What is Buridan's donkey: history and meaning of phraseological units. The problem of Buridan's donkey - the origin and meaning of phraseological units

BURIDAN'S DONKEY will die from overeating

Will is the opposite of desire
and represents reasonable arousal
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, Buridanov’s donkey).

“"BURIDA'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 works of J. Buridan. In a figurative sense, a person hesitates in choosing between two equivalent possibilities” (“Academics”, 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 what his mind judges. If the mind decides that the good presented to it is a perfect and comprehensive good, then the will rushes towards it. It follows from this that if the mind recognizes one good as the highest and another as the lowest, then the will, other things being equal, will rush to the highest. When the mind recognizes both goods as equivalent, then the will cannot act at all. To illustrate 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 who hesitates in choosing between two equal desires. In the works of the philosopher that have reached us, these reflections have not been preserved, so it is not known for certain whether this is true or fiction, although the proverb in Latin “Asinus Buridani inter duo prata” (“Buridanov’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 [asinus Buridani inter duo prata]. Translation: Buridanov settled between two lawns.
Attributed to the French scholastic philosopher Jean Buridan (1300 – 1358). Allegedly, the latter, wanting to prove the lack 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 argued that the donkey in this case would not be able to choose any of them, even if it were dying of hunger. Hence, accordingly, the expression “Buridan’s donkey” arose.
But nowhere in the writings of J. Buridan is there an example of this kind, and there is no evidence that he ever expressed such a thought in oral conversation. Why Buridan's name is mentioned in this case is unknown.
But other authors have the idea that a person cannot make a choice between two absolutely equal options. Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) in his work “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 any choice.
Ironically about an indecisive, weak-willed person who hesitates between options for solving a problem and cannot choose any of them" (Buridanov'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 task. The first is related to the quality of logical analysis and reasoning about a given problem. To solve at this level, it is necessary to identify deficiencies in the formulation and eliminate logical errors. The second level is associated 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 rationality of the subject making the choice.

As disadvantages of the formulation, one can point out the involvement of an insufficiently intelligent creature - an animal - to reflect the problems, and also an insufficiently intelligent animal - a donkey, distinguished by its stubbornness, which indicates inertia and inflexibility of thinking. It’s not for nothing that a stubborn and stupid person is compared to a donkey or a ram, which is not superior to him in terms of intelligence, judging by the saying “staring like a ram at a new gate” (“Stupid as a ram. Like a ram at a new gate (looks, stares: nothing not understanding, colloquially disapproving.” - ram / Ozhegov’s Explanatory Dictionary,
But even if you replace the donkey with a person choosing between two identical things, objects, then such an example will still not reach the necessary degree of representation for identifying and solving problems in terms of quality and validity. Because although the level of intelligence of the subject varies by orders of magnitude, it does not differ much in relation to the goal of the task. Both donkey and man are united by the initial impossibility of identifying the absolute identity of objects, phenomena, things in the broad sense, that is, any objects, as well as identifying the absolute difference between fairly similar objects. Based on this shortcoming, a simple solution to the Buridan problem follows. A donkey will never die of hunger when faced with a choice of two completely identical armfuls of hay at an equal distance from itself. Because with absolute equality of the main factors of choice (visual parameters of the armful - volume, color, smell, distance to it, etc.) secondary, then unimportant, 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 the blowing of the wind, the habit of approaching food from a certain direction, just a sudden desire to approach this particular armful of hay and not another, etc.

