Buridan's Ass

1. Introduction

Buridan’s Ass is a classic philosophical thought experiment about an agent apparently paralyzed between two equally good options. It serves as a compact illustration of tensions between rational choice, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), and conceptions of free will.

The core idea is simple: if a perfectly rational creature faces two alternatives that are, in every relevant respect, exactly the same, does rationality allow it to pick one, or must it remain stuck? The imagined case—typically a donkey standing between two identical bales of hay—has been used to probe what happens when reasons run out and options are symmetrically attractive.

Philosophers employ this scenario to investigate several questions:

• whether rational action always requires a differential reason favoring one option over another
• whether a will can initiate action when options are equally good (freedom of indifference)
• how strong a version of PSR is compatible with ordinary decision-making
• how an ideal rational agent compares with psychologically realistic agents who often decide under pressure, habit, or minor biases

The example is most often associated with the fourteenth‑century scholastic John Buridan, although this attribution is historically contentious. Regardless of its exact origin, the case has become a standard reference point in discussions of medieval theories of the will, early modern metaphysics of reason and explanation, and contemporary decision theory.

Subsequent sections examine the textual history of the example, its logical structure as a reductio ad absurdum, its role in medieval and later debates about the will’s power to choose under indifference, and its influence on modern models of rational choice in symmetric situations.

2. Origin and Attribution

2.1 Aristotelian Roots

A structurally similar puzzle appears in Aristotle, who considers a man located at a point equidistant between two identical destinations. In De Caelo II.13, Aristotle writes:

"

If a man, being in a place from which it was necessary to go, were in every respect similarly disposed to go to one place or the contrary place, he would not go anywhere.

— Aristotle, De Caelo II.13

This early formulation already raises the problem of action under complete symmetry, though it does not involve a donkey or food.

2.2 Medieval Development

Later medieval scholastics, especially those working in the Aristotelian tradition, refined such examples to interrogate free will, divine foreknowledge, and contingency. Texts by Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme, and others discuss scenarios involving an ass and equally attractive options, though details vary. These discussions help explain how a more vivid animal-based illustration may have evolved.

2.3 Association with John Buridan

The canonical donkey‑between‑two‑heaps story is traditionally linked to John Buridan (c. 1300–after 1358). However, scholars largely agree that no surviving work by Buridan contains the famous ass example in its standard form. Instead, the association seems to have arisen in:

• critical reports by later scholastics who opposed views similar to those attributed to Buridan
• early modern summaries of medieval debates, which sometimes compressed complex positions into memorable anecdotes

2.4 Scholarly Assessment of Attribution

Modern historians of philosophy generally treat the standard donkey story as apocryphal with respect to Buridan. Studies such as Jack Zupko’s John Buridan: Portrait of a Fourteenth-Century Arts Master argue that:

• Buridan’s actual texts discuss choice under indifference, but
• the specific starving‑donkey tale likely originated in later commentarial or polemical traditions, perhaps as a caricature of positions associated with his “school.”

The label “Buridan’s Ass” nevertheless persists as a convenient name for the thought experiment, even while its precise authorship remains historically uncertain.

3. Historical Context in Medieval Philosophy

3.1 Scholastic Debates on Will and Intellect

The medieval setting for Buridan’s Ass is shaped by scholastic debates over the relation between intellect and will. Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Buridan analyzed how the will responds to the intellect’s presentation of goods:

• Intellectualist views tended to see the will as following the intellect’s judgment of what is best.
• Voluntarist views emphasized the will’s capacity to choose among presented goods, sometimes independently of a strict “best” judgment.

A central issue was whether a will can act when the intellect presents options as strictly equal in goodness.

3.2 Theological Background: God, Freedom, and Contingency

Medieval Christian theology introduced further pressures. Philosophers attempted to reconcile:

• Divine omniscience and foreknowledge with human freedom
• The presence of contingent events in a world created and sustained by an omnipotent God
• The demand that God creates and acts according to wisdom and reason, not arbitrary whim

The thought that God or humans might confront equally eligible options raised questions about whether all choices must be based on a superior reason.

