Abstract

I compare two different conceptions of the imagination that have important consequences for the way we understand the nature of our pretend mental states. The conception proposed by Nichols and Stich (2000) is a “thin” one, since imaginings are identified with suppositions, and thus with propositional imagination alone. On the contrary, the theories of imagination proposed by Goldman (2006) and Currie and Ravenscroft (2002) are “thick”, since they think of imagination as a kind of recreative mechanism, one by means of which we re-instantiate different types of mental state. Both accounts are problematic, although for different reasons. Nichols and Stich, who take pretend representations to be a specific type of mental state, fail to give an explanation for the “peculiar analogy” existing between suppositions and genuine beliefs. On the other hand, the recreativist account has serious problems at explaining how a person involved in a pretense play can entertain, at the same time, pretend and genuine beliefs with either contradictory or identical contents, without being puzzled or making confusion between them. So, I conclude, the notions of a pretend mental state that the major accounts of pretense have at disposal are still underdetermined.