Donkey between two haystacks. Buridan's donkey will die from overeating

0 If you are interested in popular winged expressions, then you have come to the right place. Now the topic of phraseological units is again in great demand, because people always want to stand out from the crowd. Don't forget to bookmark our website so you can visit us from time to time. Today we will talk about a fairly well-known expression, this Buridan's donkey, meaning and origin you can read a little lower.
However, before you continue, I would like to recommend you a couple of other interesting articles on the topic of proverbs and sayings. For example, what does it mean Wash the bones; how to understand the Soul has gone to the heel; the meaning of the phraseological unit Shila cannot be hidden in a bag; what does it mean to be born, etc.
So let's continue What does Buridan's donkey mean??

Buridan's donkey- this is the name of an extremely indecisive person who hesitates in choosing between two equivalent decisions

Example:

Asinus Buridani inter duo prata (Buridan's donkey between two lawns).

Since ancient times, philosophers have been engaged in endless assumptions and conjectures, not trying to prove their words in practice.
One of these theories was that the actions of all living beings without exception depend not so much on their own will, but on external factors.

One medieval scholar became interested in this question. Jean Buridan/ Buridan, who lived in sunny France in the 14th century.
Although it is worth noting that the paradox named after him was already known in the days of Aristotle.

In fact Buridan in his writings he never mentioned this hypothetical donkey, however, he touched on this problem in more deep sense. According to him, a person who faces this challenge must make a choice towards greater good. Although this French scholar admitted that such a choice could stretch for some time, while a person is busy evaluating the results of each of the two choices.

In fact, this donkey was talked about later, other philosophers exaggerated this problem, made it easier to understand. It was then that the same Buridan's donkey, which froze at an equal distance from two haystacks of equal size and weight. As a result, this ungulate was dying of hunger, unable to give preference to any of these identical haystacks.

If we consider this idea within the framework of ordinary logic, then we can safely say that it does not matter which mop the donkey prefers, it is important that he does not die of hunger. The option of death should not be considered at all, since nature and instincts will not allow him to do such a thing. suicide.

Now we do not know if someone in antiquity could actually carry out this experiment, but only since that time, people who hesitate for a long time, indecisive, unable to make a decision for a long time, are sometimes called "buridan donkeys".

In mathematics, there is the Weierstrass theorem, which can be compared with the paradox of Buridan's donkey:

If the donkey wants to go to the left haystack (If the continuous function at one point is positive), or eat the right haystack (and at the other it is negative), or the donkey will remain in place and die of hunger (there is a point somewhere between them, where the function is zero).

By reading this article, you have learned value of Buridan's donkey, origin, and you will not fall again

Buridan's donkey will die from overeating

Will is the opposite of desire
and is a reasonable stimulation
Zeno

When a choice needs to be made
and you don't do it - that's also a choice

W. James

("Aphorisms, quotes and catchwords",

http://aphorism-list.com/t.php?page=vola and

Buridan's donkey: How can one make a rational choice between two things of equal value? ("Wikipedia", http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki, Buridan's donkey).

""Buridan's Donkey" is a paradox of absolute determinism in the doctrine of will: a donkey placed at an equal distance from two identical bundles of hay must die of hunger, because it will not be able to choose one or another bundle. This image was not found in the writings of J. Buridan. IN figuratively– a person who hesitates in choosing between two equivalent possibilities” (“Akademika”, http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc3p/80426).

“According to the teachings of the 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan, a person acts according to how his mind judges. If the mind decides that the good that is presented to it is a perfect and all-round good, then the will rushes towards it. It follows from this that if the mind recognizes one good as the highest and the other as the lowest, then the will, other things being equal, will strive towards the highest. When the mind recognizes both goods as equivalent, then the will cannot act at all. As an illustration of his teaching, Buridan cited a donkey standing between two equally attractive bundles of hay, but unable to choose one of them. Therefore, Buridan's donkey is called an indecisive person, hesitating in the choice between two equivalent desires. In the works of the philosopher that have come down to us, these thoughts have not been preserved, therefore it is not known for certain whether this is true or fiction, although the proverb that sounds in Latin “Asinus Buridani inter duo prata” (“Buridan’s donkey between two meadows”) exists ”(Who is Buridan’s donkey and how did the donkey glorify Buridan?, http://www.koryazhma.ru/usefull/know/doc.asp?doc_id=86).

