Abstract

In this paper an attempt is made to establish that the parties on both sides of the disputes concerning whether reasons are causes have mischaracterized or misdescribed what is involved in acting from a reason. A characterization of acting from a reason is provided, and, as a result, it is shown why contradictory positions have been and still are maintained by opposing parties. As a consequence of this account, an attempt is made to show why all parties have missed the nature and significance of empathetic understanding.