The same conclusion follows when reasoning about a person’s choice of two objects. The initial impossibility of identifying the absolute identity and absolute difference of objects leads to the justification of the choice between them due to the apparent difference, including main, secondary or completely non-existent characteristics, such as one’s own inventions. For example, when choosing numbers in a lottery from absolutely equal numbers, if possible, for an ignorant person (that is, almost anyone), the rationale for the choice becomes a random choice or a choice based on numbers that are significant for a person (birthdays, etc.). And only a few can justify their choice with knowledge in the field of probability theory, some observational experience and theoretical assumptions, hypotheses about the mechanism of numbers falling out, which brings their justification of choice closer to a 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, identical 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 person and especially by a donkey), that is, identifying the essential features of objects or even the smallest differences (at any level of consideration down to micro-differences), does not lead to the impossibility of choosing between objects, but, on the contrary, – to choose between them, but on the basis of unimportant signs. Therefore, the donkey will never die of hunger because of such a simple task, especially when it comes to food and his life, due to the impossibility of such thoughts of all the people who predicted his death by starvation.

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

Let's 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 superhuman (a superhero, for example), but by a superbeing with superintelligence. For him, determining the absolute identity and difference of objects at any level of the universe is a feasible task. And what? Judging by the conclusions of Buridan and others, it 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 from two objects that are absolutely identical to each other (superclones, that is, identical not only in form, but also in content) will be even easier than for a donkey or a person. Because in this case he can choose ANY OBJECT.

The error in the conclusions of those who reasoned about the problem of choice, including Buridan, Dante, and even Aristotle, consists of a “false starting premise” (“Logical paradoxes. Ways to solve”, chapter “Errors in reasoning in paradoxes - starting premise”,). As the “initial premise” they and all others chose the thought: “The choice is based on the difference of objects. Consequently, 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 not based on the difference between objects, but on the PURPOSE pursued by this choice of the subject making the choice. Based on this, the choice becomes a very simple process. The donkey needs to satisfy his hunger, and not to determine the difference or identity of armfuls of hay. Therefore, he can choose any armful immediately and will never die from speculative torment over the choice. A person can reflect on the choice regarding the greater correspondence of the chosen object to his goal, but this will also not happen for long. Only until he understands, firstly, why one object better suits his goal, and therefore can be chosen, or, secondly, that he cannot, like a donkey before armfuls of hay, establish a significant difference in objects , which means he can choose any object suitable for realizing his goal.

For a superbeing (or even for Homo sapiens), the choice follows an even simpler scheme. Understanding that any of the objects is suitable for realizing the goal, the choice is made relatively easily. Because:

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

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

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

If it is necessary to identify the difference to realize 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 between two haystacks, or about a man who is tormented by thirst and hunger, or a person in front of whom there are two identical dishes for lunch, an inevitable happy ending will follow: the donkey will choose the first haystack that comes to his eye ; 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 do it in turn, because his goal is to satisfy both needs; out of two identical dishes, a person will choose either one or... eat both, which usually happens))). Therefore, a donkey, like an unreasonable person, will die more likely not from hunger, but from overeating.

Derived from Buridan's donkey .

However, not everyone knows who he is. Therefore, the idea came up to make a short note about it on the site.

Buridanov's donkey

There is not much to say about Buridan's donkey himself, since he died tragically, unable to make a choice between two identical armfuls of hay.

Purely mathematical death. Naturally, what attracted me to Buridan’s donkey was not her, but his problem. Indeed, how to find a constructive solution in a difficult situation of choice?

It is also not easy to explain why the donkey is Buridanov. The fact is that the scholastic Jean Buridan has serious problems with the copyright of the donkey. This character is not found anywhere in his works. But to declare that Buridanov is an ass - not Buridanov, also somehow stupid. In some ways this is reminiscent of the Buridan’s donkey situation described above. It turns out unfairly: Aristotle wrote about exactly such an animal, after him Dante, but the authorship ultimately went to Jean Buridan.

Apparently, Buridan liked to discuss the situation of Aristotle's donkey with his students, developing his approach to the problem of free will. And over time, in the collective student consciousness, the donkey became Buridan’s.

Having started the note, I also found myself in a difficult situation of choice. After all, there is nothing to add on the merits of the question. One can, of course, reproduce various clever things about this. List which of the philosophers, starting with Leibniz, somehow kicked the poor donkey and its owner. But I don't want to. Personally, it seems to me that for our time Buridan’s donkey is a parable about what exactly a person is superior to robots .

