0

Someone recently told me that "actions are self-referential" (which means that we do not have to specify a particular actor to know whether an action is possible or not).

He made it sound as though I would be regarded as a moron if I rejected the statement, so I took him at his word.

Some time later, I started having doubts about his assertion. Primordially because I found almost no professional philosopher who had actually said that, and because it started to seem wrong. For example: the action of lifting 70kg. It clearly isn't self-referential, because it might not be possible for all people to perform. So we have a case in which we do need to designate a specific actor to know whether an action is possible or not. But I'm still not 100% convinced.

Are actions self-referential?

John F101
  • 93
  • 1
  • 5
  • I think you are doing a good job of having doubts to this amusing claim made. However, caution on the side of reason: ask him specifically does he mean all cases, some cases, etc. Ask him for more details if he can make his claim less vague. He needs to commit to something. So far this is rhetoric designed not to be specific so when challenged he can go another direction with his words. He will blame you for not correctly interpreting his claim or you are misrepresenting his words. You being able to show counter examples seems to prove he can't be talking about all cases his statement is true. – Logikal Jul 31 '20 at 03:51
  • 1
    Out of curiosity, why did he use "self-referential" to mean "we do not have to specify a particular actor to know whether an action is possible or not"? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the usual definition of "self-referential", which would be a statement (or something else with meaning, like a piece of art) that refers to itself in some way, like "this sentence has five words". If you aren't sure yourself, maybe if he explained his use of the term it would help in understanding his thinking? – Hypnosifl Jul 31 '20 at 04:35
  • "Self-referential actions" usually mean an actor acting on itself, and most actions are not so in this sense. In the OP sense, it is hard to find *any* action whose possibility does not depend on the actor's abilities (for God any coherent action is possible, for example), so you can safely dismiss their claim out of hand. Of course, they might have had some special context in mind where it makes some sense, but we can't tell without knowing more about your discussion. – Conifold Jul 31 '20 at 07:54
  • 1
    @Conifold can you recall where you found this usage? I know what what you describe as "reflexive", not "self-referential". – Natalie Clarius Jul 31 '20 at 10:11
  • 1
    Thanks everyone! The assertion came up in a discussion about the omnipotence paradox (can God create a rock so heavy, etc). The theologian usually responds by saying that God can do all logically possible actions. But this person responded that it was possible for there to be a rock so heavy that it's creator cannot lift. The obvious response, is that it is not possible for an omnipotent being to be unable to lift the rock. This person said that "actions are self referential," so we do not need to specify whether the actor is omnipotent to know if he can perform certain actions. – John F101 Jul 31 '20 at 12:55

1 Answers1

1

You are right about your doubts, that claim is utter nonsense. Self-referentiality has nothing to do with the specification of actors in a predication or modal properties such as possibility. I can't even think of a way to make sense of that statement that would make a connection between these notions, other than that the person doesn't know what the word self-referentiality means -- because it does not mean that "we do not have to specify a particular actor to know whether an action is possible or not".

Self-reference is when an expression refers to itself or its own referent, such as "This sentence is false" or "This sentence has five words" (where "this sentence" refers to the sentence itself), or if the book ABC contains a mention of the book ABC. Actions can't be self-referential in the first place because actions are not expressions. And clearly, not all expressions that denote actions (like certain verbs) are self-referential: The word "run" denotes an action but contains no reference to the word "run" itself, and neither does the phrase "to lift 70kg". And again, this has no relation to the concept of possibility or the specification of the subject to such a verb.

The claim is either random gibberish or the result of some strange misunderstanding about what self-reference is. The SEP article discusses it in much detail.

Natalie Clarius
  • 2,479
  • 12
  • 17