“From Latin: Asinus Buridani inter duo prata [azinus buridani inter duo prata]. Translation: Buridan's donkey between two lawns.
Attributed to the French scholastic philosopher Jean Buridan (1300-1358). Allegedly, the latter, wanting to prove the absence of free will in man, likened him to a donkey, which stands in a meadow exactly in the middle between two equal haystacks. And the philosopher allegedly claimed that in this case the donkey would not be able to choose any of them, even if he were dying of hunger. From here, respectively, the expression "Buridan's donkey" arose.
But nowhere in the writings of J. Buridan is there such an example, just as there is no evidence that he ever expressed such an idea in an oral conversation. Why in this case the name of Buridan is mentioned, is unknown.
But the idea that a person cannot make a choice between two absolutely equal options, there are other authors. Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) in his essay "On Heaven" speaks of a man who is tormented by hunger and thirst, but since food and drink are at an equal distance from him, he remains motionless. Also, Dante in his Divine Comedy (Paradise, Canto 4) describes a similar situation: if someone is between two identical dishes, then he would rather die than make at least some choice.
Ironically about an indecisive, weak-willed person who hesitates between options for solving a problem and cannot choose any of them ”(Buridan’s donkey, Encyclopedic dictionary of catchwords and expressions / Compiled by Vadim Serov, http://bibliotekar.ru/encSlov/2 /114.htm).

SOLUTION

There are two levels of problems in this problem. The first has to do with quality. logical analysis, reasoning about this problem. To solve at this level, it is necessary to identify the shortcomings of the formulation and eliminate logical errors. The second level is connected with the philosophical solution of the problem. This level also contains two problems: the determinism of choice, that is, the basis for making a decision, and awareness of the degree of reasonableness of the subject making the choice.

As disadvantages of the wording, one can point out the involvement of an insufficiently intelligent being - an animal, - and also an insufficiently intelligent animal - a donkey, distinguished by its stubbornness, which speaks of inertia and inflexibility of thinking, to reflect the problems. It is not for nothing that a stubborn and stupid person is compared with a donkey or a ram, which does not surpass him in terms of rationality, judging by the saying “stared like a ram at a new gate” (“Stupid as a ram. Like a ram at a new gate (looks, stares: nothing not understanding, colloquial disapproving "- ram / Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary,
But even if we replace the donkey with a person choosing between two identical things, objects, then all the same, such an example will not reach the necessary degree of representation for identifying and solving problems in terms of quality and validity. Because the level of reasonableness of the subject, although it varies by orders of magnitude, but with respect to the goal of the task, it does not differ much. Both the donkey and the person are united by the initial impossibility of revealing the absolute identity of objects, phenomena, things in the broad sense, that is, any objects, as well as revealing the absolute difference between fairly similar objects. Based on this shortcoming, a simple solution of the Buridan problem follows. A donkey will never starve to death when confronted with a choice of two completely identical bales of hay at an equal distance from itself. Because with the absolute equality of the main factors of choice (visual parameters of the armful - volume, color; smell; distance to it, etc.), secondary, then insignificant, and then completely extraneous or non-existent reasons will inevitably come into play. The chirping of a grasshopper from the side of one of the armfuls or a breath of wind, the habit of approaching food from a certain side, just a sudden desire to approach this, and not another, armful of hay, etc.

The same conclusion follows when discussing a person's choice of two objects. The initial impossibility of revealing the absolute identity and absolute difference of objects leads to the justification of the choice between them due to the apparent difference, including the main, secondary or completely non-existent features, such as one's own inventions. For example, when choosing numbers in a lottery from absolutely equal numbers, according to the possibility of falling out for an ignorant person (that is, almost anyone), the rationale for the choice is a random choice or a choice based on numbers that are significant for a person (birthdays, etc.). And only a few can substantiate their choice with knowledge in the field of probability theory, some experience of observation and theoretical assumptions, hypotheses about the mechanism of dropping out numbers, which brings their justification of the choice closer to the choice based on essential features, although to an insufficient extent.