A constructive solution for me unexpectedly emerged in shifting my attention from the donkey to Buridan. It would seem, why might we be interested in the French scholastic of the 14th century, who interprets Aristotle for himself? However, Buridan turned out to be a very lively and diverse personality. And the more I became acquainted with fragmentary facts and stories from his life, the stronger the desire was to put them together and see what happens.

Jean Buridan

Information about Buridan, including the dates of his birth and death, is mostly inaccurate, and information about his personal life is generally similar to legends. Therefore, I will tell the story of Jean Buridan, which is true only to one degree or another. At least I didn’t come up with anything on my own.

Student

Jean was born at the end of the 13th century near the town of Bethune in Picardy, in the north of France. As a young cleric, Jean entered the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he was first assigned to the College of Cardinal Lemoine, and later became a member of the College of Navarre. Both colleges were founded after the birth of Buridan: by Cardinal Lemoine in 1303 and by the Queen of Navarre in 1304.

Jean's family was not rich - at the College of Cardinal Lemoine he was awarded a scholarship for needy students. Buridan subsequently became famous among his colleagues for his ability to attract grants and scholarships for the work he did at the University of Paris.

And for good reason: he managed to attract as many sponsors as three popes : first - John XXII, then - Benedict XII (he appointed Buridan as a canon of the church in Arras), and subsequently - Clement VI. By the way, he studied and had fun with Clement in his youth. As a result, a document from 1349 places him among those few teachers (masters) who are able to do without financial support from the University.

By the way, representatives of the province of Picardy, 60 theologians and 40 philosophers, studied at the College of Cardinal Lemoine. The bulk of the Picardy Nation student community, to which Jean belonged, were students from Flanders. (In medieval universities they were united along national lines, and each community had its own self-government bodies and its own territory at the Sorbonne.)

Since students and teachers from all over Europe gathered at the Sorbonne, the well-known Englishman William Ockham (with his completely unsafe “Occam’s razor”) is considered Buridan’s teacher. And the most famous student of Buridan himself was Albert of Saxony.

We are still far from what we were then level of globalization in education. Back then, there were significantly more students studying abroad than now, when they number only 2%. And in general, Europe was not yet divided by clearly established state borders.

Lovelace

From his youth, Jean loved to dress well and loved women. Moreover, over time he gained fame as a kind of Parisian Don Juan. To be fair, it should be said that for students of that time it was considered natural to cause troubles in the city and seduce pretty townswomen.

This was facilitated by the special status of the entire university corporation. The University of Paris was a state within a state, even to the point of having its own “police.” And having had fun in the city, the students only needed to quickly find themselves on their sovereign territory.

Of course, among the students, Jean Buridan was by no means the only one who was greedy for the female sex. So, once Jean Buridan hit the future Pope Clement VI on the head with his shoe (apparently he hit it powerfully, if this story has survived to this day). Because he succeeded in competing for the affections of the lovely wife of a German shoemaker.

They say about Buridan that he was the queen's lover Navarre Margaret of Burgundy, wife of the future king of France Louis X. And also Joan I of Burgundy, wife of King Philip the Long. However, Buridan was not lucky with the queens - in fact, fate brought him together only with Jeanne of Burgundy, nicknamed Lame, the wife of King Philip VI of Valois. The confusion with the queens occurred due to the fact that both Joan of Burgundy were involved in the story of the Nel Tower.

Jeanne I of Burgundy sold the Nelles Palace on the banks of the Seine to Philip VI of Valois, retaining only the “House of Students” founded by her. Subsequently, it turned into the famous Burgundian College at the University of Paris. The money from the sale went to the maintenance of the “Students' House”. And around 1330, Philip VI of Valois gave the Nel Palace to his wife Jeanne of Burgundy - Lame.

