Methodological Individualism, the We-mode, and Team Reasoning

Raimo Tuomela is one of the pioneers of social action theory and has done as much as anyone over the last thirty years to advance the study of social action and collective intentionality. Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents (2013) presents the latest version of his theory and applications to a range of important social phenomena. The book covers so much ground, and so many important topics in detailed discussions, that it would impossible in a short space to do it even partial justice. In this brief note, I will concentrate on a single, though important, theme in the book, namely, the claim that we must give up methodological individualism in the social sciences and embrace instead irreducibly group notions. I wish to defend methodological individualism as up to the theoretical tasks of the social sciences while acknowledging what is distinctive about the social world and collective intentional action. Tuomela frames the question of the adequacy of methodological individualism in terms of a contrast between what he calls the I-mode and the we-mode. He argues that we-mode phenomena are not reducible to I-mode phenomena, and concludes that we must reject methodological individualism. I will argue that the irreducibility of the we-mode to the I-mode, given how the contrast is set up, does not entail the rejection of methodological individualism. In addition, I will argue that the three conditions that Tuomela places on genuine we-mode activities, the group reason, collectivity, and collective commitment conditions, if they are understood in a way that does not beg the question, can plausibly be satisfied by a reductive account. Finally, I will argue that the specific considerations advanced in the book do not give us reason to think that a reductive account cannot be adequate to the descriptive and explanatory requirements of a theory of the social worl

Vol. 19 No. 12 - Whole No. 31

Mythprint is the monthly bulletin of the Mythopoeic Society, a nonprofit educational organization devoted to the study, discussion and enjoyment of myth and fantasy literature, especially the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Williams. To promote these interests, the Society publishes three magazines, maintains a World Wide Web site, and sponsors the annual Mythopoeic Conference and awards for fiction and scholarship, as well as local and written discussion groups

Scholar GOH David Bratman Speech

Scholar Guest of Honor David Bratman gives his speech during the opening ceremonies of Mythcon 52 in Albuquerque, New Mexico on July 30th, 2022. A section of frozen video and no audio was removed from the recording at 0:30:53 of about 30 seconds

What Sam Said

Interpreting the meaning and significance of Sam Gamgee\u27s final words in The Lord of the Rings

Actions Made Explicit in BDI

The Belief, Desire, Intention (BDI) architecture is increasingly being used in a wide range of complex applications for agents. Many theories and models exists which support this architecture and the recent version is that of capability being added as an additional construct. In all these models the concept of action is seen in an endogenous manner. We argue that the result of an action performed by an agent is extremely important when dealing with composite actions and hence the need for an explicit representation of them. The capability factor is supported using a RES construct and it is shown how the components of a composite action is supported using these two. Further, we introduce an OPP (opportunity) operator which in alliance with result and capability provides a better semantics for practical reasoning in BDI

Caliban between the Worlds

Study of Caliban as a character in Shakespeare’s Tempest, as a metaphor, and as a character re-interpreted by post-Shakespearean authors

Hugo Dyson: Inkling, Teacher, \u3ci\u3eBon Vivant\u3ci\u3e

Biographical background on “minor Inkling” Hugo Dyson and account of his profound influence on other members of the group

Notes of an Inklings Scholar: Musings on Myth and History, Promises and Secrecy, Ethical Reviewing, and the Limits of Authorial Intent

Five mini-essays proposing hypotheses on topics in J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis scholarship. 1. The Expansion and Contraction of Tolkien\u27s Imagination: how and why his burgeoning sub-creation began to contract and systematize in his later years. 2. A Hobbit in the Legendarium: Tolkien\u27s original conception of the relationship between The Hobbit and The Silmarillion may have been to have Bilbo visiting a land of fable. 3. Cursed fate that gave thee to the Moore: Lewis\u27s devotion to Mrs. Moore may have been a sense of metaphysical and spiritual obligation. 4. But did he ever read the book?: How Edmund Wilson and Michael Moorcock could have reviewed and criticized Tolkien\u27s The Lord of the Rings while getting basic facts wrong. 5. The Problem of Eowyn: Many scholars\u27 objections to Tolkien\u27s treatment of Eowyn and Lewis\u27s of Susan extends beyond authorial intent to the effect of the story on readers