The meaning of the phraseological unit "Buridan's donkey". Buridan's donkey - meaning Determine the meaning and etymology of the phraseological unit Buridan's donkey

Philologist, candidate of philological sciences, poet, member of the Union of Writers of Russia.
Publication date:01/08/2019

Animal images often inspire people to create meaningful expressions. In this regard, a donkey cannot be called a superhero. He is credited with stupidity, stubbornness, and rudeness. Comparisons with ungulates are unflattering for pride. Eg, Balaam's donkey they call a submissive, uncomplaining person who suddenly decides to speak. What about Buridan's donkey? What is the subtext of this phrase?

The meaning of phraseology

An extremely doubtful person who hesitates to make a choice in favor of one of two equally attractive options is compared to Buridan's donkey. He is tempted by one or another lucrative offer.

As a result, the poor fellow misses both options, without having time to decide on his preferences. For example, someone is given the chance to fly to Egypt for the New Year holidays. And a day later an invitation arrives from friends from Switzerland. Imagining either warm sea waves or the snowy peaks of the Alps, the lucky person is carried away so far in his dreams that he “awakens” to action only on December 31st. He hurries to order tickets, but they are no longer available. New Year you have to meet it in the standard way: with a bowl of Olivier and Maxim Galkin.

The only child in a large family, who is offered entertainment during the holidays, is like Buridan's donkey. Grandma bought tickets to puppet show, grandpa invites you to go skiing in the forest, mom and dad have planned a trip to a festive super mega show in a neighboring city. The child is lost because of the abundance of possibilities. Adults pull him in different directions. Instead of joy, a feeling of annoyance remains in the child’s soul. Even after making a choice in favor of his parents, the baby does not feel happy. Sometimes adults need to be smarter.

Asinine behavior is demonstrated by a young man wondering whether he should get married. After consulting with married friends, he understands that married life has advantages: an established life, order in the house, a conquered and tamed woman nearby. On the other hand, being single is so tempting! No one bosses you around; you manage your free time and money yourself. While he is making a decision, his beloved despairs of receiving an offer and unconsciously sets her sights on “someone distant from him.” The choice must be made on time.

Origin of phraseology

The statement that a donkey placed at the same distance from two haystacks will not decide to go to either is called the paradox of intellectual determinism. According to legend, the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan, while researching the human psyche, decided to conduct an experiment on his own donkey. He offered the animal feeders, one of which contained barley, and the other - oats. Instead of having a stomach feast, the donkey pondered the choice for three whole days, after which he died of starvation.

However, this is just a legend. In fact, the parable of the donkey dates back to the writings of Aristotle. Buridan only developed her idea, suggesting that the need to choose twice slows down decision making. Leibniz later returned to the same metaphor. It was he who first used the expression. According to modern biologists, an animal will never choose to starve to death if food is available. Buridan's donkey behaves too humanly, he is tormented by existential questions. Real animals are more natural and simpler: the donkey will think and think, and then start eating. Don't let so much goodness go to waste!

Synonymous expressions

Phraseologism has synonyms that hint at the difficulty of choosing; the following proverbs especially accurately convey the content of the phrase:

• Where should I go: to the smart ones or to the beautiful ones?
• If you chase two hares, you won’t catch either.
• You can't sit on two chairs at once.

No matter how indecisive you may be, remember: choice is wonderful! Let it not scare you, but give you freedom and inspiration. And don’t delay making decisions like Buridan’s donkey, otherwise someone will take you by the leash and lead you wherever he wants.

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 folk wisdom always sound differently. Some are eccentric - “to the point of melting”, 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?

Reads in 10 minutes

Karl Erp, head of the district library in Berlin - the capital of the GDR, forty years old family man with a developing belly, he wakes up in his room with a smile on his face. While reading a book at breakfast, he thinks about Fraulein Broder. After graduating from library school, she, along with another student, undergoes a six-month internship in his library.

The day before, at a team meeting, the question of which of the two trainees would be left in the library after passing the final exams was decided. The director of the school recommended Broder, she is a Berliner, one of those who would wither away without Berlin. The issue was resolved in favor of the girl, everyone recognized that her knowledge was enormous and her moral character was impeccable. But after the meeting, colleague Hasler unofficially expressed the opinion of many employees that the fraulein may not have enough cordiality, she is too straightforward, he himself is afraid that in her presence he will “get a chill in his soul.”

Reflecting on the appearance of his subordinate, Earp remembers her posture, pleasant restraint, and finds something “alienating” in her facial features. Then he sees the girl’s smiling lips, hears her soft intonations, which sometimes confuse the interlocutor. She becomes irresistible when “naturalness breaks through artificial coldness.”

