Buridan's Ass.

[Citrus Insanity]

If an ass (...donkey) is placed directly between two equally-appealing mounds of hay, then it would theoretically stand there until it starves to death, because it is impossible to make a rational decision out of two equally-beneficial outcomes.
Buridan's Ass on Wikipedia.

Is it possible to make an otherwise logical choice that would, in this case, be deemed illogical? Is it possible to make any decision that is not dictated in some way by logic?

:scream:

 

[___]

I don't think that's a valid philosophical question on several grounds. For one it's an impossible situation, as the situation cannot exist within a vacuum and there are liable to be other factors involve in the decision-making process besides the relative attractiveness of the bales of hay.

Second, in the theoretical situation where one is faced with two options which are equally appealing and beneficial, inaction becomes a third option so the question supposes a false dichotomy.

There are various other solutions to the question as well; arbitrary choice, choosing both (in which case the question becomes which bale of hay to eat first and you're back to arbitrary choice). If one may not choose both, arbitrary choice is not allowed, and all possible facts and consequences have been accounted for, then inaction becomes the logical conclusion and the situation is resolved.

In this case obviously inaction results in death, arbitrary decision is not mechanically impossible, and it's a very large stretch to assume that death is a worse option than arbitrary decision, so arbitrary decision is the conclusion.

 

[Despain]

eat both

 

[Citrus Insanity]

True, it isn't possible; I believe it can be more correctly defined as a thought experiment than a philosophical question. We're to assume that the donkey has had no prior experiences that could influence his decision in anyway and is essentially a completely unbiased donkey staring at two completely identical bales of hay.

However, it is not necessarily a false dichotomy in my eyes, as inaction is essentially the consequence of being unable to make a decision, and not a choice in itself. Or at least, not one that can be reasonably expected out of a hungry donkey given the circumstances of the situation.

The inability to make an arbitrary decision is what is in question here:  we are supposed to believe that, without some kind of rational edge, a decision is impossible. Under realistic conditions it could be considered a conclusion, but given that there is a completely unbiased donkey given an unrealistically equal choice, it appears logical that the donkey would starve to death.

@missingno- Which one would it eat first?

 

[___]

Inaction isn't an active choice, but it is a possible course of action. In assuming that without a rational edge no choice is possible you make a base assertion that hasn't been established and is not objectively provable.

In that case you do pose a philosophical question in a roundabout way: do all decisions spring from rational determination, or is random, arbitrary decision possible? If you assume the former then starvation and death is the only logical course of action for the donkey and thus correct, even if it's at first glance undesirable. If you assume the latter then you have false dichotomy.

 

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

"Ooh, hay! . . . More hay! I will eat all of the hay!  :lol:"

 

[rey meustrus]

Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that the context of Buridan's Ass (and not the original question posed by Aristotle that had nothing to do with an ass) is that according to Buridan's philosophy, an ass met with two identical bales of hay must stop for a moment and ponder the moral consequences of eating either one, to try and make a rational decision, even though no decision can be made that isn't arbitrary.  It seems to mean, to me, that if a person is in need of something and there are several ways to get it that are equally accessible, they should stop and wonder which one is really better, no matter how similar the options first appear and no matter how badly and immediately they need it.  It is a satire of his work, after all.  Should we discuss this situation, or instead "a man who remains unmoved because he is as hungry as he is thirsty and is positioned exactly between food and drink?"

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[Venetia]

the entire thing is stupid

why would a donkey ponder anything

it would arbitrarily lumber to one or the other. maybe it'd stumble to both. it wouldn't stand there, guessing which one looks more tasty.

these kinds of hypotheses don't work when dealing with living creatures. sometimes they make decisions based on NOTHING. sometimes they don't even make decisions, they just gravitate somewhere randomly.

my friend buys those little weird looking sculpture/toy things of bananas and squirrels and shit. she won't buy them online because she can't decide which she wants OUT OF THE SAME THING. she likes to go to the store, look at two IDENTICAL items, and pick one or the other. there is no rational thought. it's just her being a weirdo.

 

[___]

According to Buridan she is making a rational decision on a subconscious level.

 

[Ellie]

Animals are left or right handed like humans. If there were no other factors it would most likely lean towards one over the other. But there are bound to be other factors, unless it's like... in a vacuum or something, and I'd like to see a donkey survive in a vacuum...

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[Venetia]

heh

 

[rey meustrus]

*sigh* nobody paid any attention to what I said...you're all too busy trying to rationalize this into the real world when it's entirely theoretical in the first place.

 

[Venetia]

the philosophy of it is fine, but it's totally broken to begin with.

there are no moral ramifications. no living thing would ever hover in the unknown between two identical objects, and it's almost impossible for two things to be 100% absolutely identical (on every level, including molecular), anyway.

 

[Citrus Insanity]

the philosophy of it is fine, but it's totally broken to begin with.

there are no moral ramifications. no living thing would ever hover in the unknown between two identical objects, and it's almost impossible for two things to be 100% absolutely identical (on every level, including molecular), anyway.

That would be why it's theoretical.

 

[___]

A better exercise would eliminate ambiguity. Pick a different one and do another thread though, these are fun. Just make sure it's a philosophical question and not a word puzzle.

 

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

the philosophy of it is fine, but it's totally broken to begin with.

there are no moral ramifications. no living thing would ever hover in the unknown between two identical objects, and it's almost impossible for two things to be 100% absolutely identical (on every level, including molecular), anyway.

That would be why it's theoretical.

That would be why I despise philosophy courses.  :lol:

 

[___]

Philosophy as an introspective tool to analyze and develop personal ethics and beliefs is great, but yeah it's mostly intellectual masturbation when it comes to instruction and debate.

 

[Venetia]

intellectual masturbation

I LOVE THAT

*steal's it*