1) Rosenberg said that all human actions can not explained and determined by nature regulations. Because, as we know everyone has a free will, and it is not connected to causal factors and scientific theories. He underlined that we did not relate folk psychology as the strict regulations. We should find interpretation of human action from another light. Belief, desire and action is associated with each other. Getting a human action is the meaningful. We must know in which rules human action treated. Because it gives to this meaning. And these rules reflections of the intensional content of desire and belief. So, Belief and Desire are the explanations of the human action.
2)Rules and Laws are similarly at one side. However, there big differences betwwen them. First of all, we can determine their differences with breaking them. Rules are facts. It helps to explain human actions. Everyone can broke the rules, but they would lose something.When we were child our parents set rules for us. Therefore, we can easily set rules for something Rules like "DO THAT", "DO NOT THIS". And you have a choice. But, laws a legal. Breaking laws will be punished.
…show more content…
First of all, Freud interpret human action in intentional way, also identified three components of human behaviour:ego,id and superego. However, all this three components are unuseful, they can not explain what happened in the world and in human action. Secondly, interprets of Freud said that to know future we just need history of patient, But it is wrong way. Because, it is not enough to explain human behaviour. Obviously, the present position of patient are more important. Also, He did not get his own theory well. Freud produced in his theory really different thing than that