Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universiẗat, Magisterarbeit, 2008.

Is Socrates in the Protagoras a sincere hedonist? The decipherment of the latter question is fundamental to the unraveling of key aspects of Plato’s ethical thought. It has been suggested that Socrates in the Protagoras finds hedonism philosophically attractive for it functions as a necessary anti-akrasia premise and therefore it fits his moral psychology. At the same time quantitative hedonism provides for commensurability of moral value and, in turn, for a more straightforward, quantifiable, and action-guiding Platonic ethical theory. Although initially appealing, the latter hypothesis is deeply problematic. On the one hand, hedonism is not a necessary theoretical tool either for commensurability of value or for a quantifiable eudaimonistic ethical theory. On the other hand a hedonistic interpretation of the Protagoras would result in a plethora of blatant anomalies for Platonic ethical theory as it is exhibited in the early and middle period dialogues. In particular, the endorsement of quantitative hedonism comes tied with an apotheosis of sophistic education and also with a purely instrumental conception of virtue which contradicts cardinal components of Socrates’ and Plato’s virtue theory. Therefore, a prohedonistic approach of the Protagoras is untenable and has to be rejected. As a result, a sufficiently plausible defense of the Socratic doctrine “no one does wrong willingly” needs to be constructed on non-hedonistic grounds. My suggestion is that we should recast Plato’s treatment of akrasia in terms of two – commonly defended by early Plato- descriptive theses of human psychology; that is, psychological eudaimonism and motivational intellectualism. This move will lead us to the conclusion that the traditional conceptualization of akrasia as a single and unified phenomenon is incomplete as it does not pay justice to the richness of Plato’s moral psychology. Rather, as I will maintain, there are two types of akrasia implicit in Plato’s treatment of the phenomenon: synchronic akrasia and diachronic akrasia. On this revisionary theoretical basis, the differences between early Plato and later Plato on akrasia can be understood as variations in the adherence or not to psychological eudaimonism and motivational intellectualism.

In this thesis I argue that emotion is integral to practical rationality, contrary to the dominant tradition that has held that emotions are irrational and dangerous disruptive influences that we’d be better off without. In Chapter 1 I argue that practical rationality consists in doing what one has most normative reason to do, and in Chapter 2 that an agent is practically rational to the extent that she responds to her reasons; this is how she guides her actions in line with the norm of doing what she has most reason to do. This can be done in ways other than by the employment of practical reasoning. In Chapter 3 I argue for a picture of practical reasoning that stands against the division of emotion and rationality. This account makes room for the overwhelming evidence that challenges the traditional view of emotions as the enemy of practical rationality. Chapter 4 gives a brief overview of the philosophical literature of emotions, and their place in practical rationality. In Chapter 5 I argue that emotions provide us with the necessary access to our reasons for action which we need in order to be able to respond to them, and thereby to be practically rational. Further, as I argue in Chapter 6, emotions play vital roles in the process of practical reasoning itself. Thus practical rationality would not be better off without emotion. In Chapter 7 I argue that we should distinguish between two types of incontinent action (acting against ones all things considered judgement about what one has most reason to do) and that one of these – weakness of will – is necessarily irrational, but the other – akrasia – is not. In Chapter 8 I apply my thesis to the question in the practical domain of what it means to ‘lose self-control’ in the context of killing in response to a provocation, which is a defence to murder. I argue that the ‘control’ that is lost is the regulative guiding control characteristic of the reason-responder. Understanding practical agency as reason-responsiveness, and understanding the role that emotions play within it as per my thesis, enables this coherent understanding. Thus I am arguing for neither a pro-emotion nor anti-emotion view of the role of emotion in practical rationality. Emotions should not be seen as either ‘for’ rationality nor ‘against’ rationality: they are simply part of rationality.

[pt] Se ainda hoje permanece a dúvida a respeito da possibilidade de se encontrar, na filosofia grega, um conceito que possa corresponder ao conceito latino de vontade, ninguém parece questionar o fato de que foram os gregos os primeiros filósofos a tentar compreender o fenômeno que hoje chamamos de fraqueza da vontade – e que eles chamavam simplesmente akrasia. Embora o primeiro filósofo que tenha empregado tal termo ao discutir o problema tenha sido Aristóteles (EN VII.1), a primeira discussão filosófica acerca da akrasia pode ser encontrada no Protágoras de Platão. Lá, o fenômeno que é discutido recebe o nome de ser vencido pelos prazeres. Como sabemos, Sócrates nega que tal fenômeno seja possível e afirma o famoso paradoxo Socrático segundo o qual ninguém erra voluntariamente. Nosso trabalho tem por objetivo principal traçar uma comparação entre o problema da akrasia nas filosofias de Platão e de Aristóteles, para que possamos compreender melhor algo que até hoje é motivo de grandes controversas, a saber, em que media Aristóteles se afasta da explicação socrática da akrasía e em que sentido ele a aceita. Para tal, procuramos esclarecer não somente as diferenças notáveis entre os dois autores no que diz respeito à descrição da akrasia mas também à maneira como cada um dos autores concebem o ato voluntário. Além disso, dedicamos nossa introdução à discussão de duas peças de Eurípides, Hipólito e Medéia, com o objetivo de iluminar isso que poderíamos chamar, talvez, de raízes pré-filosóficas do problema. / [en] Although to this day some doubt remains about whether we can find, in Greek philosophy, a concept that corresponds to the latin notion of the will, nobody seems to question the fact that the greek philosophers were the first to try to understand the phenomenon which today we call weakness of the will – and that they called akrasia. Although the first philosopher employed this term when discussing the problem was Aristotle (EN VII.1), the first philosophical discussion about akrasia is to be found in Plato’s Protagoras. In this dialogue, the phenomenon that is discussed is called being defeated by pleasures. As we know, Socrates denies that such a thing is even possible and affirms his famous paradox according to which nobody errs willingly. This works main goal is to compare the problem of akrasia in Plato and Aristotle, so that we can better understand something which is still a matter of great dissent: how much of the Socratic explanation of the phenomenon is accepted by Aristotle and how much of it is discarded? In order to answer this question, Ive tried to highlight the differences that separate the authors in what concerns both their description of akrasia and the way they conceive the voluntary act. Ive also dedicated the introduction of the work to a discussion about two plays of Euripides, Hyppolitus and Medea, with the objective of shedding some light in what we might perhaps call the pre-philosophical roots of the problem.

