On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/4/13 12:41 PM, Mike Geary wrote: > > Memphising along without any motives at all. >> > > Torgeir wrote > > > " Nietzsche denies that we can ever know the intentions of any other >> human being. In fact, Nietzsche emphasizes the relative unimportance >> of conscious thinking, "consciousness is a surface," in favor of >> subconscious thinking and instincts. Hence, Nietzsche argues, not >> only can we not know the motives of other individuals, we cannot >> even know our own motives. This is a frequent theme in Nietzsche's >> writings, for example, "the most common lie is the lie one tells to >> oneself; lying to others is relatively the exception." " >> > > and Mike asked > > > > Yeah, but why did Nietzsche say that? Hey? That's the question. > > That seems the right question. Was Nietzsche reporting on an experiment > he'd conducted in which he found that we can't know the intentions of > others or even our own intentions? Unlikely. This would need some way to > view what I thought I intended and what I _really_ intended side-by-side, > to see that they differ; but the futility of this, given Nietzsche's claim > is obvious; I cannot make such a comparison, for I have no way of knowing > what my 'real' intention is. > > Motives are not intentions, although they may be cousins. I intend to read > Pope's Essay on Criticism, but my motive for doing so is to get a higher > mark in my 18th Century literature course. > > Finally, intentionality, as it's been discussed here, is a different > notion than the notion of intentionality used in discussing or examining > intentional behaviour. > > Sorry to have gone on so long. > > Robert Paul > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit > www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.**html<http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html> >