Action

Abstract Chapter 4 argues that, as in the case of substance, prominent accounts of action rightly insist on—but fail to meet—the explanatory demand with regard to action: what is it in virtue of which an action is an action? This failure is observed both in the case of causal theories of action (represented by Davidson and his followers) and in the case of rival non-causal theories (represented by Anscombe and her followers). This chapter then appeals to a Bradleyan regress argument to show that—as in the case of substance—such a failure is inevitable as long as one assumes that one is dealing with differentiated or relational action. The only remedy is to make a Parmenidean Ascent with regard to action: there are no actions, not even one action, there is simply action, analogous to actus purus in Aquinas’ sense.