That is, the initial impossibility of establishing the absolute identity of objects leads to the fact that, firstly, one object always seems different from another, and, secondly, in objects that still look equal, the same in general, there is always a small real or an apparent sign, on the basis of which the choice of a seemingly more attractive object follows.

Thus, the initial impossibility of establishing the absolute identity and difference of objects (by a man and even more so by a donkey), that is, revealing the essential features of objects or even the smallest differences (of any level of consideration up to micro-differences), does not lead to the impossibility of choosing between objects, but, on the contrary, - to the choice between them, but on the basis of insignificant features. Therefore, the donkey will never die of hunger because of such a simple task, especially when it comes to food and his life, because of the impossibility of such thoughts of all people who predicted him starvation.

But at this point, the problem of validity is not yet fully resolved. Because reasoning about the determinism of choice concerned the quality of the subject making it, and not the problem of choice as such. Therefore, for the final decision, it is necessary to consider the problem of choosing a qualitatively different subject.

Imagine that the choice is made not by a donkey, not by an ordinary person, and not even by a genius or some perfect person, a superman (a superhero, for example), but a superbeing with a supermind. For him, the definition of the absolute identity and difference of objects of any level of the universe is a feasible task. And what? It, judging by the conclusions of Buridan and others, should then also stand like a donkey, looking in bewilderment at absolutely identical objects, like “a ram at a new gate”? No, of course not. His choice of two objects that are absolutely identical to each other (super-clones, that is, identical not only in form but also in content) will be even easier than for a donkey or a man. Because he can choose ANY OBJECT in this case.

The error in the conclusions of those who argued about the problem of choice, including Buridan, and Dante, and even Aristotle, consists in a “false premise” (“Logical paradoxes. Ways of solution”, chapter “Errors in reasoning in paradoxes - initial premise”,). They and all others chose the idea as their “initial premise”: “The choice is based on the difference of objects. Therefore, if it is impossible to identify even the slightest difference between objects, then it is impossible to make a choice between them. But this is an erroneous reasoning. The choice is based not on the difference between objects, but on the PURPOSE pursued by this choice by the subject making the choice. Based on this, the selection becomes a very simple process. The donkey needs to satisfy his hunger, not to determine the difference or the sameness of the bales of hay. Therefore, he can choose any armful immediately and never die from speculative torment about the choice. A person can reflect on the choice regarding the greater fit of the chosen object to his goal, but this too will not be for long. Only until the moment he understands, firstly, than one object better suits his purpose, and therefore can be chosen, or, secondly, that he cannot, like a donkey in front of armfuls of hay, establish a significant difference in objects , which means that he can choose any object suitable for the realization of his goal.

For a superbeing (or even for a reasonable person), the choice occurs according to an even simpler scheme. Realizing that any of the objects is suitable for the realization of the goal, the choice is made relatively easily. Because:

1) if the implementation of the goal does not require the identification of an absolute or simply a large, significant difference in objects, then the choice can be made immediately - any object;

2) if for the realization of the goal it is necessary to reveal an absolute, significant or even small difference, then for the superbeing (and in the last two cases also for reasonable person) the solution of this problem is feasible, and then the choice of the object is made on the basis of the clarified difference.

Thus, the final answer to the question "is it possible to make a choice from two objects and how?" will:

If it is necessary to identify a difference for the realization of the goal and the possibility of determining it, a more suitable object is selected;

If it is impossible to determine the difference or the absence of such a need, any object is selected to realize the goal.

Therefore, from thinking about a donkey choosing from two haystacks, or about a person who is tormented by thirst and hunger, or a person facing two identical dishes for lunch, an inevitable happy ending will follow: the donkey will choose the first haystack that comes across his eyes. ; a person tormented by hunger and thirst, realizing that he will die of thirst earlier, will first find water, but if hunger is much easier to satisfy, then he will do this first, or will do this in turn, because his goal is to satisfy both needs; of two identical dishes, a person will choose either one or ... eat both, which usually happens))). Therefore, the donkey, like an unreasonable person, will die rather not from hunger, but from overeating.

