Yes, it is interesting to explore the philosophy of trying. You question whether you have mixed the concepts of intentions and trying. I would say that both of the two have certain ambiguities. If anything the word trying can be seen as weaker, as a defence for making an effort despite failing.

You speak of intentions in the role of a legal case of crime. I think here it is being used as a way of viewing the person's internal motives. In other words, an act is being viewed with reference to the inner world of the criminal rather than just from an external reference point. For example, if a person killed another in defending another it would be seen differently than if the killing was done with malicious intent.

But in terms of the philosophy of trying it may be all about willpower. We all try to do things and do not manage them. I would like to keep my bedroom tidy. I try for a while after each of my various moves and succeed for a while, and then it deteriorates into chaos gradually. I will try again in my new accommodation but will I succeed? Perhaps it is a matter of discipline in the face of stress and adversity.

Willpower and discipline must be a major part of intention to become successful rather than as an aspect of trying. Let us think of the example of the person with an alcohol problem. If the person has acknowledged that they have a problem they may think I will try to stop drinking heavily but will this be enough? Will they keep trying and keep failing. Of course, they may end up seeking professional help. But with or without professional help it is still possible to try, but to fail. The critical point here where intention might come into the picture is where the person may get to the point where they realise clearly that their life has hit rock bottom and something needs to change. This might involve clear strategies for change. Of course, it would not mean there would be no failings whatsoever, but rather than a mere 'trying' there would be plans to execute which could be maintained with a disciplined approach.

I hope that my answer is of some use to you in thinking about the nature of trying and intentions.

Thank you for your response Jack! I wasn't sure if what I wrote made any sense at all. To me it's surprisingly difficult to express my thoughts in English since it's not my first language.

I agree with what you said here

If anything the word trying can be seen as weaker, as a defence for making an effort despite failing. — Jack Cummins

. Trying on its own can seem a bit bland whereas intentions bring often very important context to an act. I understood from what you wrote that intentions are like an action plan that you choose to commit to at least on some level.

I guess it still bothers me that we use a concept like "trying" without really thinking about it even though in reality it could be nonexistent. For example in sports, "Here we can see the sprinter's attempt to brake the world record.". Then again I feel like it could be just the thoughts around the word "trying" that confuse me.

See, you could argue that trying itself is just either succeeding or failing and that's it. Yes there might not be "trying" in reality, but that's just because there was never more to the word/concept than either something happening or the said thing not happening. So in that sense when we say "We're going to try." all we're really saying is "We're going to do this or then we're not going to do this.". Things people sometimes say like "The least you can do is try!" seem a bit different now as according to my logic the previous sentence could be translated to "The least you can do is succeed or fail!". Isn't that all you can ever do?

One day when I was a substitute teacher in a near by school I actually told a demotivated person that the least he could do was try. This sentence suggests that trying requires almost no effort, but how about intentions? You can tell someone to try but it would be a bit weird to tell someone to have intentions. Or would it? Can you ever do anything without intentions? If intentions are an action plan and if we think our actions are always based on something, don't we always act according to our intentions? If an act is not based on intentions, what is it based on? Sure if a drug addict is high on something then maybe his/her actions aren't too considered but do intentions need to be considered for them to be called intentions?

Points of this rambling:
- Does my explanation of the concept of trying seem valid?
- Are all acts based on intentions? If not, then what?

I'm fairly new to this page and I realize that what I just wrote is basically brainstorming but I am genuinely interested in these things and I don't mean to lower the standard of this forum. Also I don't mean to put all this weight on you Jack I got a bit carried away after I started writing this so anyone can answer this.

"Do or do not, there is no try!" — Henx

Gotta love Yoda. He nails it. Consider the context of the quote: Luke is whining and crying about how hard it is to raise the X-wing out of the swamp. And he tells Yoda that he will try, enter Yoda's quote.

Luke doesn't believe he can do it, the whining makes that clear, and uses the word try as a cop-out, thereby admitting defeat even before beginning. I do not "try" to shovel the walk. I shovel the walk, no excuses, no whining. My kid (even though I love him) "tries" to do stuff that I tell him to do, stuff that he does not want to do. If he says he will "try" then I know he will be less successful than if he says "ok". Usually "try" is used as a preemptive excuse for an anticipated failure.