While Earp is thinking about the intern, eating a delicious and healthy breakfast prepared by his wife, Elizabeth is busy with the children. Elizabeth asks her husband if he will return home on time, and is satisfied with a negative answer. She studied her husband well and has no doubt that she will later find out about everything in detail. She is not afraid of stories with women; he always talks about everything himself. Elizabeth is sure that her husband did not deceive her or commit adultery. She tries to suppress the anxiety or jealousy that sometimes arises.

The family lives in a comfortable house with a garden, which Elisabeth received from her parents, who moved to West Berlin. Earp loved this house and is proud of the lawn, which he does himself.

The working day drags on unbearably long for Earp. He has to inform trainee Krach about the decision in favor of Fraulein Broder. Earp tries to console the dissatisfied Krach, revealing to him the prospects for library activities in the village and scolding Berlin. The conversation ends with an angry remark from the bypassed trainee - for some reason Earp himself does not go to work in the village. Earp is embarrassed, it is painful for him to have enemies, he is used to being popular with both women and men.

In the evening, Earp goes to visit his sick trainee and, under a plausible pretext, tells her good news: Fraulein Broder lives in an old, neglected house with many noisy and crowded residents. Here she was born and lived with her parents, now deceased.

Earp climbs the dirty stairs and stands for a long time in front of the Fraulein's door to calm down his excitement. Since the morning he had been looking forward to this moment, and now he was afraid that one look from her would “kill all hope.” This does not happen, and since both were tireless talkers, their meeting lasted six hours.

Earp returns home at half past two in the morning. Elizabeth silently accepts his apology and then listens to the details. Karl has no secrets from his wife; he feels the need for “honesty.” The husband describes Broder's house and tiny room: the kitchen is on the landing, the restroom is on another floor, one for all residents. He already has difficulty remembering what they talked about: about the problems of librarianship, literature, the psychology of readers, sleep patterns, mint tea, the Bundeswehr... Earp describes in detail the girl’s peculiar habit: she constantly strokes her eyebrows when she listens. The following is a conclusion about the dangers of sleepless nights and the benefits of cozy evenings at home with your wife and children. Elizabeth must understand that this Broder is the most intelligent and the most tiresome of all the girls.

Elizabeth is an unusually silent woman, her life and interests belong entirely to her family. Karl always felt that he could not unravel the soul of his wife, and he did not strive for this, he only allowed himself to bliss under “ warm rays her love." That night, Elizabeth realizes that her husband has fallen in love, which she tells him to his face. She immediately notices some changes in him, noticeable only to her, and vaguely feels a readiness to violate marital fidelity.

Karl disappoints Fraulein Broder as a man and a boss, not meeting her ideas about him. She always expects more from people than they can give. Brodeur has read all of Earp's library articles published in the press and has long respected him as a professional. And he comes to her with a bottle, the same as all men, arrogant and, apparently, with one desire - to sleep with her.

In the morning, Earp writes the girl letter No. 1 - an angry, “propaganda” letter from a party member (Erp is a member of the SED) to a non-party woman, who should know that socialist morality does not require a vow of chastity. Broder finds a letter without a stamp or postmark in his mailbox and understands what is happening to him.

One evening, when Earp is sitting at Brodeur’s, his colleague Hasler comes to his house and stays, talking with Elizabeth, almost until his return in the morning. The colleague is concerned about the issue of moral standards, since Krach has already started gossiping about the library. Hasler learns many things from Elizabeth and feels that her accommodation and submission are the foundation on which many families rest.

This time, a decisive conversation takes place between the spouses. Karl is trying to shift his guilt onto his wife’s shoulders: he married her without loving her, because that’s what she wanted. After such a false statement, Elizabeth decides to divorce, although Karl does not insist on it at all. His wife's behavior is again a mystery to him. Library employees discuss among themselves the director's affair with his subordinate. Krach intends to complain “through the authorities.” One employee, a great polymath, calls Earp “Buridan’s donkey,” described back in the Middle Ages. That donkey died after long deliberation about which of two identical fragrant haystacks he should prefer.

Karl spends Christmas night with the fraulein, this is the first real night of their love. The next day he moves in with her with two suitcases.

The first day together is filled with discoveries for both. Broder discovers that "gigantic love" turns into a "dwarf" fear for his reputation. Karl learns that the neighbors call his beloved “little sparrow,” and also that she is used to deciding everything on her own.

Hasler is waiting for a decisive statement from Earp about starting a new family. But he remains silent, and then Hasler himself formulates the conditions - an immediate divorce with the transfer of one of the two to another library.

In the wretched surroundings of the house, Broder Earp truly suffers. You can hear the noises of your neighbors all night, mice and rats are busy in the attic, since four o’clock in the morning the walls have been shaking from the roar of the printing house, it’s unusual to sleep on an inflatable mattress. Insomnia torments him, he is exhausted from self-pity. “Sparrow” occupies the washstand in the ice-cold kitchen for a long time, then makes unstrained coffee and eats foul-smelling sausage for breakfast instead of marmalade. When she leaves for work, she leaves the bed unmade until the evening - for “airing” - how can he return to such a room?