Buridan's donkey

Buridan's donkey
From Latin: Asinus Buhdani inter duo prata (azinus buridani inter duo prata). Translation: Buridan's donkey between two lawns.
Attributed to the French scholastic philosopher Jean Buridan (1300-1358). Allegedly, the latter, wanting to prove the absence of free will in man, likened him to a donkey, which stands in a meadow exactly in the middle between two equal haystacks. And the philosopher allegedly claimed that in this case the donkey would not be able to choose any of them, even if he were dying of hunger. From here, respectively, the expression "Buridan's donkey" arose.
But nowhere in the writings of J. Buridan is there such an example, just as there is no evidence that he ever expressed such an idea in an oral conversation. Why the name of Buridan is mentioned in this case is unknown.
But the idea that a person cannot make a choice between two absolutely equal options, there are other authors. Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his essay “On Heaven” speaks of a man who is tormented by hunger and thirst, but since food and drink are at an equal distance from him, he remains motionless. Also, Dante in his Divine Comedy (Paradise, Canto 4) describes a similar situation: if someone is between two identical dishes, then he would rather die than make at least some choice.
Ironically: about an indecisive, weak-willed person who hesitates between options for solving a problem and cannot choose any of them.

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003 .

See what "Buridan's donkey" is in other dictionaries:

- "Buridan's donkey", a paradox of absolute determinism in the doctrine of will: a donkey placed at an equal distance from two identical bundles of hay must die of hunger, because it will not be able to choose one or another bundle. In the writings of J. Buridan, this image is not ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Buridanov Donkey- Buridan's Donkey ♦ Âne de Buridan The name of the 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan is known today solely thanks to this very donkey, the parable of which is attributed to him, although in none of his surviving writings about any donkey ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

Exist., number of synonyms: 1 buridan donkey (1) ASIS synonym dictionary. V.N. Trishin. 2013 ... Synonym dictionary

The paradox of absolute determinism in the doctrine of the will: a donkey, placed at an equal distance from two identical bundles of hay, must die of hunger, because it will not be able to choose one or another bundle. This image was not found in the writings of J. Buridan. IN… … Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The comparison used to explain free will and, in fact, was already in Aristotle and Dante: a donkey, standing between two completely identical bundles of hay at an equal distance from it, had to starve, because - at ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Buridan's donkey is a philosophical paradox named after Jean Buridan, despite the fact that it was known from the works of Aristotle, where the question was posed: how can a donkey who is given two equally seductive treats, can ... ... Wikipedia

buridan donkey- burida / new donkey only unit, stable combination of books. A person who hesitates between two equal possibilities. There were as many arguments in favor as there were against; at least these arguments were equal in strength, and Nekhlyudov, laughing... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

"BURIDAN'S DOSEL"- the famous fable attributed to the scholastic philosopher Buridan, depicting a donkey dying of hunger between an armful of oats and a bucket of water due to the inability to choose between two equivalent benefits. Contrary to popular belief here... Philosophical Dictionary

Buridan's donkey- about an extremely indecisive person, hesitating in the choice between two equivalent desires, two equivalent decisions. The expression is attributed to the French philosopher scholastic of the 4th century. J. Buridan, who argued that the actions of living beings ... ... Phraseology Handbook

buridans- Buridan. By the name of fr. 14th century scholastic philosopher Jean Buridan, who, allegedly as proof that there is no free will, gave the following example: a donkey; being at the same distance from two identical bales of hay, must die, because ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Books

• The paradox of choice, Schwartz B. The problem of choice has always existed. Buridan's donkey once chose between two haystacks; modern man, which has a large number of alternatives, can easily fall into ...

Philologist, candidate of philological sciences, poet, member of the Writers' Union of Russia.
Publication date: 01/08/2019

Images of animals often inspire people to create meaningful expressions. In this respect, the donkey cannot be called a superhero. He is credited with stupidity, stubbornness, rudeness. Comparisons with ungulates are unflattering for pride. For example, the Valaam donkey is called a submissive, uncomplaining person who suddenly decides to speak. And what about the Buridan donkey? What is the subtext of this phrase?