Intentions are based on an anticipated or desired course of action. I intend to go to law school (mostly because I get bored easily and maybe, just maybe that will occupy me for a few years), however I have not yet applied. I have, therefore, the intent to go, meaning I want to, but have not tried to get in, as in have made no meaningful movement towards getting admitted. I have taken the LSAT cold, but have not sent in any application to anywhere. I can use excuses like I can't really justify the cost of law school to appease my boredom, but in fact, I have not tried getting in yet.

Intention does not require action or movement, it is, paradoxically, a static activity.

Trying involves action or movement, and is not a static activity. Using it in a future tense "I will try" is regularly associated with anticipated failure.

Action/effect is not always the result of intent. You intend to get to work on time, you drive quickly, perhaps over the speed limit, perhaps not, regardless, while rounding a blind corner you run over a deer. End result: you killed a deer and wrecked the front of your car. Which is neither your intent nor what you were trying to achieve. Intent: don't be late. Try: to get to work on time.

If you swap out a person for the deer you have a crime without without intent, hence Negligence causing death, instead of murder.

As far as the expression "at least you could try!" one could replace "try" with a " verb" and the expression would be almost identical. " I can't find a job...At least you could look!" etc.

Thanks for posting eh!

Thank you for your views on the topic Book!

It does make sense to see "trying" as realizing an intent. At the same time specially in the human experience, "trying" is something we say a lot that usually means we're going to fail. I'd like to think, based on the replies and my understanding, that the stronger the intent is the bigger the likelihood of an action is. The common thought about achieving your goals would support this; the more/harder you try, the more likely it is that you succeed. (See how I slipped the word "try" in there even though it's supposed to be under the microscope here.)

My point of view on this topic was originally purely metaphysical and it involved mostly "trying". So far I don't think anyone has given their thoughts on the existence of trying. Perhaps the question is pointless itself, my original question was poor(it was) or maybe Yoda has already told the answer. The real reason why this interests me is another question; What does it mean if trying doesn't exist? Where does it lead us?

It's a common thought that there is a world out there beyond our minds and we like to think that we are a part of that world. What I find interesting is that we live in this world seemingly on natures/the worlds terms but at the same time we need our own "made up" rules too. One of those rules could be the concept of "trying". It doesn't really exist in the world itself, but it's a very useful concept nonetheless. Why does this matter then? I think this questioning of "trying" reveals only one of those concepts that we could blindly use our whole lives and never realize that the world doesn't work that way after all. To humans trying can be a damaging mindset most likely caused by not believing in oneself. If you think you can't do anything, you might always try instead of do. In a way I find a person doing their best better than them trying, because there you don't deny the possibility of failure either but it has more hope in it.

To me this "metaphysics of 'trying'" relies on the belief that there is the world itself and then in that world us humans and also the belief that human experience is somewhat different from the phenomena of the world itself. If you don't find these beliefs reasonable/justified then talking about the existence of "trying" in reality itself is most likely pointless.

Now a little more about intentions (goes a bit off topic):

Action/effect is not always the result of intent. — Book273

Now that we know this, I'd like to carve a more specific version of the original question about the relation between act and intent. Let's look at the actions that we actually make happen. Is there an intent behind every act? I guess to ask if we ever do anything for another reason than an intent is to ask if we ever do something for no purpose at all. Like the "late from work example" shows, even though you driving over a deer isn't what you were intending to do, there still was an intent behind the act: don't be late. I've used the word purpose here to connect the terms "intent" and "meaning". I guess to put it more clearly:

Can there be an act without intent?

It's also fascinating how "intentions" seem to have a quite clear connection to moral norms;

Intentions are based on an anticipated or desired course of action. — Book273

After all, a desired course of action is often determined by what we think is right in an ethical way. Most of our intentions could develop in relation to other humans and from what we learn kind of like hand in hand with moral norms. Many of the acts that we carry out affect other people too, so how couldn't our intentions be affected by the moral norms that are in our culture. Then again there are criminals who've seemingly had malicious intentions so it's not like you automatically get good intentions from your society.

What to take away from this:
- I suppose "trying" has been figured out (nothing is truly figured out ever in philosophy don't worry I know that)
- Can there be an act without any intent?