tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3949761534200395390.post8549338635848439275..comments2024-01-03T17:27:11.545+01:00Comments on The Space of Reasons: The Desire-plus-Belief ThesisAVERY ARCHERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14313322464414110953noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3949761534200395390.post-73369902739858470002011-03-15T16:18:12.891+00:002011-03-15T16:18:12.891+00:00The paint drinker indeed seems a good case for why...The paint drinker indeed seems a good case for why we want to speak of "urge" or "compulsion" as a phenomenon distinct from desire. <br /><br />If I stick to this intuition, but don't want it to determine desire all the way up, so to speak, if I don't want to say that desire just has nothing inherently to do with beliefs about the good, then I have to endorse a continuum, beginning from blind and even vicious impulses the subject cannot or would not justify, proceeding to ones that are implicitly or fugitively justified ("I'll just have a cigarette to stop the cravings and get back to quitting in earnest tomorrow"), and then on to desires with varying degrees of explicit commitment, such as varying degrees of universalizability.<br /><br />I think I shall have to live with this continuum. As usual, thanks for the thoughtful post; it took me this long to comment because I was trying to find a better answer!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com