Zhanna Chronozhka she was smart, but ugly, and at the same time cunning and cruel. Therefore, with the assistance of her servants, she subtly satisfied her feminine passions. They promised the student a romantic date with a noble lady and an attractive amount of money. And the queen received a young lover for the night, who was then killed and thrown in a bag into the Seine.

Obviously, our ladies' man was not inclined to refuse romantic proposals. Later poet Francois Villon This is how this adventure was reflected in “The Ballad of the Ladies of Old Times”:
Where is the queen, by whose command
The ill-fated Buridan was executed,
Sewn into a bag, drowned in the Seine?..

No, everything turned out to be not so fatal, we answer the poet, who himself miraculously escaped hanging several times. Buridan loved to question traditions and authorities. In particular, Zhanna Lame Legs' habit of saying goodbye to her lovers forever. How he managed this is unknown. Perhaps his loyal students came to his aid, since everything was nearby.

Rumors about what was happening in the Nel Tower excited the Parisians so much that her husband had to take Jeanne the Lame to one of the Burgundian castles. Having adjusted a little with France while her husband fought with the British, Jeanne died of the plague in 1349.

In my opinion, it follows that Buridan was very capable person : he managed to combine the glory of a Parisian dandy and womanizer with the glory of the most significant French scholastic of the 14th century.

In continuation of this articletells about Jean Buridan as a teacher, medieval scientist and public figure.

We can assume that since you found yourself on this page of the site and even reached the end of this story about Jean Buridan, then you like or have to (this is more about students) read books. Therefore, I decided to draw your attention to the material about choosing books to read and, in addition to it, - small a collection of advice from writers on how to choose the best book.

Just use networks buttons below .

Who is called "Buridan's donkey"? This expression came into modern Russian from an ancient parable. Everyone who has a basic understanding of the philosophy of the Middle Ages knows about the meaning of this phraseological unit. When using the expression “Buridan's donkey”, many people have the following picture before their eyes: a hungry animal stands between two haystacks and cannot choose which one to approach in order to eat.

Traditionally, in the Russian language, a stubborn, self-willed, capricious person is called a donkey. However, in the parable the image of a donkey is used as an example of indecision, lack of will, and unwillingness to make a choice. Of course, any other herbivore (for example, a goat, cow or horse) could have taken the place of the donkey. But the French philosopher Jacques Buridan (c. 1300 - c. 1358) decided to use the donkey in his parable as a symbol of stupidity and short-sightedness.

Buridanov's donkey in philosophy

Buridan in one of his treatises wrote that a person is deprived of freedom of choice, and illustrated this is a clear example from the life of animals.

Further, Buridan writes that people sometimes do the same thing. When a person cannot make a choice, this leads to degradation and death. It is worth noting that this philosophical paradox, named after Buridan, was found in the works of Aristotle.

The origin and meaning of the phraseological unit “Buridan’s donkey”

Many phrases and expressions of philosophers have become popular, flying around the whole world. The same can be said about the phrase “Buridan’s donkey.” This phraseological unit came into the Russian language together with translations of scientific works of medieval authors. In modern Russian, it is used infrequently, since the word “donkey”, used in relation to a person, carries a pronounced negative emotional connotation and can be perceived as a personal insult. However, in written speech the phraseological unit “Buridan’s donkey” is used quite often, for example, when:

In everyday life, people quite often encounter the Buridan's Ass Paradox. In order to successfully get out of such a difficult situation, you need to show courage, willpower, and the ability to correctly assess the situation. Not everyone is capable of this. Sometimes a person who is unable to make a choice reaches a dead end and does not know what to do next. In such cases, it is best to take the advice of family and friends, or rely on your own intuition.

The problem of Buridan's donkey is especially typical for people who are soft, weak-willed, and spineless. On the contrary, strong, courageous, determined people usually quickly make a choice, even if both options are approximately equal.

