88

In order to know how to understand a languageless creature, one has to know what types of intentional attitudes, with what types of content, it is possible to attribute to it. In this paper, I shall examine three “differentialist” answers to this question, according to which there is a categorical difference between humans and languageless animals when it comes to their respective intentional attitudes. I shall examine in particular Davidson’s strongest argument for a strong form of differentialism: the indetermination argument, according to which our inability to attribute any determinate content to any supposed animal belief implies that we should not attribute beliefs to animals. By relying on Peter Hacker’s conceptual analyses, I shall endorse two of the three premises of the indetermination argument, which will result in defending a moderate form of differentialism.