In this essay I have examined text, speech and action in Chekhov's Three sisters, as well as how the characters express their wills in action and in speech. I have used different methods such as action analysis, the five W questions and BSI (background, situation and intention). These methods are similar to those actors use to uncover situatedness of characters and to find motivated and intentional patterns behind their actions. I have used these techniques to identify the plot, explore what happened before the plot begins and to read the text in terms of action. The aim was also to find the counter points where wills expressed in action are contradicted by wills expressed in speech. Using these methods I found that the characters in Three sisters manage their lives dreaming about the future or recalling the past, except the character Natasha. Her goal is obvious, she runs her will with clear intentions and she uses functional means to achieve her goal. The main conclusion is that the characters’ wills expressed in speech, are contradicted by will expressed in action. This creates a discrepancy. The characters are controlled by their unspoken desires which drive them further away from their expressed goals. It seems to be paradoxical, but it makes perfect sense since it drives the plot forward, deepens the image of the characters and the relationships between them. It also becomes clear when actions are interpreted from wills and motivations, stated or unstated, and I argue that action is not only the doing but also the intention to do; this makes sense when events in a dramatic text are analyzed as relational and conditional.

[pt] A tese pretende examinar a akrasia antiga e a fraqueza de vontade contemporânea. O problema da fraqueza de vontade (weakness of will) contemporânea tem suas raízes no fenômeno denominado de akrasia desde a Ética a Nicômaco de Aristóteles. Tradicionalmente, a história da filosofia retrata a continuidade de um mesmo problema filosófico essencial. A investigação inicial da fraqueza de vontade contemporânea em Richard. M. Hare e Donald Davidson estabelece a retomada do debate da akrasia antiga presente em Platão e Aristóteles. No entanto, há uma distinção fundamental entre ambos os fenômenos: enquanto a fraqueza de vontade reflete apenas à ação contrária ao melhor juízo do agente, a akrasia se refere à submissão da razão aos impulsos irracionais. A minha presente tese estabelece que há dois problemas distintos: o problema antigo da akrasia diante do conhecimento moral e o problema contemporâneo da ação irracional contra o melhor juízo do agente. De fato, a recepção analítica da akrasia antiga marca o restabelecimento da fraqueza de vontade contemporânea a partir das obras de Hare e Davidson. Meu plano de investigação analisa a relação intrínseca entre a akrasia antiga e a fraqueza de vontade contemporânea. Assim, a tese se divide em duas partes. Na primeira parte, examino o conflito interno da akrasia antiga e o estatuto do conhecimento moral em Platão e na Ética de Aristóteles. Na segunda parte, a recepção da akrasia antiga nas obras de Hare e Davidson esclarece a emergência da formulação original da fraqueza de vontade contemporânea em torno do conflito prático da ação irracional contra o melhor juízo. / [en] This thesis aims at examining ancient akrasia and contemporary weakness of will. The contemporary problem of weakness of will is rooted on the phenomenon called akrasia since Aristotle s Ethics. Traditionally, the history of philosophy depicts the continuity of the same essential philosophical problem. The initial inquiry on contemporary weakness of will in Richard M. Hare and Donald Davidson renewed the ancient akrasia debate as presented in Plato and Aristotle. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental distinction between both phenomena: while weakness of will reflects only action contrary to better judgement, akrasia refers to submission of reason to irrational impulses. My present thesis aims at establishing that there are two distinct philosophical problems: the ancient problem of akrasia in the face of moral knowledge and the contemporary problem of irrational action against better judgment. Indeed, analytic reception of ancient akrasia in Plato and Aristotle marks the reestablishment of contemporary weakness of will on the works of Hare and Davidson. My research plan examines the underlying relation between ancient akrasia and contemporary weakness of will. Therefore, the thesis is divided in two parts. In the first part, I look into ancient akrasia s internal conflict and the status of moral knowledge in Plato and Aristotle s Ethics. In the second part, reception of ancient akrasia in the works of Hare and Davidson informs the emergence of the original formulation of contemporary weakness of will on practical conflict of irrational action against better judgement.

