We can never know for certain the intentions of another person. In the event someone describes his/her intentions we listeners would only know what the speaker described his/her intentions to be, and not everyone always tells the truth. "Intentionality is a philosophical concept and is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as 'the power of mind to be about, to represent or to stand for things, properties and states of affairs.'"1 In other words intentionality is a state of mind, and that is why what others say or do can never be known for certain—because we have no direct access to the mind of another to check if s/he is telling the truth.
The distinction between "intentionality" as a state of mind and human intentions in terms of actions and statements was first recognized in the medieval period. "The earliest theory of intentionality is associated with St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God" in which he distinguished "between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality."2 If this is correct, it means that the concept of intentionality was unknown in antiquity until the tenth/eleventh centuries. In the New Testament, for example, there is no word exclusively reserved for the concept of intention/intentionality.
In the New Testament "intention" is described in terms of a purpose that leads to certain concrete actions. The Greek words that are pressed into service to express intention are boulomai (Acts 5:28, 12:4), thelō (Luke 14:28), mellō (Acts 5:35, 20:13), logos (Acts 10:29). In other cases Koine Greek employs certain constructions that are used to express the idea of purpose, "for this [purpose]": Acts 9:21; "with a view to": 1 Cor 10:6; "so that": John 11:15; Eph 3:10; "for what [purpose]": John 13:28.
Two examples illustrate the murky distinction between the mental state of intentionality and human intentions underlying concrete actions. In Acts 5:28 the intent of the apostles is "apparently" misjudged in the light of the mood of the crowd (5:26). The Jewish leaders assume that the apostles intended their preaching as an attack upon the Jewish high council, while the apostles, on the other hand, describe the purpose of their preaching as performed in obedience to God (5:28-29) so as to bring repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel (5:31-32). But note that the apostles also accuse the Jewish leaders of killing Jesus by hanging him on a tree (5:30).3 So perhaps the Jewish leaders were at least partially correct and the apostles did subliminally, at least, intend their preaching as a criticism of the Jewish leaders.
This example is made more complicated in that the motives and intent of the characters in the drama (Acts 4:1-5:42) were ascribed to them by an author who was not present at the events, but who writes later about the situation. So readers are left to wonder for what purpose would an author write a narrative making the apostles appear either duplicitous or creating a suspicion that perhaps they do not fully understand their own intentions.
Here is a second example from my own life experience: in my last blog I described a conversation in which I was accused of writing editorials for the local newspaper "in order to draw attention to" myself. I, on the other hand, tell myself that I think of what I publish in the newspaper as a public service and regard my editorials as an extension of my former classroom beyond its brick and mortar walls. I only publish an editorial when I have information that in my view might help clarify issues in public discussion. Obviously my critic would not agree. So the question becomes have I duped myself and do not fully understand my own intentions? Or has my critic duped himself and erroneously cast aspersions on my motives? Since one's intentionality cannot be directly examined, the answers to both questions must remain uncertain.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
2"Intentionality," Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality.
3All the gospels, however, portray Jesus' death as being done at the behest of Roman authority.
5 comments:
Good evening Charlie,
1) You have never struck me as someone who in any way desires to draw attention to yourself. The person who made that accusation was making an assumption with no proof or evidence to support it. There's really no way to respond to such an accusation without engaging the other person in an emotional "back and forth"... which accomplishes nothing.
In all your years of teaching, blogging, and publishing- how do you deal with people's responses to what you write? As you know, we can never control the response that others have to what we say or write... In other words, we can control what we say- but we can never control how other people respond to it. Does this give you pause about sharing certain topics? Or are you used to it?
2) I want to thank Marcia for recommending the Netflix movie "Come Sunday." My husband and I are always looking for interesting movies on Netflix to watch. By the way- Marcia mentioned that Pearson lost his "life" because of heretical ideas that went against established orthodoxy. That's why I chuckle to myself about Fox New's focus on the supposed "War on Christians." It goes both ways, and they never expose the other side of this war. If someone in a Christian church announced that they were considering atheism or some such notion... The "War on Christianity" would pale in comparison to the onslaught waged on such a heretic.... You don't even know what a war is until you dare to disagree with certain tenets of Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism.
3) Would Jim's list of physical laws be classified as describing the "Laws of Physics" or the "Laws of the Universe?"
Thank you as always, Elizabeth
I always enjoy reading Elizabeth's comments. I certainly agree with her re. "war" on Christianity. That term "war" seems to be peculiar to the US, what with our wars on poverty, drugs, etc., but as appied to Christianity? I tend to think there's more of a war against science going on.
And Charlie, forgive me for this, but when I saw the heading for this week's blog, I couldn't help but tie it to your previous entry, and we all know what the road to Hell is paved with....
Marcia
Good Morning Elizabeth,
Your second paragraph of #1: In dealing with people who disagree with me: If I think they are correct, I change my position. If I think they are not then I renew my argument with new material or poke holes in theirs. I would do that with a critical colleague or with someone who shares the same assumptions as I do and whom I think could be persuaded. If they do not even "know the territory" (Music Man), I simply ignore them. One never gets accustomed to "cheap shots" and develops a think skin.
Paragraph #3: Jim will have to reply to your question. But I understand him to be speaking of the physical laws of the universe. See my last blog (April 26, 2018: Apostates and Heretics). At the end of the string of comments, he somewhat addresses your question.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Evening Charlie and Marcia,
I totally agree with Marcia that Christianity has much more of a war against science going on... I had the misfortune of having a similar experience as Charlie's when I attended a family birthday event several years ago. We were discussing public school and "Common Core," etc when someone mentioned that Common Core is "bad" because it teaches evolution... I merely asked "What's wrong with evolution?" and I deeply regretted asking that question because the person started shouting at me. I have not attended another birthday party since then.
1) Charlie do you see any difference between being motivated to do something and having an intention to do it? If you are unsure of your intention in writing that article- could you ask yourself "what motivated me to write it?"
2) Do you sometimes write blogs or newspaper articles with no intention whatsoever? A popular children's author wrote the following (Pamela Travers, author of Mary Poppins) when she was asked about her general aims and purposes and what led her to the field of literature for children... Here is her response:
"Well this flummoxed me. I hadn't any ideas, general or specific, on literature for children and I did not set out with aims or purposes. I couldn't say that anything I had done was intended or invented. It has simply happened.... I am always astonished when I see books labeled 'For 5 to 7' or 'From 9 to 12' because who is to know what child will be moved by what book and at what age? Who is to be the judge?... If I had been told while I was working on the book that I was doing it for children, I think I would have been terrified... For what children? The word 'children' is a large blanket; it covers, as with the word 'grown ups,' every kind of being that exists.... A writer, after all, is only half the book. The other half is the reader, and from the reader, the writer learns." Pamela Travers
Do you think it's possible at times to write something with no intention, aims, or purposes? Or does that only apply to fiction writers?
Thank as always, Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
I really do not know a great deal about human intentions and motivation. The only thing I am relatively sure about is that we cannot be certain what motivates people since we don't have access to their/our minds.
Your first question, It seems to me that intention and motivation are the same thing. And people can and do ask themselves "why did I just do that?" But sometimes (I think) our motives are so deep seated we cannot ourselves know why we do what we do.
Your second question: Curiosity is what prompts most things that I write--to answer questions for myself. I never know where the essay will wind up. Sometimes I start out to answer one question and it becomes another question I am answering.
No intention whatsoever? I think that to be highly unlikely. Something usually motivates us and it may be as simple as the doing of it gives me pleasure or satisfaction.
Cordially,
Charlie
Post a Comment