Works by Ariela Lazar ( view other items matching `Ariela Lazar`, view all matches )

5 found
Sort by:
  1. Ariela Lazar, Division and Deception: Davison on Being Self-Deceived.
    Q 1: How is it possible for a competent subject to detect the irrationality of a belief that p, to form and maintain his belief that not-p against weighty or conclusive evidence to the contrary?
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Daniel Dombrowski, Don Garrett, Stanley Hauerwas, Sheridan L. Hough, Hugh LaFollette, Ariela Lazar, S. E. Marshall, Corinne M. Painter, Rosamond Rhodes & Mary Anne Warren (2002). Book Notes. [REVIEW] Ethics 112 (3):651-657.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Ariela Lazar (2000). Elijah Millgram: Practical Induction. Erkenntnis 52 (3):409-411.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ariela Lazar (1999). Deceiving Oneself or Self-Deceived? On the Formation of Beliefs Under the Influence. Mind 108 (430):265-290.
    How does a subject who is competent to detect the irrationality of a belief that p, form her belief against weighty or even conclusive evidence to the contrary? The phenomenon of self-deception threatens a widely shared view of beliefs according to which they do not regularly correspond to emotions and evaluative attitudes. Accordingly, the most popular answer to this question is that the belief formed in self-deception is caused by an intention to form that belief. On this view, the state (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ariela Lazar (1997). Self-Deception and the Desire to Believe. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):119-120.
    This commentary concentrates on two flaws in Mele's account. The first is Mele's attempt to account for self-deception by appealing to a desire to believe, together with an instrumental belief concerning the means of satisfying this desire. Contrary to Mele, it is argued that such an account requires a recognition on the part of agents that their actions instantiate these means. Second, Mele misidentifies the most essential – and flawed – ingredient of the standard approach to self-deception, the agent's desire (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation