Talk:Intention

disambig
(1) This should not be a disambuguation page. There are only two meanings given for the term intention, one of them (the legal one) clearly a particular refined version of the other. The other two links on the page are to related, similar terms. Shorten their descriptions if you feel it's appropriate. (2) Neither of the two meanings given for intention (as opposed to those of the related words) had its own page. They weren't given links but merely given brief definitions here, which I clarified. They deserve more, but probably not two separate pages. There should be a page on intention, with a subsection given over to the legal use of the term. It makes sense for that to be this page, in the absence of any other claimants to the word intention. (3) I dispute your claim that the changes were unhelpful. The original used awkward and sometimes simply incorrect or meaningless phrasing ("Intention directs all forces of the psyche"?). Sincerely, Jod.


 * Well, we can agree to disagree. I have no particular axe to grind here and am content to let you do whatever you want in general terms. It is interesting that you relate the philosophical usage to an interest in pyramids. I think that might annoy philosophers but, since I am not a philosopher, I leave it to one of their number to debate it with you. David91 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I said the pyramids, not just pyramids. I really never imagined anyone would associate the expression with, say pyramid power--as I take it you're suggesting.  It's merely an evocative image: Borges liked to use it: he mentions a book in an infinite library which contains nothing but meaningless strings of letters save on the punultimate page, "O Time thy puramids."  He mentions elsewhere a possible biography of a man that would mention only all of the occasions on which he thought of the pyramids.


 * Since it seems that you have relevant knowledge and a will to improve the Wiki, you should register and adopt the habit of signing your contributions. David91 02:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Intention in Philosophy
I would like to add this:

In deontological ethics the intent of an act is the way in which a maxim is supposed to be executed. Immanuel Kant uses this in his categorical imperative, for instance, in the sense that an act is only moral if one can at the same time will that this maxim would become a universal law.


 * "Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde" .


 * External Links
 * Online works of Immanuel Kant on Gutenberg


 * References


 * Since no response came I added the section, references and external links. --Faust (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a bigger problem, as far as I can tell the entire influence of Aristotle on the theory of human action has been erased from wikipedia. In particular, here there is no mention of aristotle, the page unintended consequences claims the notion was coined by Thomas Merton, the page on Human action cycle claims it was formed by Dan Norman. I cant find the simple subcategories of action I was taught in catholic school decades ago and that were attributed to Aristotle and Aquinas, that are in fact the basis of criminal law rational choice theory (criminology). Those stages were roughly: motivation precedes intention precedes action precedes consequence, precedes evaluation.This is fundamental information and the basis of criminal law-- how have its roots been lost? Mrdthree (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

intention/Intension
There is a mention of related terms. The term that is mention is intention. It is, however, called intension. This would warrant a new page and a removal of this piece of the article here. --Faust (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm going to do a major rewrite soon. ELE427 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Aristotle/Aquinas eliminated from wikipedia?
as far as I can tell the entire influence of Aristotle on the theory of human action has been erased from wikipedia. In particular, here there is no mention of aristotle, the page unintended consequences claims the notion was coined by Thomas Merton, the page on Human action cycle claims it was formed by Dan Norman. I cant find the simple subcategories of action I was taught in catholic school decades ago and that were attributed to Aristotle and Aquinas, that are in fact the basis of criminal law rational choice theory (criminology). Those stages were roughly: motivation precedes intention precedes action precedes consequence, precedes evaluation. This doctrine is probably hundreds if not thousands of years old-- how have its roots been lost?Mrdthree (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What about neglect
The lead doesn't include the deliberate neglection of actions despite criminal negligence being a thing. Is this an omission or am I misunderstanding something? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal opinion by IPv6
Everything happens for a reason says the personocrat / bias thinker who deems self-evident the values and goals of persons (yes, also values; especially in Asian religions and divine impersonal field which fulfil part of the values related to personhood; otherwise we have scientific atheism and not religion)


 * in Greek: https://ibb.co/xsfmrP5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:CA38:B9AA:40FA:1225:A02E (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Course assignment
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Intent (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

More ethical and legal content needed
As far as it goes, this article seems okay, but it seems more apt for an article entitled Intention (philosophy) than just Intention, which seems to be a broader topic. In particular, it seems to lack major sections on discussion of the topic in ethical/moral, and legal/criminological contexts. In the philosophical sense, imho the sources should be expanded to cover a broader range of thinkers, in particular, those writing in other languages.

In raising this section, I'm inspired by the entry "Intention (criminelle)" in the criminal law dictionary of French professor and jurist Jean-Paul Doucet, who lists and quotes excerpts from a couple dozen sources, from Aquinas (already mentioned here), to Confucius, Justinian, and Abelard (not mentioned), to numerous texts about ethics or law, from Buddhist monasticism to the criminal code of Uruguay. I'm not necessarily suggesting this source be used directly here, only that its content points out the breadth of missing content in our article, and that it could be used as a jumping off point for further expansion of the article.

In addition, since we already have an article Intention (criminal law) which conceptually is a child article of this one, there should be a section here summarizing that article, and containing a Main link to it, per WP:Summary style. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your feedback. You are right that the article should include more information on intention in criminal law (I think the term "intent" is more common here but it fits nonetheless). Our article has some information on this (see Intention), but having an extra section on it might be better. Many of the later sections cover topics pertaining to more specific disciplines, like developmental psychology and biology. Ethics/Morality is covered in the subsection Intention. I'll do some research to see if I can come up with some more information on intention in criminal law. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The French legal system is very different, and although there is an article at fr-wiki about Intention (linked to ours, through the language sidebar generated by wikidata item Q706622), and it even has a brief section on #Intention criminelle. However, the term for that in the context of French criminal law is "moral element" (l'élément moral), not the cognate intention. There is an entire article about it on fr-wiki: Élément moral en droit pénal français. At en-wiki, there's only a brief section about it, at (still new) article . So, if you want to search French sources about "intention" in French criminal law, you could try these links:
 * HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a section on criminal law. I've limited myself to English sources to avoid the difficulties you mentioned concerning how the French terms correspond to the English ones (and because they are much easier for me to handle). As you pointed out, this is a good approach for realizing WP:SUMMARY. Please have a look if the section is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a section on criminal law. I've limited myself to English sources to avoid the difficulties you mentioned concerning how the French terms correspond to the English ones (and because they are much easier for me to handle). As you pointed out, this is a good approach for realizing WP:SUMMARY. Please have a look if the section is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)