3.3 The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Scholastic Form

Various scholastics endorsed something like a Principle of Sufficient Reason, often expressed as the requirement that:

• no event occurs without a cause or reason, and
• God’s actions are always wise and ordered.

This principle was applied not only to natural phenomena but also to volitions. If every choice must be grounded in a determining reason, situations of perfect symmetry become especially problematic.

3.4 Academic Milieu and Logical Training

The universities of Paris, Oxford, and elsewhere fostered a highly technical culture of logical analysis and disputation. Hypothetical cases like equally balanced scales or symmetrical paths were common pedagogical tools in:

• commentaries on Aristotle
• quaestiones on the will, contingency, and necessity
• discussions of modal logic and future contingents

In this context, an example involving an ass between two equal goods naturally fit into ongoing scholastic methodology, providing a vivid illustration of deeper metaphysical and theological issues rather than a purely whimsical puzzle.

4. The Thought Experiment Stated

4.1 Canonical Form

In its now-standard version, the thought experiment is presented as follows:

A hungry (and sometimes thirsty) donkey is placed exactly midway between two identical bales of hay (or between hay and water). The bales are stipulated to be:

• equal in size, quality, and attractiveness
• at precisely the same distance from the donkey
• equally easy to reach and unobstructed

The donkey is described as perfectly rational and as acting only when it has a sufficient reason to choose one course of action rather than another.

Because the two options are perfectly alike in all practically relevant respects, the donkey lacks any reason to prefer the left bale over the right, or vice versa. Under the further assumption that the donkey will not act without such a differential reason, it remains motionless until it dies of hunger (and sometimes thirst), despite the presence of adequate nourishment.

4.2 Idealizing Assumptions

The case relies on several explicit idealizations:

• Perfect symmetry of options: no hidden differences in distance, smell, or accessibility
• Ideal rationality: the donkey responds only to reasons, not to random impulses or subconscious biases
• Time extension: no external event or internal fatigue breaks the deadlock before death occurs

These conditions are not meant as realistic psychological claims but as theoretical stipulations enabling a precise test of the underlying principles of rational choice and sufficient reason.

4.3 Variants of the Basic Setup

Within this basic framework, historical and modern discussions often modify:

• the goods involved (e.g., two heaps of hay; hay vs. water; different routes of travel)
• the type of agent (a donkey, a human, or God)
• the stakes (survival vs. trivial convenience)

All such versions preserve the central feature: an agent facing two options that are exactly equal in value and accessibility, with no reason to prefer one but still needing to act.

5. Logical Structure and Reductio Form

5.1 Core Argumentative Pattern

Philosophers commonly treat Buridan’s Ass as a reductio ad absurdum directed against certain assumptions about rational agency and PSR. In schematic form:

1. A perfectly rational agent acts only if it has a sufficient reason to prefer one action over its alternatives.
2. In a perfectly symmetric situation, there is no sufficient reason to prefer one option.
3. Therefore, a perfectly rational agent in such a situation cannot choose either option.
4. In a survival context, the agent dies despite available resources.
5. This outcome is absurd or at least deeply counterintuitive.
6. Hence, one or more of the premises must be rejected or revised.

The argument is logically valid: if the premises hold, the conclusion follows. The philosophical debate concerns the soundness of the premises and the acceptability of the alleged absurdity.

5.2 Role of Idealization

The reductio’s force depends on taking the stipulations about:

• perfect rationality, and
• perfect symmetry

at face value. If rationality does not require a differential reason, or if perfect symmetry is impossible or irrelevant, the conclusion may be blocked.

5.3 Targeted Principles

Different traditions highlight different premises as the main target:

• Strong versions of PSR: every choice must have a determining reason, down to which bale is chosen.
• Strictly deterministic pictures of volition: given a complete prior state plus laws, only one future action is possible.
• Models where indifference implies inaction: equal evaluation of options entails inability to will one over another.

The donkey’s death is then used to show that such principles, when combined, yield an implausible picture of rational agency.

