Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Emotional judgments can explain recalcitrance to reason

    Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent judgment-contradictions resolve into temporally or modally partitioned beliefs, eliminating genuine simultaneity.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's logical principle of non-contradiction requires that simultaneous contradictory judgments are impossible, not merely psychologically implausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Temporal partitioning (judging P at t1, not-P at t2) preserves logical coherence while explaining why akratic agents report conflicting evaluations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modal partitioning (universal judgment vs. particular application) explains how agents can judge 'this is bad' universally yet fail to judge it bad-for-me-now.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Genuine akrasia requires simultaneous conflicting judgments; Davidson's partitioning strategies describe weakness of will differently, not the phenomenon itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Introspective evidence from akratic agents suggests they experience conflicting evaluations as genuinely concurrent, not sequenced or modally distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The partitioning strategy may preserve logical consistency at cost of psychological realism, misrepresenting how practical reasoning actually fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Davidson's logical principle of non-contradiction requires that simultaneous con...Emotional judgments can explain recalcitrance to reasonGenuine akrasia requires simultaneous conflicting judgments; Davidson's partitio...Introspective evidence from akratic agents suggests they experience conflicting ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Modal partitioning (universal judgment vs. particular application) explains how ...Temporal partitioning (judging P at t1, not-P at t2) preserves logical coherence...The partitioning strategy may preserve logical consistency at cost of psychologi...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit