tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post3163758784453750957..comments2023-07-09T01:25:09.000-07:00Comments on The Hopeless Generalist: Did Catelyn Stark Act Rationally At the Red Wedding?Kris Rhodeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02525919329465751339noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-87796154237097943632019-06-23T02:28:20.917-07:002019-06-23T02:28:20.917-07:00As at whatever point we think about any business m...As at whatever point we think about any business managing for any item or administrations, its logo is the primary thing that comes in the psyche. <a href="https://www.fiverr.com/haniazaidi/do-2-wow-logo-designs-with-free-mockup" rel="nofollow">logo design service</a><br />hania khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13852467938216390270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-62290614017469156112017-02-05T18:34:15.104-08:002017-02-05T18:34:15.104-08:00I've always thought it was pretty out of chara...I've always thought it was pretty out of character for her to kill a girl around the same age as her daughter who's just another toy for Frey who just wants her sweet honey. Doesn't happen in the books either which makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-76007914819102625772016-06-18T21:56:13.634-07:002016-06-18T21:56:13.634-07:00"That being said, if she is not going to kill..."That being said, if she is not going to kill the wife, what leverage did she ever have?"<br /><br />I was thinking the same thing. If she didn't go through it, there was no promise to begin with. I wonder how OP would respond to this because it still feels true that it doesn't actually matter keeping the promise when you have nothing to gain.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08611622568013918540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-55082017379923530632016-04-01T02:34:40.111-07:002016-04-01T02:34:40.111-07:00The act of killing the wife was no more irrational...The act of killing the wife was no more irrational, or 'compelled', than making the threat itself. And there is no complaint that the situation did not compel such posturing. The threat's kinship to a type of promise is completely illusory. Like sharks to whales. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504657497598620361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-58312344718507234922016-04-01T02:22:49.416-07:002016-04-01T02:22:49.416-07:00I know this is an old post, but I'll comment o...I know this is an old post, but I'll comment on it anyway. The OP had a pretty intelligent argument, but I find one glaring flaw. The whole point of threatening to kill the wife has nothing to do with kingship or to prevent her own death, it is to keep her son alive. She is only going to kill her if the Freys kill her son. The OP's entire argument is that once Robb is dead, she has no reason to kill the wife. That being said, if she is not going to kill the wife, what leverage did she ever have? Why even make the threat in the first place? The OP claims not to question the legitimacy of the threat itself merely the action, but implicitly questioning the legitimacy of the threat is exactly what he does. Fulfilled threats are not synonymous with promises; in law, such a thing would be an illegal and void contract. She carried out the threat because it was not an empty threat. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504657497598620361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-62717163824243534602015-09-24T02:51:40.005-07:002015-09-24T02:51:40.005-07:00i like wedding dishes .. some sweets atunbii like wedding dishes .. some sweets <a href="http://www.atunbi.net" rel="nofollow">atunbi</a><br />swaggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01783156947281847959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-28342509495872235062013-06-05T14:33:08.012-07:002013-06-05T14:33:08.012-07:00As to your first point.... I didn't intend to ...As to your first point.... I didn't intend to say that she was "showing that you meant what you said." I meant to say that she was showing him that there was an object to her promise or that the promise had a subject matter. I think of those as different things. The first (i.e., your interpretation) is about her intentions. The second (my interpretation) is about the subject matter of the promise (or about the existence of a subject matter).<br /><br />It's quite possible that I am assuming a contractual model of promises. (Offer, acceptance, consideration, mutuality).<br /><br />"As to making him reflect that he could have prevented his wife's death--I assume he was being truthful when he indicated that he truly didn't care about this."<br />I thought it was possible he was bluffing. I guess I also thought it was possible that HE thought SHE was bluffing and that she might have wanted to prove him wrong.<br /><br />And with that I'll say that more than half the time I have no idea what anyone is saying in this show and whether I'm supposed to read subtext into it or take it at face value. Basically, is Arya really going to put a sword into the Hound's eye?