The meaning of phraseology

The buridan donkey is compared to an extremely doubtful person who does not dare to make a choice in favor of one of two equally attractive options. He is tempted by one or the other advantageous offer.

As a result, the poor fellow misses both options, without having time to decide on his preferences. For example, someone is given a chance to fly to Egypt for the New Year holidays. A day later, an invitation comes from friends from Switzerland. Imagining either warm sea waves or the snowy peaks of the Alps, the lucky man is carried away in his dreams so far that he “awakens” to action only on December 31st. He hurries to order tickets, but they are gone. New Year you have to meet the standard: with a bowl of Olivier and Maxim Galkin.

The only child in a large family looks like Buridan's donkey, who is vying with each other for entertainment during the holidays. Grandma bought tickets to the puppet theater, grandpa invites to ski in the forest, mom and dad have planned a trip to a festive super mega show in a neighboring city. From the abundance of opportunities, the child is lost. Adults pull him in different directions. Instead of joy, a feeling of annoyance remains in the child's soul. Even having made a choice in favor of the parents, the baby does not feel happy. Sometimes adults need to be smarter.

Donkey behavior is demonstrated by a young man considering whether he should get married. After consulting with married friends, he understands that married life has advantages: an established life, order in the house, a conquered and tamed woman nearby. On the other hand, being single is so tempting! No one is in charge of you, you are in charge free time and money. While he is making a decision, the beloved despairs of receiving an offer and unconsciously outlines "someone distant to herself." The choice must be made at the right time.

The origin of phraseology

The assertion that a donkey placed at the same distance from two haystacks will not dare to go to either is called the paradox of intellectual determinism. According to legend, the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan, while researching the human psyche, decided to experiment on his own donkey. He offered the animal feeders, one of which contained barley and the other oats. Instead of having a feast of the stomach, the donkey thought about the choice for three whole days, after which he died of starvation.

However, this is just a legend. In fact, the parable of the donkey is found in the writings of Aristotle. Buridan only developed her idea, suggesting that the need to choose twice slows down the decision. Later, Leibniz returned to the same metaphor. It was he who first used the expression . According to modern biologists, an animal will never choose to starve to death in the presence of food. Buridan's donkey behaves too humanly, he is tormented by existential questions. Real animals are more natural and simpler: the donkey will think, think, and even start eating. Don't waste so much goodness!

Synonymous expressions

Phraseology has synonyms that hint at the difficulty of choice, the following proverbs convey the content of the phrase especially accurately:

• And where should I go: to the smart ones or to the beautiful ones?
• If you chase two hares, you won't catch one.
• You can't sit on two chairs at once.

No matter how indecisive you may be, remember: choice is wonderful! Let it not scare you, but give you freedom and inspire. And do not delay making decisions like Buridan's donkey, otherwise someone will take you by the leash and lead you wherever he pleases.

paradox, named after Jean Buridan, despite the fact that it was known from the works of Aristotle, where the question was posed: how can a donkey, which is provided with two equally tempting treats, still rationally make a choice?

Buridan never mentioned this problem with the donkey in his writings, but touched on a similar topic, defending the position of moral determinism - that a person, faced with a choice, should choose in the direction of greater good. Buridan allowed that choices could be slowed down by evaluating the results of each choice.

Later, other writers exaggerated this point of view, citing the example of a donkey and two equally available and good haystacks and arguing that he would certainly starve to death when making a decision. This version became widely known thanks to Leibniz.

Logically, however, it can be shown that the donkey will never starve to death in this situation, although it is difficult to predict which bale of hay he will choose. Refusing to eat is also a choice, so out of three choices, the donkey will never choose starvation. It should be borne in mind that in reality, in the absence of a difference between two portions of food, other factors will influence the choice, such as the environment, lighting, smells, and finally the individual tendency of the creature to choose between the left and right directions.

The idea of ​​the complexity of choice was developed in the 60s by Zbigniew Lipowski, later his idea was continued by Sheena Iyengar, a psychologist from Columbia University, and Barry Schwartz called the concept she proposed "the paradox of choice" and its essence, based on the philosophical paradox of Buridan's donkey, is that a large selection reduces motivation