Defending Non-Derived Content

In ''The Myth of Original Intentionality,'' Daniel Dennett appears to want to argue for four claims involving the familiar distinction between original (or underived) and derived intentionality. 1. Humans lack original intentionality. 2. Humans have derived intentionality only. 3. There is no distinction between original and derived intentionality. 4. There is no such thing as original intentionality. We argue that Dennett's discussion fails to secure any of these conclusions for the contents of thoughts. In ''The Myth of Original Intentionality'' (1990), Daniel Dennett appears to want to argue for four claims involving the familiar distinction between original (or underived) and derived intentionality: 1. Humans lack original intentionality. 2. Humans have derived intentionality only. 3. There is no distinction between original and derived intentionality. 4. There is no such thing as original intentionality. Contrary to the billing we have been given about this paper, we think that Dennett's discussion fails to secure any of these conclusions for the contents of thoughts.