Weakness of will is “akrasia” or incontinence, not doing what we know is good for us or doing what we know is not good for us (Arrington 86). An example of this definition can be described in a scenario in which a girl is on a strict diet to loose ten pounds. She has lost a total of five pounds and considers whether to reward herself with dinner and cheesecake at the Cheesecake Factory ruining her progress of her net loss of five pounds or to continue to eat on her strict diet working hard towards her goal of losing ten pounds. This interpretation of weakness of will concerned two of the most influential philosophers of our time Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates on one hand believed that akrasia could never occur because it contradicts his philosophy of his ignorance claim. On the other hand, Aristotle argues against Socrates explaining the weakness of will as having knowledge in two different distinct ways and opposed Socrates rejection. Some scholars believe that there are more than one ideas between each argument such as Aristotle having some agreement Socrates, but we will stick to the latter. Which argument is more applicable? Between the two theories, I will analyze which reasoning is more idealistic. Socrates explains that akrasia is not possible through his reasoning of doing something that is negative is the cause of ignorance. Socrates explains that we never subconsciously do what is bad (Aristotle on Weakness of Will).Ultimately, Socrates claims if one knows good, they will pursue it and that if one does what is wrong, it is done involuntarily out of ignorance (Arrington 18). When Socrates reasons and expresses his explanation in the Protagoras and Meno, the question of weakness of will is brought up and his reaso... ... middle of paper ... ...e to what brings pleasure. That person made a choice and I firmly believe actions can be voluntary and feelings playing a role with action as Aristotle believe. Subsequently, Socrates and Aristotle each had their concepts for their approach of weakness of will and each had their differences. Weakness of will in general is not moral, neither is it cruel. The difference between an incontinent person who knows what is right and strives for it but chooses pleasure versus a intemperate person who persistently seeks excessive pleasure (Kemerling). I argue for Aristotle’s view rather than Socrates because it is more practical in human decision making when we are weak to our decisions unlike Socrates belief of it not being possible because of ignorance because I believe we know even when there are bad actions of our decisions and that they are not a result of ignorance.
...ned earlier, we remain convinced that the incontinent knows the entire time that what she does is the wrong thing to do. If we think she doesn’t know, or forgets momentarily, then why is she morally responsible for her wrong-doing? Likewise, Aristotle’s own explanation lacks enough specificity as to why and how the appetite makes one “unaware” of the good conclusion. Simply put, the ambiguity interpretation is the most plausible way to account for both our pre-theoretical intuitions and our everyday practical experiences. In this respect, it remains true to the spirit of the Nichomachean Ethics.
Socrates acknowledges the fact that he knows nothing, at least in areas which he is unlearned in. By knowing this, he has obtained true wisdom, according to the above maxim. So, in essence, he maintains that he is not a smart man, but the Oracle was not flawed in its testimony.
Practical wisdom is knowledge of how to secure the ends of human life and for a man who demonstrates this quality his mark should be to be able to tell what is good for himself and his ultimate goal of a good life. In this paper, I will be agreeing with Aristotle’s idea that virtue is a state of character concerned with ones choices and one’s ability to reason.
If there is no free will, there can be no morality. Morality is the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong. Reading from the apology, Socrates reminds Crito of some general principles when Crito tries to persuade him to escape from the prison.
One of Aristotle’s most influential works, Nicomachean Ethics, lays claim that there is an actual, material definition of what happiness is and ways one may possibly attain the greatest good in life, which is ultimately to be happy. Furthermore, Aristotle distinguishes that there is a difference between higher and lower pleasures that one ought to seek in life. He believed that the highest good one has the possibility of achieving is grasping true virtue. In Aristotle’s eyes, there are different types of virtue; intellectual virtue is learned from the teachings of society, whereas moral virtue is discovered as result of our habits.
Socrates argues that fearing death is ignorant. He says it is ignorant because one does not have any knowledge whether death is good or bad. There is a lack of knowledge on the subject of death because nobody lives through death to record it. One may argue with that in today’s society, but with modern technology and medical advancements it is now possible to bring someone back to life within a small amount of time that they have passed. Yes, there are a few accounts of this happening, but they did not have that kind of technology or skills back in Socrates’ day. Most people would find the unknown and unrecorded instances intimidating. However, Socrates would argue to not fear the unknown because it has the same chance of being beneficial or detrimental. Fo...
In the Laches and the Phaedo, courage and virtue are discussed in depth. Also, arguments for the possibility of the existence of the immorality of the soul are given in the Phaedo. In the Laches, Socrates and two generals, Nicias and Laches, wrestle with how exactly to define courage. After discussing and working their way through two definitions of courage, Nicias proposes a third definition of courage. However, this definition of courage that he proposes is actually the definition of virtue. When the dialogue comes to an end, no definition of courage has been reached.
We live our lives based upon discoveries that others have made before us. The words of our elders influence the decisions we make. In 1597 Sir Frances Bacon claimed that knowledge is power and his words are understood by generations upon generations after. The more a person knows, the more aware they are of the world around them. It is rare that someone would not want to bear knowledge and wisdom. After reading Oedipus Rex’s first play, one can see why a person would be content not knowing the whole truth. Until now, it always believed the more a person knows, the more satisfying of a life that person will pursue. The unfortunate events of Oedipus’ life makes the reader look at the concept of knowledge from a whole
Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
Socrates does not believe the oracle. He acknowledges that he is not wise at all and decides to challenge. He decided to question three groups which were politicians, poets, and the craftsmen. He found that each group believed to be wise themselves and had a great deal of knowledge in other areas which they don’t. Its seems as if they were overcome with ignorance and pride. Socrates conclude that it is wise to not know rather than thinking we know
Not only does ignorance have a negative impact on people, it is also “the root and stem of all evil” (Plato), which can destroy a person. To start off, self-superiority can cloud a person’s judgment; making it evident that intelligence can easily be lost to arrogance. To add on, anger and the human tendency to make rash decisions can also contribute to ignorance, resulting in eventual downfall. Lastly, unconscious attempts to blind yourself from the truth can result in the committing of major sins. Tragedy occurs in “Oedipus the King” when ignorance causes disastrous events, proving that lack of knowledge can result in their misfortune.
There are cases that we are in an we only have certain things to do. We have the free will for it to be a good thing or a bad thing. We also sometimes don’t have control of our actions to where we do things without thinking about it.
The person who is weak consults their reason and goes through a process of roundabout deliberation until finally making a bad choice not in accordance with that reason. The other type of Akratic individual is one who is swayed by passion, and again, rather than act in accordance with his reasoned choice, acts under the influence of a passion in the rejection of reason. The worst form of Akrasia is the individual who acts without deliberation. This is a person who avoids deliberation through pleasure and ignores reason until they experience the backlash and inevitable clarity of hindsight. This is an individual who simply acts under the influence of a passion. In practice they feel no remorse at time of action but once completed, they regret their acts and scold themselves. In this way, deliberation comes too late to save the
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.