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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent judgment-contradictions resolve into temporally or modally partitioned beliefs, eliminating genuine simultaneity.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42