I disagree that you by definition do so in order to affect other’s beliefs about what you believe. For example, when I’m reasoning aloud in front of a whiteboard and using someone as a rubber duck, I’m really not doing this to affect them at all. And for a lot of people, a lot of the time, when someone asks them a question, their internal cognition is best described as “thinking about whether P is true” rather than “thinking about the consequences of saying P.” Because they are following a deontological policy of saying what they think in response to questions (at least in that domain).
That said, I agree that maybe it would be better to define everything in terms of internal attitudes. I’ll think about this more & encourage others to do so as well.
I disagree that you by definition do so in order to affect other’s beliefs about what you believe. For example, when I’m reasoning aloud in front of a whiteboard and using someone as a rubber duck, I’m really not doing this to affect them at all. And for a lot of people, a lot of the time, when someone asks them a question, their internal cognition is best described as “thinking about whether P is true” rather than “thinking about the consequences of saying P.” Because they are following a deontological policy of saying what they think in response to questions (at least in that domain).
That said, I agree that maybe it would be better to define everything in terms of internal attitudes. I’ll think about this more & encourage others to do so as well.