5.4 Contrastive Reasons and Explanation

Some analyses reformulate the puzzle in contrastive terms: explanations are sought not merely for “why the donkey acts” but for “why it chooses the left bale rather than the right.” The thought experiment presses whether rationality and PSR require an answer to this fine‑grained “rather than” question in every case, or whether a coarser explanation—“to eat”—can suffice without further differentiation.

6. Key Concepts: Indifference, Rationality, and PSR

6.1 Indifference

In discussions of Buridan’s Ass, indifference denotes the agent’s lack of any stronger reason to choose one option over another. Two notions are often distinguished:

• Evaluative indifference: the options are judged exactly equal in value.
• Motivational indifference: the agent experiences no pull toward one option rather than the other.

The donkey case typically embodies both, making it a paradigmatic symmetric decision problem.

6.2 Rationality

The agent is described as an ideal rational agent, which is often taken to mean:

• it has consistent preferences,
• it always acts in accordance with its best judgment, and
• it does not act on mere impulse, habit, or arbitrary whim.

Some accounts further stipulate that rationality demands a reason favoring the chosen option, not merely a reason to perform some act within a set of tied options. Others interpret rationality more permissively, allowing an agent to:

• recognize a tie among options, and
• select any member of the tied set as rationally acceptable.

These differing conceptions of rationality are central to interpreting the thought experiment’s force.

6.3 The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

Buridan’s Ass is frequently linked to strong forms of PSR, which assert that:

• every event, including every choice, must have a sufficient reason or explanation why it occurs rather than not or otherwise.

Applied to the donkey, PSR yields the demand:

• there must be a sufficient reason for choosing the left bale rather than the right, if that choice occurs.

If no such reason exists in a perfectly symmetric setup, strict PSR suggests that no such choice can occur.

Weaker versions of PSR distinguish between:

• a reason for acting at all (e.g., the donkey’s need to eat) and
• a reason for this specific act rather than another equivalent one.

On these weaker views, PSR may be satisfied by the general motivation to eat, without requiring a further symmetry‑breaking reason. The donkey case thus provides a test bed for comparing strong and qualified formulations of PSR.

7. Variations and Alternative Scenarios

7.1 Changes in the Goods

Different versions alter the nature of the goods while preserving symmetry:

The hay‑versus‑water setup is sometimes used to explore multi‑dimensional needs and whether equal overall value can still yield paralysis.

7.2 Changes in the Agent

The donkey is often replaced by:

• a human agent deciding between indistinguishable paths, jobs, or actions
• God or a perfectly wise being choosing among equally good possible worlds or laws

These alternatives raise parallel questions about human free will and divine choice, especially when God is thought to act always for the best yet appears to face multiple “best” options.

7.3 Changes in Stakes and Context

Philosophers also vary the stakes:

• High‑stakes versions involve survival, as in the starving donkey.
• Low‑stakes versions involve trivial choices (identical pens, chairs, or routes).

High‑stakes formulations aim to intensify the paradox—death seems especially absurd—whereas low‑stakes variants test whether the same structural issue arises when nothing critical hangs on the outcome.

7.4 Temporal and Dynamic Variants

Some discussions introduce time or dynamics:

• the options remain symmetric, but time pressure increases
• small fluctuations in desire or attention slowly tilt the agent one way
• the agent may adopt a procedure (e.g., flip a coin) in advance to resolve future ties

Such variants explore whether and how temporal processes, habits, or randomization can break symmetry without positing an antecedent reason for one specific outcome.

7.5 Partial Symmetry and Near Ties

In practice, options may be only approximately equal. Near‑tie cases, where one bale is microscopically closer or slightly larger (but not noticeably so), are used to probe:

• whether imperceptible differences can ground rational preference
• whether indifference should be understood as an epistemic state (ignorance of differences) or as genuine value equality

These variations help clarify which features of the original donkey case are essential to the philosophical issues it is meant to illuminate.