Karl constantly attacks his beloved, while she only defends herself, defends herself from the remnants (as it seems to her) of male lust for power. But she is not irritated, because she suffers only from him, and he suffers from both her and the environment. She invites him to go together to work in the village, but he knows how attached “she” is to Berlin.

Gradually, Broder fears that Karl's love is beyond his strength.

Earp visits his terminally ill father in the village, a former teacher in those parts. He shares with him the change in his personal life and sees that his father is on Elizabeth's side. The old man notices to his son that he does not like the word “duty” and persistently talks about happiness, and only those who are able to refuse it have happiness.

Time passed, and Earp never filed for divorce. Meanwhile, things are going well with his career. At the next meeting in the library, he admits that he “lives with a colleague Broder” and intends to divorce his wife. The director thinks it would be unfair if Broder had to leave the library because she was promised a position. He takes the blame and says he will leave on his own. His decision is made - this is a shock for Earp, who secretly hoped that his sacrifice would not be accepted. He comes to the “sparrow” with a tragic face and the expectation of gratitude for the sacrifice made.

At this time, Earp's friend from the ministry reports that he is officially offered a post in the same ministry in Berlin. Thus, all conflicts are finally resolved by the socialist state. But Earp does not feel any particular joy, since now all his decisions are devoid of a heroic aura. He reluctantly accepts the offer.

Broder doesn’t know anything, she takes her final exams at school, after which she asks to be sent to work in the village. When she returns home and tells Earp about her decision, he is not horrified, does not ask her to take the decision back and does not assure her that he is ready to go with her anywhere, especially to his favorite province. He immediately accuses the “little sparrow” of arbitrariness and takes on the appearance of an insulted lover whom the woman wants to leave. Earp does not inform Brodeur of his new assignment in Berlin and allows her to go into self-imposed exile. He is left with a “bleeding heart” - from which the stone of responsibility has fallen.

Earp returns to his family. As before, he tells Elizabeth about everything himself, “honestly”, “without subterfuge” and “mercy” towards himself, the “Golden Chain of Love” turned into “shackles” and “traps”, he had to forcefully break.

Elizabeth takes him back into the family where fourteen years of their marriage have passed. Elizabeth tells herself that she is doing this for the children. During these months without her husband, she is already gaining her place in public life, having mastered a new profession.

Elizabeth goes to bed with the door locked. What is this woman, who has changed so much, thinking about? No one can know this.

Retold

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who lived in the fourth century BC, told his students and listeners a parable. In his Buridan story, the donkey is an indecisive man who dies of thirst and hunger. This person is within walking distance of food and food and does not know what to choose for his salvation.
What Aristotle really meant was that if a person is faced with such a choice, he should choose what he thinks will turn out to be the greatest good for him. Much later, in the Middle Ages, the scholastic philosopher Jean Buridan retold this parable in different words.

BURIDAN'S DONKEY PROBLEM

Actually there is no problem. There is a donkey dying of hunger, and there are two piles of seemingly identical hay. What to choose? According to the parable, the donkey can endlessly decide and in the end simply die of hunger. Also, a lop-eared animal can simply choose one of two haystacks and start eating.

Jean Buridan was able to formulate the question of choice in exactly this way. Is it possible to make a rational choice if it is not entirely possible to calculate what this or that decision will lead to? True, according to rumors that have survived to this day, Buridan, when telling this story to his listeners, always asked if he had seen donkeys die in such cases. Otherwise, all of Asia would simply be littered with the corpses of eared animals. In fact, animals are not tormented by the problem of choice; this property is inherent only in humans.

EITHER PAN OR MISSING

In fact, Buridan's ass is each of us at least several times a week. How often do you catch yourself thinking about what is best for you to do in a particular situation and which of two evils to choose? This question is illustrated very well by the famous joke about a monkey who could not decide who to join - the smart ones or the beautiful ones.
There is not and cannot be a single correct answer in such situations, because a person has his own worldview and worldview.

HEADS OR TAILS?

Let's start with the simplest option - when you need to choose one of two alternatives (things, objects, possibilities). In such a situation, the “heads or tails” principle is often used, which, of course, greatly simplifies the selection procedure itself, but automatically presupposes that the chooser has a certain “submission to fate.” As they say, “it’s hit or miss.” Although I recently came across a note on the Internet that claims that a tossed coin is governed by some complex physical laws.

DON'T LIT!

However, even without the intervention of complex scientific theories, they managed to make the choice of two equivalent alternatives extremely difficult back in ancient times, by inventing the well-known parable about Buridan's donkey, who died of hunger, unable to choose which of two identical haystacks he should start his meal with.

