Possibility Of Akrasia Analysis

A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras has led to the discussion of the unity of the virtues and the possibility of akrasia. While Socrates argued that akrasia is impossible, Plato in the Republic believed otherwise. He believed that one could act against his better judgement through weakness of will. Socrates also stated that all the five virtues discussed in the Protagoras; piety, justice, temperance, wisdom, and courage, are dependent upon each other. On the other hand, Plato disagreed with Socrates by stating that each part of the soul has its own role, making the virtue of the soul disunited. In this paper, I intend to first present Socrates’ argument against the possibility of akrasia. Next, I would present the three parts of the soul: i) appetitive, ii) spirited, and iii) rational, according to Plato in the Republic. Then, I would draw the relationship between the parts of the soul and the possibility of akrasia according to Plato, and then reconstruct Socrates’ argument in the Protagoras. 1. Socrates’ Argument: Akrasia is Impossible In this section, I intend to present Socrates’ argument in the Protagoras against the possibility of akrasia. He argued that no one willingly goes toward what they believe to be bad, for fear is the expectation of something bad, therefore, no one would willingly go toward those things he considers to be fearsome. He also stated that cowards and courageous people go toward completely opposite things; the courageous go toward the honorable, good, and pleasant things. Meanwhile, the cowards go toward “completely opposite things,” which are dishonorable, bad, and unpleasant things. Given that no one willingly goes toward what they believe to be bad, cowards cannot possibly know that what they go for are dishonorable, bad, and unpleasant. He further argued that “cowardice is ignorance of what is and is not to be feared,” giving an account that courage and cowardice are opposites of each other (360d). Therefore, from the premises, it is concluded that courage must be knowledge or wisdom of what is and is not to be feared. The conclusion shows that courage, as stated in the premises, is completely opposite of cowardice. It also proved Socrates’ argument that weakness of will is impossible. …show more content…
Plato’s Three Parts of the Soul and the Possibility of Akrasia
According to Plato in the Republic Book IV, a soul consists of three parts: i) appetitive part where the natural desires such as for food and drink are, ii) spirited part where the emotion such as anger, motivation, and revenge resides, and iii) rational part which is responsible for reasoning and calculation.
The fact that different parts of the soul are independent of each other could be explained through an example of one’s need to consume the sole source of drink in the arid desert where the drink happens to be poisonous. The appetitive part of the soul would strongly desire to quench its thirst, as it is also pleasurable to the soul. However, the rational part would reason the situation and stop the soul’s desire from being fulfilled by not consuming the poisonous drink. Here, the rational part avoids the pain to the soul. The decision made by the rational part contradicts to that of the appetitive part. This example shows that akrasia is possible and how those parts of the soul are independent of each other, supporting Plato’s