Examples of using phraseological units

In oral speech in Russian, this phraseological unit practically not used, since calling a person a donkey is not customary in Russia. The donkey in Russian folklore is traditionally considered a symbol of stupidity, so this expression can be found mainly in fiction. It is used to describe the suffering of people who cannot make the right choice, for example:

• “Maria had two suitors, and the girl felt great affection for both. She was in the position of Buridan’s ass.”
• “He could not make a choice and in despair compared himself to Buridan’s donkey.”
• “Her husband was torn between his wife and his mistress like Buridan’s donkey.”

In modern Russian there are several phraseological units that are a little close in meaning to the expression “Buridan’s donkey”, for example: “throw between two fires”, “out of the frying pan and into the fire”.

But these expressions have a slightly different meaning: they are used not when it is difficult to make a choice, but when both choices lead to problems and difficulties. In English there is a similar expression: between the devil and the deep blue sea.

The phraseology "Buridan's donkey" is also often found in scientific texts related to ancient and medieval literature and philosophy. For everyday speech, this expression is considered too bookish.

The problem of Buridan's donkey has been relevant in any time - from antiquity to the present day. People who cannot make the right choice are common in any society. This expression refers precisely to them. However, it should be used with caution, because for most Russian speakers, the word “donkey” used in relation to a person can cause an ambiguous reaction. It is better to replace this phraseological unit with more neutral synonyms: “weak-willed person”, “spineless person”, “doubting personality”.

The philosophical question that Aristotle posed will always excite human minds. Buridan's donkey - the meaning of the phraseological unit is revealed through the behavior of the animal, which must make a rational choice between absolutely identical treats.

There are several options for the origin of the phrase “Buridan’s donkey”. It is generally accepted that the character from the parable symbolizes stubbornness and stupidity, but this is not entirely true. In fact, this animal has been revered by people since ancient times. In those days, it was considered one of the signs of wealth.

The most famous donkey that carried Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. There is a famous philosophical parable about Buridan's donkey, which continues the thought of Aristotle. Its meaning is that a person needs time to comprehend the event.

Buridan's donkey is still controversial. The all-knowing Wikipedia writes about him. The parable is interpreted as evidence of the absence of free will: at the moment of choice, a person is guided by a stronger motivation. In reality, there are two haystacks and a hungry animal that must choose a treat or starve to death.

Buridan noted that it is not always possible to make a rational choice. The philosopher, with the help of a parable, sought to explain that the painful problem of making a decision is inherent only to people.

The time inevitably comes when you have to choose between:

• beautiful and not so beautiful;
• useful and useless;
• honest or dishonest;
• good and evil,
• dark or light.

The donkey spent a long time choosing between two equal haystacks and died of hunger without making a choice between two equal alternatives. He did not dare to start his meal, remaining between two stacks of absolutely identical hay.

This is exactly what happens with many scientific arguments about choice, when one problem is quietly replaced by another - less important one.

Without a doubt, a real character would not make up his mind for long, but would simply begin to eat, obeying instinct. The donkey is unable to reason logically. Wikipedia has no doubt that he would simply eat one of the haystacks, and without hesitation, would proceed to the second. After all, the main task of an animal is to satisfy its appetite so as not to die of starvation, and not to argue which of the haystacks is tastier.

The origin of this strategy is to remind mere mortals of the purpose of choice. This once again confirms that only people know how to engage in speculative reasoning to the detriment of their stomach. Pictures with a funny Buridan donkey are the best proof of this; they were often used for caricatures.

Buridan's Ass Problem

There is a concept of divinity and darkness in the world. At the same time, material benefits and conveniences occupy a significant part in people’s lives. Every moment a person has to think, speak, and make a choice between two haystacks. Act honestly or disregard moral rules for your own benefit.

Every thinking being passes the test of choice. There are events that at first seem like luck for a person, but in the end bring complete disappointment. Much changes over the course of life, new desires arise. Only Buridan's donkey is a constant choice between good and evil.