8. Implications for Free Will and the Will’s Power

8.1 Freedom of Indifference

Buridan’s Ass is frequently invoked in debates over freedom of indifference—the purported capacity of the will to choose among options that are equally good or bad. Two broad positions appear:

• Some medieval and later thinkers maintain that a genuinely free will can originate a choice between equal goods without being determined by a stronger reason.
• Others argue that true freedom requires acting for reasons, and that undetermined, reasonless choices do not constitute meaningful freedom.

The donkey case dramatizes this dispute by asking whether a perfectly rational will can move when its reasons are exactly balanced.

8.2 Determinism and Volitional Necessity

The example also engages questions of determinism about action. If every choice is fully determined by prior psychological and environmental states:

• then in a perfectly symmetric setup, there seems to be no determining factor selecting one bale over the other;
• some conclude that the donkey must therefore fail to choose, suggesting that determinism plus symmetry yields paralysis.

Others hold that even in a deterministic framework, micro‑differences or stochastic processes may play a role, or that determinism does not require a specifiable reason for each fine‑grained outcome.

8.3 Necessity vs. Contingency of Choice

In scholastic terms, the puzzle concerns whether the will’s choice is:

• necessitated by the greater good as apprehended by the intellect, or
• contingent, such that it could have been otherwise under identical conditions.

Buridan’s Ass focuses on the limiting case where no greater good exists; the will appears neither compelled toward one option nor decisively inclined toward the other. Proponents of a robust will often take this to show that the will must have a non‑necessitated power to determine itself.

8.4 Moral Responsibility and Reason-Giving

Some discussions extend the implications to moral responsibility: if an agent’s will can or must act under indifference, can such actions be:

• praiseworthy or blameworthy, or
• merely arbitrary and outside the realm of moral assessment?

The example thus serves as a test case for how theories of free will relate to reasons, responsibility, and rational control, focusing specifically on situations where ordinary patterns of reason‑guided choice seem to break down.

9. Decision Theory and Symmetric Choice Problems

9.1 Symmetric Decision Problems

In modern decision theory, Buridan’s Ass is often recast as an instance of a symmetric decision problem: two options share the same expected utility, probabilities, and costs. Under standard axioms, such as those in expected utility theory, the agent’s preference ordering treats these options as tied.

The donkey’s situation corresponds to a decision problem in which:

• both actions (“go left,” “go right”) yield the same utility (e.g., survival), and
• inaction yields a strictly worse outcome (e.g., death).

9.2 Rationality Under Indifference

Decision theorists typically hold that when options are equally ranked, rationality:

• forbids choosing a strictly dominated option, but
• permits selecting any member of the set of tied options.

On this view, rationality does not require a differentiating reason between tied options; it requires only that the chosen option be maximal in expected utility.

Thus, from a decision‑theoretic perspective, the donkey’s failure to choose is modeled as irrational: a rational policy is to pick either bale.

9.3 Tie-Breaking Mechanisms

To address symmetry, decision theory explicitly introduces tie‑breaking strategies:

These mechanisms preserve rational constraints at the level of expected utility, while acknowledging that additional, possibly arbitrary, rules may decide among tied options.

9.4 Idealization and Real Agents

Some theorists stress that perfect symmetry rarely arises for real agents. Small perceptual or cognitive differences effectively break ties, resulting in slightly different utilities or subjective probabilities. The donkey story is thus treated as a limiting case that clarifies how models must handle indifference and arbitrary choice, rather than as an empirically realistic prediction about behavior.

9.5 Relation to Game Theory

In game theory, similar issues appear in:

• mixed strategies, where rational players deliberately randomize to preserve symmetry or avoid exploitation;
• coordination games with multiple symmetric equilibria, where each player must somehow select one equilibrium.

Buridan‑style examples thereby serve as pedagogical tools for illustrating how formal theories represent choice under symmetry and the role of explicit or implicit tie‑breakers.

10. Standard Objections and Critical Responses

10.1 Psychological Realism Objection

Critics argue that the scenario is psychologically unrealistic. Real agents—even highly reflective ones—rarely freeze when facing equal options; they eventually:

• pick one impulsively,
• notice a negligible asymmetry, or
• become impatient and act.

