David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 77 (1):7-37 (1995)
This is surely a bit of Socrates' famous irony. He draws the analogy to explain how his friends should regard poetry as they regretfully banish it from the ideal state. But lovers were no more sensible then than they are now. The advice to banish poetry, undermined already by Plato's own delight and skill in drama, is perhaps undermined still further by this evocation of a 'sensible' lover who counts love so well lost. Yet Socrates' image is one of avowed rationality and prudence. The sensible lover imitates the older literary example of Ulysses' tying himself to the mast. (The example belongs therefore to the class of problems treated in Elster (1979)). Both this lover and Ulysses foresee that under certain possible future conditions, their opinions, values and preferences will or would differ from what they are now, in a very definite fashion. To what extent is such foresight possible? Correspondingly (when we do not claim foreknowledge) to what extent is such opinion reasonable, rational, coherent, or consistent in some suitably broad sense? It is not easy to understand exactly what is possible or even logically permissible in this respect. In an earlier paper, "Belief and the Will", I argued for a principle ("Reflection") to govern such deliberation. Here I will both generalize the treatment of opinion in "Belief and the Will" and respond to criticism. Critical examples mainly resembled the story of Ulysses who foresaw a period of dysfunction (at the sound 2 of the sirens) in his epistemic and/or doxastic future. Other criticism focused on the model of opinion used (precise numerical subjective probability) and on the merits of Dutch Book arguments. The present argument will not rely on Dutch Book arguments and strategies, and the Reflection principle will be formulated so as to apply also to vague opinion
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jon Elster (1984). Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Editions De La Maison des Sciences De L'Homme.
Simon J. Evnine (2007). Personhood and Future Belief: Two Arguments for Something Like Reflection. Erkenntnis 67 (1):91 - 110.
Mitchell S. Green & Christopher R. Hitchcock (1994). Reflections on Reflection: Van Fraassen on Belief. Synthese 98 (2):297 - 324.
Garin V. Dowd (1998). Disconcerting the Fugue: Dissonance in the "Sirens” Episode of Joyce's Ulysses. Angelaki 3 (2):147 – 167.
Ryan Spellecy (2003). Reviving Ulysses Contracts. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (4):373-392.
F. H. Hahn (1980). Ii. Ulysses and the Sirens. Inquiry 23 (4):479 – 482.
Jon Elster (2000). Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge University Press.
Edward Hinchman (2012). Reflection, Disagreement, and Context. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):95.
Jon Elster (1983). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Editions De La Maison des Sciences De L'Homme.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1995). Belief and the Problem of Ulysses and the Sirens. Philosophical Studies 77 (1):7 - 37.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #22,767 of 1,005,055 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,005,055 )
How can I increase my downloads?