Recognizing the truth of good is not easy, sometimes you can make a mistake, but if the choice is honest, then what result does life require from a person? First of all, learn to quickly make a choice, not to subordinate your mind to evil through temptations and pleasures.

What kind of person can be called Buridan's donkey?

This expression is used in relation to a person:

• doubting;
• extremely indecisive;
• hesitating for a long time.

The problem of Buridan's ass lies in the choice between approximately identical or seemingly identical options. As soon as a person chose, he immediately felt that he was living. When his consciousness is tormented by a problem, it is as if the person is not free. While the pros and cons of a proposal, for example, a vacancy, are being weighed for a long time, it will be filled by someone else who is more decisive and quickly analyzes the situation.

Useful video

Let's sum it up

The meeting in life with Buridan's donkey is perfectly illustrated by an anecdote in which the monkey takes a long time to choose who to classify himself as: smart or beautiful. In reality, the meaning of a phraseological unit can be found at every step. Almost every person is faced with a choice situation in life. If he thinks about it for a long time, he may lose the lucrative offer and he will be called Buridan’s donkey.

Catchphrases are pearls that enrich our spoken language. By how and when a person pronounces such phraseological units, you can very easily get an idea of ​​his intelligence and education.

These expressions of folk wisdom always sound different. Some are eccentric - “until the thaw”, others are pompous - “the die is cast, the Rubicon has been crossed”, and still others...

When you hear from someone’s lips such “winged words” as “Buridan’s donkey,” your imagination involuntarily draws a picture of a stupid donkey with all four legs planted in the ground and unwilling to budge.
In fact, donkeys are not stubborn at all, they are hardworking and easy to control. True, sometimes something comes over them, but this happens very rarely.

In the mountains of Afghanistan, for caravans following secret paths, smugglers always prefer to use obedient donkeys than their competitors - restive and large horses. Therefore, it is worth recognizing that the myths about the stubbornness of donkeys are extremely exaggerated.

If many people know the phraseology "Buridan's donkey", then how many people have heard about the donkey's owner, Buridan? So who is this mysterious Buridan?
The fact that the whole world knows about his donkey, does this mean that Buridan was a very influential person?

The history of the appearance of this phrase "Buridan's donkey" goes back to 14 century in romantic France. At that time, full of dangers and exploits, there lived a scientist and philosopher. He was a great smart guy, he slowly scratched his paper, played with words and generally led a rather idle lifestyle. Despite his powerful intellect, he was like his contemporaries not marked in any way, he did not deserve his share of fame.

So he died in obscurity, but soon after his death, someone remembered a very funny statement of this philosopher Jean Buridan. He often used to say that if you place two completely identical haystacks at an equal distance from each other and place a donkey at an equally accessible distance from them That is, so that the donkey could reach one and, with the same success, another haystack. Jean Buridan confidently argued that in this case the donkey would simply die of hunger, because it would hesitate from which haystack to start taking food.

It does not at all follow from this that Jean Buridan was enthusiastically engaged in practical experiments. He simply assumed that perhaps the donkey would die of hunger, that’s all.

Although some researchers suggest that a similar idea was given to him by Aristotle, who first put forward the idea that if food and water are placed at equal distances in front of a person who is deprived of drink and hungry, he can die of hunger due to indecision. A similar statement can be read in the book of the great philosopher "On Heaven".

The famous writer Dante wrote about this in his beautiful " Divine Comedy". In the fourth song, which is called "Paradise" he writes about a person who is so stupid that he would prefer death if the same food is placed in front of him at an equal distance. At the sight of which he will hesitate which food to choose, and he will die. from hunger.

Whether Jean Buridan plagiarized this idea from his venerable colleagues, or came up with it with his own mind, we will never know unless we learn to summon the spirits of the dead. However, the fact remains that “Buridan’s donkey” is the idea of ​​​​Jean Buridan himself. Very few people are awarded such posthumous fame as this Frenchman from 14 century. Try this expression on yourself, can you make a choice from an equal?