On this view, the assumption that perfect symmetry produces indefinite paralysis mischaracterizes both human and animal psychology, weakening the thought experiment’s relevance to actual decision‑making.

10.2 Rational Permission to Break Symmetry

Another objection contends that the paradox depends on an unduly stringent conception of rationality. Proponents of this line claim that:

• rationality requires a reason to act (e.g., to obtain food), not necessarily a reason to view one equal option as better;
• once a tie is recognized, rationality permits arbitrary selection among tied options.

The donkey’s death then reflects not an implication of rationality, but a mistaken constraint that rational choice must always track a strict preference ordering.

10.3 Misattribution Objection

Historical critics point out that the standard donkey story is not found in Buridan’s extant writings, and may have been introduced by later commentators as a caricature of views associated with him. If so, using the example to evaluate Buridan’s actual theory of the will risks anachronism and misrepresentation. The objection does not undermine the puzzle itself, but questions its use as evidence about specific medieval philosophers.

10.4 Irrationality of Death Objection

Some argue that the thought experiment embeds a contradiction in its own assumptions: a “perfectly rational” agent that lets itself die when survival is easily achievable appears irrational by definition. On this view:

• the principle “never act without a differential reason between options”
• conflicts with the more basic rational principle “do not let yourself perish when you can easily avoid it.”

Hence the scenario’s conclusion—that the rational ass dies—is taken to show that the starting premises about rationality are themselves incoherent.

10.5 Responses to Objections

Defenders of the thought experiment typically reply that these objections:

• challenge the plausibility of certain premises, but
• do not erase the underlying tension between strong PSR, determinism, and indifference.

They emphasize that the example is a device of idealization aimed at clarifying which principles must be weakened or rejected once the outcome (paralysis and death) is judged unacceptable.

11. Proposed Resolutions and Philosophical Lessons

11.1 Libertarian Free Will of Indifference

One resolution appeals to libertarian free will and the will’s power of indifference. According to this view:

• the will can choose between equally good options without being determined by prior reasons or causes;
• the donkey (or a human agent) could simply select one bale, thereby avoiding paralysis.

This approach typically weakens or denies the applicability of PSR to individual volitions, while preserving the idea that such undetermined choices can still be responsible and rational enough.

11.2 Qualified or Limited PSR

Another resolution retains PSR in a restricted form. It holds that:

• there is a sufficient reason for the donkey’s acting (its desire to eat),
• but there need not be a further reason for its choosing the left rather than the right bale.

Here, PSR governs the existence of an action (or of a certain type of action) without extending to all contrastive questions about particular outcomes. The thought experiment then illustrates the need to differentiate levels or domains of explanation.

11.3 Decision-Theoretic Arbitrary Choice

From a decision‑theoretic standpoint, the lesson is that models of rational choice should explicitly allow for arbitrary tie‑breaking when utilities are equal. On this view:

• rationality is satisfied once the agent chooses any maximal option;
• randomization or fixed conventions are legitimate tools for resolving ties.

The donkey’s death simply records a violation of rational choice principles; the puzzle thus motivates clearer axioms for rational behavior under indifference.

11.4 Epistemic and Practical Denial of Perfect Symmetry

A further strategy questions the presupposition of perfect symmetry. It emphasizes that:

• real agents almost always encounter slight differences in information, perception, or context;
• such micro‑asymmetries suffice to ground a weak preference.

The philosophical lesson, on this approach, is that theories of rationality and free will should be tailored to realistic decision environments, where true equality of options is rare or unattainable.

11.5 Broader Lessons About Reasons and Action

Across these resolutions, a common theme is the clarification of how reasons relate to action:

• whether all rational actions must be grounded in comparative reasons,
• whether arbitrary choice can be rationally and morally acceptable, and
• how fine‑grained our demands for explanation should be.

Buridan’s Ass thus functions as a testing ground for theories of practical reason, explanation, and freedom, by focusing attention on what is required for an agent to move from indifference to decision.

