Paradoxes of Irrationality - Donald Davidson (1981)

Donald Davidson gives a talk on the nature of irrationality and some of the puzzles that arise. This talk was given at the Vancouver Institute in 1981 as part of the Dal Grauer Memorial Lectures. Note, the introduction to the speaker has been edited out and the audio has been slightly improved.
00:00 Start
08:51 Four Features
16:23 Rationality
26:25 Akrasia Paradox
42:06 Second Paradox
55:52 Underlying Paradox
1:03:05 Q&A
#Philosophy #Mind

[@randyhelzerman]

A tour-de-force of philosophical brilliance.

[@eraserhead-prime]

I have always had the hardest time understanding Davidson’s writing, but listening to him talk, he is crystal clear.

[@luizs.f5305]

Brilliant work my friend, and in these days your kind of effort is so much needed. Thank you again!🤝

[@hugoballroom5510]

Thank you very much for adding to the meager selection of Live Davidson out here.

[@rommemory282]

i like how he gives pause after each word like he's really trying to let you and himself conceptualize and comprehend what he is saying.

[@Akkodha-]

Has to be a Aquarius

[@rommemory282]

@@Akkodha- WTF does that have do with anything I said months ago and would have forgotten about had there not been this record of it.... please don't let horoscopes mean something more than a few generalizations anyone with a little life experience in dealing with people could easily come up with while high, drunk, and staring into a toilet.

[@VladVexler]

Thank you!

[@gerhitchman]

this is a gem

[@ZootBurger]

Superb lecture! ❣

[@camiloospinarodriguez190]

Davidson's sense of humor is one of the things that makes me like him so much hahahah Thanks for uploading this!

[@projectmalus]

Very good, thanks.

[@siddhartha9189]

Jeeez!!! This is fantastic!!!!

[@EG-uv8fd]

0:24 5:29 7:55 9:07 11:20 13:46 16:48 Only a rational being can be irrational 17:46 23:32 26:38 Akrasia 28:41 Plato principle 29:56Medea principle

[@jjharvathh]

Lots of ideas here !

[@blairhakamies4132]

Fabulous🌹

[@firstal3799]

Great American Philisopher

[@pilleater]

I love this

[@MJPTHA3RD]

The first half starts off slow and unconvincing; however, it really picks up during the paradoxes. I had paragraphs written previously about why psychoanalytics still fails as a framework, but he ultimately moves into a quandary of linguistics of a psychological origin in the latter half that is generally applicable even if his axioms are slightly faulty. Also, his last point leaves me wondering about social stimuli and pressures as desire in terms of Foucault, as a biopolitc that drives this desire. I don't believe there's a need to systematize that desire as categorically different from the first, either. Second order in definition alone, but not in practicality. Would love to see Chomsky, Foucault, or a serious systems theorist respond to this.

[@kaitqo]

Rationality as a word is something that unambiguously applies to statements, these statements are linguistic productivities of a being’s thoughts. A statement is only deemed a rational statement if it doesn’t reify concepts into objects also not allowing action to take place in a concept or pure nothingness. This is Fundamental.

[@AbdulAbdul-qp4yo]

❤

[@rovosher8708]

Compare the quoted melodrama to St. Paul’s use of akrasia in Corinthians 7:5 - ἀκρασίαν ὑμῶν - lack of self control. “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

[@themise1416]

Does he give his explanation for the woman's behaviour? (Aside from the psychoanalytic explanation to do with the wife being unhappy because childless).

[@hugoballroom5510]

I had the same thought. Is her choice-making that different than the husband's? Did she go through the same process but thinking in terms of two people not one?

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

@@hugoballroom5510 feminine logic is diametrically opposed to masculine logic. This is why I never psychoanalysis the weaker sex.

[@007lutherking]

I would say the women has an unresolved cptsd that has resulted in the manifestation of one of the many mental illnesses. Could be bpd or schizophrenia. The issue with having these mental illnesses is that the rational thinking/cognitive capabilities are severely compromised and people rely on their primal basal ganglia(which is the animal brain for self regulation and to make sense of the world) basal ganglia is the worst at regulating emotions(limbic system) and without rational thinking they fall prey to brains cognitive biases and fallacies and superstitious magical thinking. Mental illness essentially makes you an animal, and we know that some animal freeze as a response to external threat. Explaining her behavior would be just as simple/difficult as it would be to explain the behavior of an animal. Its not rational. That behavior is truly exhibited to its extreme in schizophrenia. Its a disease of the brain and then you're also relying on your brain to fix itself when its damaged. It could also be the splitting thing where bpd pushes responsibility onto others .as in she expected her husband to save her as she is not responsible for herself but her husband is. Which is always a double bind because if her husband does not save her, she'd say that he doesn't care about her(fear of abandonment) .. if he does intervene and save her then she'll be angry at him for not supporting her wishes and that he doesn't understand her(fear of engulfment). All I can say is she was unable to make a decision, and that is how she's lived her whole entire life. Splitting results from bad parenting/negliect/abuse etc during early childhood. Ironically people with mental illnesses are blessed with heightened ability for intuition (caudate putamen) which also lies in basal ganglia. This reminds me of the instances when animals could sense natural disasters way before they happened. Its all so very complex and also so very simple.

[@tracisundari1950]

Is this guy w. Buroughs hadler?

[@TeaParty1776]

When man evades focusing his mind onto concrete reality, he encounters a pair of ducks.

[@JS-dt1tn]

Quack quack !

[@chapster6273]

Focused like a laser beam, chiseling your perception into concrete, you remain in that jungle. Carl Jung'ed from the jungle, and like me would rather play with the ducks and putty cats.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@chapster6273 You know of course, that youre trying to get high wihtout haaåving to paæay. My serious advice is corned beef on seeded rye, St. Pauili Girl and Panama Red. Jung is ok if you dont focus your mind onto reality. You can pretend its relity. Its historiclal defAAAULT When reeson is not used.

[@joseandresgomez4797]

Tired of seeing the richness I forgot to see the ideas

[@TheNoblot]

END OF DOLLAR BETTER DO IT now before the EURO crashes 😥🧑‍🦯🧑‍🦽 TIMELINKS: Paradoxes of irrationality