The parable demonstrates what very often happens in many scientific discussions about choice, where one problem is imperceptibly replaced by another. A real donkey would probably have been smarter than the philosophers who invented it and would hardly have bothered with the problem of the absolute identity of two haystacks, but would have obeyed the instinct of self-preservation, which prescribes to satisfy hunger at all costs, and not to solve complex logical problems. He would just start eating one of the haystacks! And I would have a second bite for future use.

It would be nice for a mere mortal to use this very “donkey strategy”, that is, to ask not the question of implementing a complex pattern, but to remember the purpose of his choice. the main task donkey - to eat, and not to choose the best of the haystacks. You immediately understand that only people are capable of so sophisticatedly fooling themselves with speculative reasoning to the detriment of their own stomach.

STEP INTO THE FUTURE

The problem is that any choice is always a certain choice of the future. And we evaluate it, already looking back from the “resulting” future, and decide whether it was successful or not very successful. Therefore, the task itself - to make a good choice - has no solution in the present tense. You can only take certain actions that will or will not bring a positive result in the future. As a result, the problem of choice often comes down not to choice as such, but to the problem of a person’s lack of an image of the desired future. To the inability to formulate our own desire - what do we need? That is, behind the problem of choice we often hide the problem of introspection. We can't decide what we need.

"FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Often behind the problem of choice there are “hidden” problems generated, so to speak, by a certain organization of our consciousness and education based on currently “current” values. After all, in order for a person to lose sleep when deciding which brand of clothing to prefer, this very choice of “brand” must be significant for him. If you take a closer look, “freedom of choice” is allowed in modern society almost exclusively in the sphere of consumption. At one time, even the very concept of “freedom” somehow imperceptibly “stuck together” with the ability to choose goods and services.

The abundance of goods has become a symbol of the free world. But what is freedom? Is it that they strictly dictate to you how you should look at work, introducing the concept of a “dress code”? Or is it that to a certain degree of wealth, society dictates everything to you - the brand of car, place of residence, method and place of recreation? And only the richest are again allowed to “wonder” and decide at their own discretion.

There is an old joke about how a young employee came to a cool company, where there was very strict control over compliance with all modern standards, from clothing to a strict smoking ban, and suddenly sees a man in faded jeans and a faded T-shirt smoking by the window. He is surprised and quite loudly begins to wonder who it is. To which he receives an answer in a frightened whisper: “Hush, hush, don’t disturb him! The last time he thought like this, our company earned tens of millions of dollars!”

FEAR AS A STIMULUS

Quite often, choices, especially in personal relationships, are made out of fear or under duress of circumstances. Not everyone has the courage to risk waiting for “their” person. More than once I have heard from ladies who came for consultations about unsettled family relationships that the motivation for marrying this particular man was: “there was no other”, “he was the best there was”, “it was time to have a child”. It’s another matter that life is such a complex and unpredictable thing, and human relationships are such a mysterious substance that sometimes even with such flimsy foundations things happen happy marriages. Even “on the fly.”

THE MEANING OF PATIENCE

Self-control in the face of choice is also an art. If you can’t choose for a long time, most likely you are not very happy with both options - and circumstances do not allow you to wait for the third. If you nevertheless made your choice from two alternatives that are not entirely satisfactory, then be prepared to accept responsibility for the obvious - most likely, after some time you will not be satisfied with your choice and will have to choose again. So don’t invent people a place in your life, wait a little, and they themselves will take their rightful place.

RULES

So, before choosing, it’s worth considering a simple list of four questions: “Why do we choose? On what basis do we choose (what are we guided by?) In what situation do we choose?” And only then - “What do we choose?”

1. First, decide on the purpose of your choice - ask yourself a question about the reasons. Don’t forget that a clear understanding of “why” makes any “what” elementary.

2. Remember that often people in a situation of time pressure or the special significance of a win begin to introduce “secondary” reasons - from insignificant to fictitious. For example, when playing roulette or lottery, they begin to base their choices on “significant” dates, birthdays, etc., attributing to them the properties of “lucky” numbers. So if you have to make a choice under extreme conditions, trust your intuition. Especially when it comes to your professional competence.

3. There are some things you should come to terms with in advance and “don’t bother.” So, for example, in situations where we make choices under conditions beyond our control, we can only try to reduce risks. That is, either try to “calculate the risks” (which is practically impossible in modern conditions), or “minimize” possible losses, risking in advance only the amount (those resources) that we can lose relatively painlessly.

4. One more opportunity should not be overlooked. After all, we don’t always really need to make a choice between something. Often the choice is to give it up. The simplest strategy is to reduce the value of what we are offered to choose or would like to receive, but there is no such opportunity. Let us at least recall the famous Krylov fable about the fox and the grapes: “It looks good, but it’s green - there are no ripe berries: you’ll immediately set your teeth on edge!”