12. Buridan’s Actual Views and Historical Misattributions

12.1 Buridan’s Writings on the Will

John Buridan’s extant works, especially his commentaries on Aristotle’s ethics and metaphysics, contain extensive discussions of:

• voluntary action,
• deliberation, and
• the relation between intellect and will.

He analyzes cases where the will confronts opposed or balanced motives, and he addresses the possibility of choosing otherwise under the same conditions. However, the well‑known donkey‑between‑two‑heaps narrative does not appear in his surviving texts.

12.2 Buridan on Indifference and Motivation

In Buridan’s theory, the will is influenced by the intellect’s presentation of goods, but he also allows that the will can:

• withhold assent,
• choose between alternatives, and
• be affected by habit, passion, and circumstance.

Some interpretations suggest that Buridan treats the will as capable of acting under certain forms of indifference, though scholars differ on how far this indifference extends and whether it matches later libertarian notions.

12.3 Emergence of the “Buridan’s Ass” Label

The specific donkey story seems to crystallize later, in:

• 15th‑century discussions of Buridan’s followers and critics, and
• early modern accounts that simplified scholastic debates for broader audiences.

Opponents of positions associated with Buridan may have employed the donkey case as a vivid rhetorical device, attributing it to him (or to his “school”) to illustrate alleged shortcomings in their views on the will and rational choice.

12.4 Modern Historical Scholarship

Contemporary historians, drawing on close textual analysis, largely agree that:

Works by scholars such as Jack Zupko emphasize that while the thought experiment captures themes central to Buridan’s milieu, it should not be taken as a straightforward statement of Buridan’s own position.

12.5 Implications of Misattribution

The probable misattribution has two main consequences for interpretation:

• Historically oriented studies caution against reading the donkey case back into Buridan’s texts as their organizing example.
• Systematic philosophers continue to use the label “Buridan’s Ass” as a convenient shorthand for the puzzle, while recognizing that it is only loosely connected to Buridan’s actual writings.

This dual awareness allows for both historically responsible scholarship and continued use of the example as a tool for contemporary analysis.

13. Comparisons with Related Puzzles and Paradoxes

13.1 Balanced Scales and Symmetry Puzzles

Buridan’s Ass is closely related to older examples involving equally balanced scales or equidistant paths, such as Aristotle’s man between two routes. All focus on symmetry and the apparent lack of a determining factor. The donkey case stands out for adding biological urgency (hunger, thirst), heightening the perceived absurdity of inaction.

13.2 Zeno’s Paradoxes

While Zeno’s paradoxes concern motion and divisibility rather than choice, they share structural features with Buridan’s Ass:

• both use idealized scenarios to derive counterintuitive conclusions;
• both aim to expose alleged inconsistencies in common assumptions (about motion for Zeno, about rationality and PSR for Buridan’s Ass).

However, Zeno’s arguments target the possibility of motion itself, whereas the donkey puzzle targets the conditions for initiating action under symmetry.

13.3 Akrasia and Weakness of Will

Debates about akrasia (acting against one’s better judgment) raise different but related questions. In akratic cases, the problem is acting contrary to reasons; in the donkey case, the puzzle is failing to act when reasons appear evenly balanced. Both challenge simple pictures of how reasons determine action:

13.4 Pascal’s Wager and Decision Under Uncertainty

Pascal’s Wager and subsequent work in decision theory confront situations where probabilities and utilities are uncertain or infinite. Buridan’s Ass, by contrast, deals with known, equal utilities. Yet both illustrate how formal reasoning about expected outcomes can influence decisions when intuitive guidance is weak or contested.

13.5 Newcomb’s Problem and Prisoner’s Dilemma

Thought experiments like Newcomb’s Problem and the Prisoner’s Dilemma examine conflicts between different plausible principles of rationality (dominance, expected utility, causal vs. evidential reasoning). Buridan‑style cases focus instead on:

• what rationality demands when no strict preference ordering exists, and
• whether arbitrary or random choices can be rational.

Together, these puzzles form a cluster of examples used to stress‑test theories of rational choice, explanation, and free will under varying structural constraints (indifference, uncertainty, strategic interaction).

