Abstract
Professor Findlay’s kind and generous comments show that I unfortunately have not been quite as clear in my paper as ought to have been. By ‘directedness’, I tried to mean directedness just in the sense Findlay so nicely describes. This intentional relation to what is present to one’s consciousness need not be in the least purposive. References to purposiveness in my text were largely motivated by the character of the occasion on which the paper was originally presented, a symposium on explanation vs. understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1976 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hintikka, J. (1976). Reply to J. N. Findlay. In: Manninen, J., Tuomela, R. (eds) Essays on Explanation and Understanding. Synthese Library, vol 72. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1823-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1823-4_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-1825-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1823-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive