Abstract

Consider the difference between reaching over to the desk to grab your copy of Kant’s first Critique and reaching over to grab some book or other. This is the difference between an action directed on a specific thing and an action directed on something, but no one thing in particular. In the first case, you will be successful only if you grab your copy of Kant—only one book will do; in the second, you will be successful if you grab a book, and here any book will do. This is a difference that is frequently displayed: many intentional actions are directed on things, and of these, a good many are directed on specific things. In speech, we mark this difference by saying that you have a particular thing in mind in the first case but not in the second. This establishes that we can get at the notion of having a particular thing in mind (IM) with the help of intentional action, but a full-blown analysis of IM should be grounded in an assessment of its role in all contexts where it applies. That there should be additional contexts beyond intentional action seems apparent from the language we use in applying IM and the range of cases in which we apply it. Attention to language reveals that we often talk about having things “in mind” without mentioning actions, such as when we say that we had a friend in mind just last week; we might even say that we had something in mind while denying that we acted, such as when we say that we had the friend’s birthday in mind but didn’t buy a card. Turning to the range of cases, note that we are willing to describe people as having some particular thing in mind when they are not acting, such as when we say that a student had a party in mind when they should have been concentrating on a lecture. These examples suggest that IM is applicable beyond the context of intentional action. In this essay, I supply an account of what it is to have a particular thing in mind. I begin by arguing that, despite appearances, IM applies only within the context of intentional action. Any evidence that suggests otherwise depends on an incomplete appreciation of the role played by intentional action in examples such as those considered above..