Many individuals look at their dog or cat and wonder what the furry little creatures are thinking or question the reasoning behind a particular action. Here is encountered a very large debate in the philosophical and psychological world. Are certain animals, other than humans, rational creatures? Of course, there are people who sit on both sides of the fence on the rationality issue. Donald Davidson, author of "Rational Animals", proposes that no other creature on the face of the earth has the ability to rationalize, besides the human. Mr. Davidson derives a particular formula for proving, in his mind, that his hypotheses are correct. I, however, differ with Davidson's views and even question his logic at points. Throughout the course of my essay, I will describe Davidson's progression of thought as well as confirm his theory unworkable. By proving against Davidson's theory, I hope to undoubtedly show that there are, in fact, certain rational higher-level animals.

Donald Davidson attempts to beat down any arguments for animal rationality in his essay, "Rational Animals". Davidson does do a relatively good job of convincing the reader of his notions. By prop

Now, I cannot name for you every animal I consider to be a "higher-order" creature. Obviously some of these animals include dogs, chimps, dolphins, and possibly even cats (although I am not a big fan of them). However, I am going to focus on dogs in my proof. Now, in order to justly prove that dogs are capable of experiencing surprise, I must define that term. In both Davidson's and my own view, surprise "requires that (one is) aware of a contrast between what (one) did believe and what (one) comes to believe" (Davidson, 479). I will present one particular situation that I have indirectly witnessed, which shows that dogs are capable of undergoing surprise. Therefore, canines do have a network of beliefs, and are rational animals in turn.

Thirdly, Davidson claims that to have any belief requires a concept of beliefs. A concept of beliefs is the understanding of what, exactly, one actually believes. However, there is no particular list of items one must believe in order to have a concept of that belief. According to Davidson, "There is no fixed list of things someone with the concept of a tree must believe, but without many general beliefs there would be no reason to identify a belief as a belief about a tree" (Davidson, 475).

Now I will proceed to prove both the extrapolated and condensed versions of Davidson's theory wrong by falsifying one statement he makes. Davidson claims that animals are incapable of having a network, or concept, of beliefs. Yet there is one weak spot that Davidson opens up in the latter part of his essay. This element is surprise. In his essay, Davidson claims that in order to experience surprise, an animal must have a network of beliefs. Of course, Davidson says that animals, other than humans, are incapable of having a network of beliefs and, therefore, incapable of surprise. This is where Davidson is wrong.

Finally, to have a concept of beliefs requires a language. Now this is the point where Davidson and I differ greatly on our definition of what is language. To Davidson, language requires the use of a developed verbal language, capable of conveying high-level thinking. However, my denotation requires a form of communication, be it verbal or

Some common words found in the essay are:
Home Videos, According Davidson, Rational Animals, Animals Davidson, Davidson's Beliefs, , Thirdly Davidson, Donald Davidson, network beliefs, rational animals, concept beliefs, experiencing surprise, animals rational, animal rationality, rational creatures, language davidson, concept belief, davidson claims, capable experiencing surprise, animals capable experiencing, animals rational creatures,
Approximate Word count = 1490
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)