This thesis investigates the relationship between our rational capacities and the norms that govern our practice of blame. The conclusion it reaches is rather shocking: it is impossible to satisfy the conditions of blameworthiness. The argument that reaches this conclusion is what I call an internal criticism. Unlike other skeptical arguments about moral responsibility, the one advanced in this thesis does not depend on any metaphysical theses external to the theory of blame. The thesis begins by looking at a position I call rational capacity compatibilism (RCC). My interest in RCC concerns the fact that it has done more than any other theory of responsibility to set out the relationship between our rational capacities and the practice of blame. I use the most well developed RCC view—that of R. Jay Wallace—as the backdrop for the skeptical argument that follows I next defend a recent argument advanced by Gideon Rosen according to which an agent cannot be blameworthy for a given act if akrasia does not occur somewhere in the act's etiology. This serves as the first major premise in my skeptical argument. Next, I turn to the second major premise of my argument, which is comprised of two controversial claims. The first is that akrasia results from a failure in one's rational capacities. The second is that an agent cannot be blameworthy for committing any act that results from a failure in his or her rational capacities. Together, these two claims produce the following premise: when an agent acts akratically she cannot be blameworthy for that act. Now, for any given act, either akrasia occurs in that act's etiology or it does not. If it does not, then the agent in question is not blameworthy (first premise); but if akrasia does occur in the act's etiology, then the agent in question is still not blameworthy (second premise). It follows that for any given act, the agent who performs that act cannot be blameworthy for so acting. I end with a brief discussion of what I call "the moral up-shot" of my skeptical argument: what does a world without blame look like? I suggest, contra the main party line (often associated with P.F. Strawson), that blame is not a requirement for significant and meaningful interpersonal relationships, nor is it a necessary component of morality.

I denna uppsats undersöker jag hur två olika tolkningar av den sokratiska frivillighetsparadoxen ingen gör fel frivilligt påverkar möjligheten att förstå Platons dialog Staten. Min hypotes är att de två tolkningarna av frivillighetsparadoxen kastar ljus över diskussionen i Staten, och att det är nödvändigt att förstå frivillighetsparadoxens roll för att förstå vad som står på spel i Staten. I uppsatsen ämnar jag visa att ett möjligt sätt att läsa Staten är att tolka Sokrates och de övriga samtalsdeltagarnas uttalanden baserat på kontexten, eftersom vissa uttalanden är polemiska i sin karaktär, medan andra är traditionella. Jag argumenterar för att såväl den traditionella synen på Sokrates som den polemiska dito är korrekta analyser av Sokrates filosofiska gärning, men inte heltäckande sådana, eftersom Sokrates ibland är polemisk – mot de som kvickt måste nedkämpas – och ibland är instruerande på traditionellt manér, mot de som kan förbättras genom det filosofiska samtalet. Detta sätt att läsa Staten skiljer sig från andra genom att läsaren bör avstå a priori-uppfattningar om Sokrates, Thrasymakos eller Glaukons och Adeimantos ståndpunkter till förmån för att tolka beteenden hos samtalsdeltagarna samt deras uppfattningar, vilka förmedlas av texten.

No description available.

The concept of weakness of will, or Akrasia, relates to questions regarding the rationality of our choices. Philosophers such as Richard Holton and Alfred Mele have spearheaded the debate since the turn of the century, but quite recently arguments put forth by Nick Heather and Edmund Henden have catapulted the question into a subgenre between the medical, psychological, and philosophical fields. N. Heather argues that it can be useful to categorize addiction as a certain weakness of will meanwhile E. Henden argues against this point. In discussions around topics such as addiction and behavioral psychology, a natural part of the conversation surrounds questions regarding freedom of choice. What constitutes addiction and how does it begin? Do those who are addicted have free will, and in turn, can they be held accountable for their choices? These are some of the questions that materialize when delving into this topic that feasibly might get answered in this paper. However, a lot of the discussion regarding addiction seems to rely quite heavily on the clinical aspects of substance dependency, which can be counterproductive to the discussion as it diverges from philosophy into neurobiological medicine and clinical psychology. Furthermore, substance addictions tend to have a direct effect on habituation and motivation which bypasses certain cognitive systems. To avoid falling into these pitfalls, this paper sets out to examine a rising phenomenon through the same lens: Social Media Addiction (SMA). Since that would fall under behavioral disorder within the spectrum of addiction and therefore not have the same properties as a drug-induced addiction, this article aims to investigate if it exhibits the defining characteristics of akratic action and investigate if SMA fulfills these. In this paper, a comparison between SMA and regular addictions is made in order to identify the differences and similarities. There is a larger discussion around the topic of what acratic core action is and when it is applicable in the case of addiction but also recent arguments for and against classifying addiction as akrasia are presented. Finally, the findings suggest there are cases where addictions can be classified as a form of akrasia which has its own implications and interpretations that are brought up. Limitations of the discussion are brought up and further research is suggested.