14. Influence on Later Philosophy and Decision Theory

14.1 Early Modern Metaphysics and PSR

In early modern philosophy, themes exemplified by Buridan’s Ass informed debates on PSR and divine choice. Leibniz, for instance, pondered whether God could select between equally perfect worlds, and argued that God always chooses the best for a reason, thereby rejecting genuine indifference at the divine level. Schopenhauer later defended a strong version of PSR, criticizing notions of a will that could act without sufficient motive.

14.2 Free Will and Indeterminism

In the nineteenth century, William James employed scenarios reminiscent of Buridan’s Ass in discussing indeterminism and the “dilemma of determinism.” He considered situations where an agent’s choice seems underdetermined by reasons, exploring whether such choices could ground a meaningful sense of freedom. Later libertarian theorists, such as Robert Kane, have used structurally similar cases to argue that some choices are genuinely indeterminate, yet still rationally and morally significant.

14.3 Analytic Philosophy of Action

Twentieth‑century philosophers of action, including Donald Davidson, engaged with Buridan‑style examples when examining the relation between reasons and causes. They questioned whether every action must correspond to a strongest reason, and how agents can act when reasons tie. These discussions contributed to refined accounts of practical reasoning, intention, and rationality.

14.4 Formal Decision Theory and Economics

In statistics, economics, and formal decision theory, symmetric choice problems became standard illustrations in textbooks and research. Authors such as Leonard Savage and Isaac Levi analyzed decision under indifference, clarifying how rational agents may:

• randomize among tied options,
• adopt tie‑breaking conventions, or
• refine preferences via additional criteria.

Buridan‑like examples thus shaped the formulation of axioms and the understanding of utility maximization in symmetric contexts.

14.5 Contemporary Status

In present‑day philosophy, Buridan’s Ass is often treated as:

• a largely pedagogical tool for introducing themes in free will, rational choice, and PSR;
• a historically instructive case illustrating how medieval issues intersect with later formal theories.

While few contemporary theorists build entire systems around the donkey puzzle, its structure continues to influence discussions of arbitrary choice, tie‑breaking, and the scope of explanatory demands in both philosophy and decision science.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

15.1 Enduring Conceptual Touchstone

Despite doubts about its precise authorship, Buridan’s Ass has become an enduring conceptual touchstone. It offers a compact way to raise questions about:

• what counts as a reason for action,
• whether equality of reasons impedes choice, and
• how strong our demands for explanation of particular outcomes should be.

Its persistence in textbooks and classrooms reflects its effectiveness as a didactic example.

15.2 Illustrating Medieval–Modern Continuities

The thought experiment highlights continuities between medieval scholastic concerns and later philosophical developments. Issues that animated Buridan and his contemporaries—such as the nature of the will, contingency, and divine wisdom—reappear in early modern metaphysics and in contemporary analytic philosophy and decision theory. The donkey thereby serves as a bridge between historical periods and methodologies.

15.3 Impact on the Image of Scholasticism

The story has also shaped popular images of scholasticism. It is sometimes cited as emblematic of abstract or overly subtle medieval speculation. Historians note that this portrayal can be misleading, given the sophistication and diversity of medieval thought and the fact that the example may not originate with Buridan himself. Nonetheless, the tale has contributed to the cultural memory of scholastic debates about free will and rationality.

15.4 Role in Ongoing Debates

In ongoing philosophical discussions, Buridan’s Ass continues to function as:

• a test case for theories of free will and rational agency,
• a challenge for strong forms of PSR and volitional determinism, and
• a reference point in analyzing symmetric decision problems in formal models.

Although many theorists now regard the scenario’s assumptions as highly idealized, it still stimulates refinements in how rationality, explanation, and freedom are understood.

15.5 Historical Reassessment

Recent scholarship has underscored the importance of distinguishing:

• the legend of “Buridan’s Ass” as a label for a paradox, from
• the historical John Buridan and his nuanced positions on the will and rational choice.

This reassessment enriches both historical and systematic study: it corrects the record about medieval philosophy while preserving the thought experiment’s value as an independent tool for exploring the limits of reason‑guided action.