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-89876035319022395502013-06-05T09:49:06.066-07:002013-06-05T09:49:06.066-07:00I think my comment was somewhat convoluted, maybe ...I think my comment was somewhat convoluted, maybe I can clarify it a bit. I think there were multiple reasons behind her action of cutting the throat of Frey's wife. One I think was spite. He killed her son, so she killed his wife. It may not be something she would have done if given time to think, but this is where the 'crime of passion' comes into play. She was angry. <br /><br />Secondly, she was in shock, so she did what she said she was going to do. She wasn't thinking of what this action would resolve, because she was no longer thinking. Having no clear path to take, she simply did the last thing she remembered saying she would do.<br /><br />Thirdly, she had made a sworn oath, which is what this whole argument was about anyway. Somewhere in the back of her mind I think she realized she would be a hypocrite not to keep her oath at this point.<br /><br />I think all of these things would have been circling her head moments before she shut down completely, and that was enough justification to make a split second decision to follow through with her threat. She swore she would do it, this whole thing was about keeping your oath, and she was pissed and wanted this little piece of vengeance.Tracy Rhodesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-7180767235947910732013-06-05T08:41:50.141-07:002013-06-05T08:41:50.141-07:00Good points. I guess what I'd say is that I ma...Good points. I guess what I'd say is that I may have been using the term "promise" in a broader sense than I made clear. What you describe, I would put under the rubric of promisekeeping. Basically, showing that you meant what you said.<br /><br />As to making him reflect that he could have prevented his wife's death--I assume he was being truthful when he indicated that he truly didn't care about this. But arguably in the heat of the moment, Catelyn might have naturally assumed otherwise. Still--why should she care whether he reflects on this or not? She's dead either way, and so is everyone she cares about* and so is every project out there which she thinks important. She's more than dead--literally everything she cares about has come to nought.<br /><br />About rationality--I think on reflection that I should weaken the claim. It's not that Catelyn may have been acting irrationally, so much as that her action may not have been _compelled_ rationally by her circumstances even though, one suspects, she felt that it was. <br /><br />Appreciate the comments and I welcome a response!Kris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02525919329465751339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-82420045396612350722013-06-05T08:37:43.726-07:002013-06-05T08:37:43.726-07:00Hi Cousin. I appreciate these observations.
I wo...Hi Cousin. I appreciate these observations. <br /><br />I would never deny that her action is understandable given her emotional state. But the concept of "rationality" I'm trying to use isn't supposed to involve (at least not necessarily) carefully reasoned steps leading to a considered conclusion followed by deliberate action. The concept of "rationality" I'm trying to use can work at a much more "instinctive" level than that. For example, if I were starving, and were presented with a bowl full of tar and a bowl full of oatmeal, of course I'd immediately, without even thinking about it, go for the oatmeal--but _also_, my going for the oatmeal counts as "rational," because in my brain, it seems a very quick calculus (or something equivalent) was done, which weighed the value of the tar against the value of the oatmeal, and found the oatmeal to be more valuable. Even in quick and instinctive situations like this, a kind of rationality still governs actions.<br /><br />Concerning Catelyn's situation, you said it yourself--she did what she said she was going to do. She may have done it without really even thinking about it, but even this very fact shows that part of her "rational structure" so to speak made it axiomatic to do what she had said she would do. And what I'm asking is whether that axiom is a good one or not, given the specifics of her situation. I am not saying she "should have thought of" the kinds of things I'm mentioning. I definitely have the benefit of hindsight and a lot more time to think than she did! But my interest isn't to advise her. (She's fictional after all!) My interest is in analyzing the reasoning behind her actions, so that I can learn a little something about reason itself, and about concepts like promise keeping, the role of consequences in practical reasoning, and other such jazz.<br /><br />Did that make sense? Kris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02525919329465751339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-84624842368824854392013-06-05T08:31:42.183-07:002013-06-05T08:31:42.183-07:00Good comments! Thanks!
They do take promises very...Good comments! Thanks!<br /><br />They do take promises very seriously in Westeros, but the reason I made them less important in the thought experiments was because it seemed to me that none of the reasons they have to think promisekeeping is important in Westeros still applied in Cate's situation. If she was going to keep her promise, it seems to me right now, it could only be due to a habit of promise keeping. That habit may be a rational one to follow in most cases--especially in Westeros--but I am not sure it's a rational one to follow in this particular case. (I should reiterate my hedge--it may not be "irrational" to keep the promise, but rather, what I mean is, it's not particularly rationally *compelling* to do so.)<br /><br />Your points in the second and third paragraph are well taken--I'm using this term "rationality" as though it denotes a single, settled and correct way to do things that applies to every rational agent. I actually don't believe that very confidently, at least not on odd numbered days. Maybe an agents' being rational doesn't settle what is rational for that being after all. "What is rationality" is a huge question of course, and I'll just say up front I was skipping a lot of that. You're right to push me on it.<br /><br />Still... even if a person takes promisekeeping to be a fundamental value, and her rationality centers around it such that it is practically definitional of "rational" for them in some sense--even then, do we really want to say that the value of promisekeeping is, itself, not really questionable for them? If not (I wouldn't think so) then, _even given its centrality for them_, can't we imagine circumstances under which it would become open to them, rationally, to question the value of promisekeeping? I guess what I'm assuming here is that rationality requires the ability to question _any_ of one's own values at least in principle--and I'm saying Catelyn was arguably in a situation where, even if promisekeeping had been axiomatically valuable for her before, she could validly question the value of it now. <br /><br />Or something I'm not sureKris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02525919329465751339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-10186409090547364402013-06-04T23:05:24.734-07:002013-06-04T23:05:24.734-07:00I had not thought that Catelyn's act was relat...I had not thought that Catelyn's act was related to promise-keeping. I thought that Catelyn killed Frey's wife to communicate something to Frey, namely the following: that she HAD actually intended to kill his wife; that her threat had been real; that she actually DID have a bargaining chip; that she wasn't merely posturing when she made the threat/attempted to bargain with Frey. (I think one could argue that this reason to kill Frey's wife is rational.)<br /><br />Why would she have wanted to communicate that to Frey? Maybe so that he could later reflect that he could have prevented the death of his wife? Maybe just so that he knew she meant business? I could think of other reasons as well. Any of these reasons are consistent with the claim that Catelyn's act was rational.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-75954440343432979462013-06-04T20:19:46.763-07:002013-06-04T20:19:46.763-07:00It seems to me you maybe you're being a bit to...It seems to me you maybe you're being a bit to 'rational' about the whole situation. She just saw her son gutted, she was in shock and grieving, so she did what she said she would — on her honor as as Tully and her honor as a Stark, she would slit his wife's throat if he did not let Rob go. She was no longer a rational being, she was an utterly distraught person committing a crime of passion. Tracy Rhodesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3896002105545480416.post-9177970519271254002013-06-04T17:03:57.807-07:002013-06-04T17:03:57.807-07:00As far as I can tell, they take promises very seri...As far as I can tell, they take promises very seriously in Game of Thrones - it's very bad business to break them. But this isn't seen as a big deal in all the various thought-experiments. They remove data that's quite relevant to the situation (that she's in Westeros, that she promised, that this promise in Westeros is more binding than a promise to a dead person in a Plaguesville that's modeled on 21st century Earth).<br /><br />You're also missing the fact that we can read this multiple ways. On one way, the killing was demanded by rationality, and that teaches us certain things about the world in which the killing took place. Another interpretation is that it wasn't demanded by rationality, and that also teaches us things about the world. Both interpretations have many variations. But your task of trying to come to THE CONCLUSION as to whether a fictional character's action was rational is problematic - we can build either answer into the premises (and that's all we can do). You could argue that the actual GoT universe supports one interpretation over another, you're instead ignoring that which could actually give us evidence for a particular position. To put a fine point on it you argue that "this inherent reason-giving power isn't enough to force an obligation on a person to keep their promise," but you didn't do anything to say whether Stark found herself in one of those cases where obligation isn't forced.<br /><br />Of course, we can make up a similar situation in contemporary times and ask "Was THAT killing rational," but again the story we tell is going to profoundly influence the answer. It'd be interesting to see where the breakpoints in the story are, though. Perhaps a better way to frame it would be "Suppose that the killing was rational (or irrational). What would could we change in the story to make it irrational (or rational)?" As you identify, it's probably going to come down to how big the reasons generated by promising are, ie how important honor is to the person in question (Starks like honor a lot, Freys not so much, etc etc etc).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com