I find Davidson to be confusing, but yet fascinating at the same time. Davidson analyzes questions that not just anyone can comprehend. Although I do not completely agree with everything he says, I do share some of the same thoughts that he does. Davidson is a mastermind when he picks apart certain actions and the backround of those actions. In these essays I have enjoyed expanding my mind to new lengths. Through out this paper my views and Davidsons are alike and extremely different.
             Essay one was my least favorite but at the same time this essay made me think the most. An action doesn't always need a reason. Actions are given reasons because of a scientific explanation. I feel that actions can be independent. A reason on the other hand does rationalize the action like Davidson says. A reason plays a huge part in why the action took place. The reason is like a bubble around the action explaining why such events took place. Most events are easy to connect to a primary reason. Although how do we know why someone actually did something. Davidson likes to give examples of why things happen in a different perspective. I disagree because most actions are self- explanatory and they don't need a lot of thoughts as to why someone did what they did. For example why did a person open the door, because he wanted too, or if someone suddenly got on a plane and flew to another country. That person needs a lot of explanation.
             According to Hume he defines a cause to be an object, and objects are always followed by another object. I think that the cause comes after the reason and before the action. I disagree that a cause called an object has more objects following it. A cause happens for a reason and then that chain of events is over. Then a reason is done and the action of a new process starts over. Each chain of events are individual. I don't think that a story all connects. I feel that there are dif...