s act of moving his queen to king-knight –seven and his act of checkmating his opponent.”p5
Another way of expressing the relationship is to say that one action “generates” another at a different “level”. “In general, level generation will obtain when the ‘by’ locution is appropriate, but the notion of level generation will not be completely tied to this locution. - - - Level generation is intended to be an assymetric, irreflexive and transitive relation”. We may therefore say, for example, that John’s moving his hand generates the act of John’s moving his queen to king-knight-seven. Also, that John’s moving his queen to king-knight seven generates his act of checkmating his opponent. Further, that his act of checkmating his opponent generates his act of giving his opponent a heart attack. P21
Goldman differentiates four categories of level generation: causal, conventional, simple and augmention generation. P22. An action causally generates another when, for example, the flipping of a switch turns on a light. An action conventionally generates another, when somebody puts a hand out of the car window and thereby signals an intention to turn the corner. An action simply generates another when one action implies another, as for example, when a person dangles a line in the water and this implies that he is fishing. And one action can be augmented, at another level when a person speaks to another, but does so loudly in a manner that is different from other speech.
Goldman indicates by means of branching diagramatic “trees” the complexity of actions showing also that they are arranged in sequence and not just synchronically. He also speaks of the “action plans” that formulate our belief that in a given context particular basic actions will have particular outcomes.
All of this may seem dry stuff, but it has the merit, of occasionally enabling a social scientist like me to disentangle what a person is doing without oversimplification.
I should add, however, that Goldman is not the last word on the subject of action. One problem that comes up is complexity. As I write this account, I am listening to a solo cello suite written by Bach. It would be difficult to use Goldman as much more than the basis of a description of what the cellist and I are doing when performing and listening to this performance. Also his account of action is very individualistic, with the social aspect of action heavily compressed. Some activities – games, jazz, walking hand-in-hand along a beach – are intensely social, and Goldman’s schema does seem hugely clunky when applied to such activities. I have here, at the back of my mind, Malinowski’s description of a team of Trobrianders skilfully rowing a boat through the sea, each man responding not only to the waves, but also to the verbal and barely perceptible silent signals of his fellow rowers. All of this is a far cry from the pressing of light switches and the moving of queens to king-knight-seven that provide the mainstay of Goldman’s examples.
Nevertheless, this book is a major work and it can provide a key to understanding human experience. I myself have found it useful as a tool allowing me to disentangle precisely the kind of complex material one so often finds in social life. It is too easy to retreat into purple prose to disguise one’s lack of understanding. Goldman has frequently allowed me to find answers to the question “what exactly is this person doing”, where otherwise I may have remained confused.
The second answer to this question – what Goldman calls “the identity thesis” was provided by Anscombe, Davidson and others. Against this, Goldman argues that if each of these actions – moving the hand, frightening away the fly, winning the game etc – was identical to the others, then they would all share the same properties; but in fact, they are all quite different, one from the other. Goldman therefore argues, in contrast, that each of these is a separate action even though each is related to the other. P2
Relationships between actions of this kind are often described in ordinary English by the word “by”. “We say, of a person that he performs one act ‘by’ performing another. We say, for example, that John turns on the light ‘by’ flipping the switch, or that he checkmates his opponent ‘by’ moving his queen to king-knight-seven. As used in these contexts, the term ‘by’ expresses a relationship that holds between acts, between John’s act of flipping the switch and his act of turning on the light, and between John’s act of moving his queen to king-knight –seven and his act of checkmating his opponent.”p5
Another way of expressing the relationship is to say that one action “generates” another at a different “level”. “In general, level generation will obtain when the ‘by’ locution is appropriate, but the notion of level generation will not be completely tied to this locution. - - - Level generation is intended to be an assymetric, irreflexive and transitive relation”. We may therefore say, for example, that John’s moving his hand generates the act of John’s moving his queen to king-knight-seven. Also, that John’s moving his queen to king-knight seven generates his act of checkmating his opponent. Further, that his act of checkmating his opponent generates his act of giving his opponent a heart attack. P21
Goldman differentiates four categories of level generation: causal, conventional, simple and augmention generation. P22. An action causally generates another when, for example, the flipping of a switch turns on a light. An action conventionally generates another, when somebody puts a hand out of the car window and thereby signals an intention to turn the corner. An action simply generates another when one action implies another, as for example, when a person dangles a line in the water and this implies that he is fishing. And one action can be augmented, at another level when a person speaks to another, but does so loudly in a manner that is different from other speech.
Goldman indicates by means of branching diagramatic “trees” the complexity of actions showing also that they are arranged in sequence and not just synchronically. He also speaks of the “action plans” that formulate our belief that in a given context particular basic actions will have particular outcomes.
All of this may seem dry stuff, but it has the merit, of occasionally enabling a social scientist like me to disentangle what a person is doing without oversimplification.
I should add, however, that Goldman is not the last word on the subject of action. One problem that comes up is complexity. As I write this account, I am listening to a solo cello suite written by Bach. It would be difficult to use Goldman as much more than the basis of a description of what the cellist and I are doing when performing and listening to this performance. Also his account of action is very individualistic, with the social aspect of action heavily compressed. Some activities – games, jazz, walking hand-in-hand along a beach – are intensely social, and Goldman’s schema does seem hugely clunky when applied to such activities. I have here, at the back of my mind, Malinowski’s description of a team of Trobrianders skilfully rowing a boat through the sea, each man responding not only to the waves, but also to the verbal and barely perceptible silent signals of his fellow rowers. All of this is a far cry from the pressing of light switches and the moving of queens to king-knight-seven that provide the mainstay of Goldman’s examples.
Nevertheless, this book is a major work and it can provide a key to understanding human experience. I myself have found it useful as a tool allowing me to disentangle precisely the kind of complex material one so often finds in social life. It is too easy to retreat into purple prose to disguise one’s lack of understanding. Goldman has frequently allowed me to find answers to the question “what exactly is this person doing”, where otherwise I may have remained confused.
March 25, 2017
A very nice, comprehensive, believable look at many sides of the subject. I don't like the way acts are individuated at the beginning (so that different descriptions of the "same" act are all different acts), but it's more important that this allows for a coherent framework than it is to worry about how words like "act" should be used.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews