[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.

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.

Ce mémoire propose une analyse des justifications du paternalisme étatique dans les cas d’acrasie. Nous explorerons d’abord quelques théories et conceptions de l’acrasie, démontrant la nécessité de développer une conception de l’agent acratique qui soit en quelque sorte subdivisible. Mous exposerons par la suite en quoi cette conception de l’individu remet en question certains présupposés fondamentaux du libéralisme. Notre second chapitre sera consacré à une redéfinition de certains principes libéraux en fonction de notre conception de l’individualité. Cette redéfinition nous permettra d’expliquer comment l’intervention étatique de type paternaliste peut être parfois justifiée d’un point de vue libéral. Le cœur de notre argumentation mettra l’accent sur l’importance pour l’État d’assurer l’autonomie de ses citoyens en concevant leur raison comme faculté d’intégration personnelle. Notre troisième chapitre tentera d’explorer divers exemples de cas concrets où les principes développés plus tôt pourront s’appliquer. / The purpose of this master thesis is to analyze paternalistic justifications for State intervention in cases of acrasia. We first start by exploring some theories and conceptions of acrasia showing the necessity to develop a conception of the acratic agent as somehow subdivisible. We then show that this conception of the individual challenges some of the most central presuppositions for political liberalism. Our second chapter means to redefine some liberal principles according to our conception of individuality. This redefinition will enable us to explain how paternalistic State intervention can sometime be justified from a liberal point of view. Our argumentation will focus on the importance for the State to ensure the autonomy of its citizens by securing the role of their reason as a faculty of personal integration. Our third chapter means to explore diverse practical cases in which the principles developed earlier can apply.

Ce mémoire propose une analyse des justifications du paternalisme étatique dans les cas d’acrasie. Nous explorerons d’abord quelques théories et conceptions de l’acrasie, démontrant la nécessité de développer une conception de l’agent acratique qui soit en quelque sorte subdivisible. Mous exposerons par la suite en quoi cette conception de l’individu remet en question certains présupposés fondamentaux du libéralisme. Notre second chapitre sera consacré à une redéfinition de certains principes libéraux en fonction de notre conception de l’individualité. Cette redéfinition nous permettra d’expliquer comment l’intervention étatique de type paternaliste peut être parfois justifiée d’un point de vue libéral. Le cœur de notre argumentation mettra l’accent sur l’importance pour l’État d’assurer l’autonomie de ses citoyens en concevant leur raison comme faculté d’intégration personnelle. Notre troisième chapitre tentera d’explorer divers exemples de cas concrets où les principes développés plus tôt pourront s’appliquer. / The purpose of this master thesis is to analyze paternalistic justifications for State intervention in cases of acrasia. We first start by exploring some theories and conceptions of acrasia showing the necessity to develop a conception of the acratic agent as somehow subdivisible. We then show that this conception of the individual challenges some of the most central presuppositions for political liberalism. Our second chapter means to redefine some liberal principles according to our conception of individuality. This redefinition will enable us to explain how paternalistic State intervention can sometime be justified from a liberal point of view. Our argumentation will focus on the importance for the State to ensure the autonomy of its citizens by securing the role of their reason as a faculty of personal integration. Our third chapter means to explore diverse practical cases in which the principles developed earlier can apply.

No description available.

One dominant scientific view holds that willpower is a type of muscle which can be weakened through use in the short term and strengthened through use over time. However, evidence from neuroscience, social psychology and behavioral economics suggest that willpower is regional, subverted through desire and strengthened by strategy--these are features a muscular account would not predict. It is better to think about willpower as a skill with a physiological component. Willpower strategies extend the brute effort of self-control through the use of reason and have the practical effect of increasing self-regulation. Willpower is "worth wanting" because there is a gap in our given desires and our evaluations. In general willpower is the skill responsible for extending the motivational force of evaluations to overcome the motivational force of other interests. Of course, willpower can be used in the service of evil, but in general it is a power we would prefer to have. Interestingly, not all cases of weakness of will are, on balance, bad. As a practical matter weakness of will is a crucial element of developing willpower skills over time. Just as a skilled batter relies on failures to teach what is required for good hitting, willpower failures are an important element in developing habits for success. Additionally, the motivational failure of evaluation built in to weakness of will requires a commitment to practical claim that one can choose how to act in ways not dictated by given desires. This commitment to the importance and viability of evaluation is a crucial component of having a moral perspective in a natural system and weakness of will is a signifier of this foundational element of a practical perspective.

La présente étude se propose de dégager les significations successives qu’emprunte le fameux paradoxe socratique du mal involontaire dans l’œuvre de Platon. Pour ce faire, notre propos se déclinera en trois principaux développements : 1) le premier consistera à clarifier le sens que recouvraient les catégories du volontaire et de l’involontaire dans l’Antiquité, de manière à éviter toute confusion anachronique avec les acceptions modernes de ces mêmes notions ; 2) le second tâchera de mettre au jour le postulat anthropologique qui fonde chez Platon l’idée qu’aucun homme ne saurait agir méchamment de son plein gré ; 3) le troisième exposera à tour de rôle les trois grands dispositifs de disculpation qu’élabore Platon dans son œuvre : les dispositifs de l’âme ignorante, de l’âme renversée et de l’âme malade. Nous montrerons ainsi comment Platon, à rebours de la théodicée chrétienne classique, cherche à blanchir l’homme de toute implication morale véritable dans la genèse causale de ses « mauvaises » actions. / This study intends to describe the successive meanings borrowed by the famous Socratic paradox of involuntary evil in the work of Plato. For that purpose, our ideas we will developed under three main themes: 1) the first will be to clarify the meaning covered by the voluntary and involuntary categories in ancient times, in order to avoid any anachronistic confusion with the modern meanings of these same concepts; 2) the second will seek to bring to light the anthropological postulate underlying Plato’s idea that no one could do wrong on his own purpose; 3) the third will in turn expose the three major exculpation devices developed by Plato in his work: the ignorant soul devices, of the inverted soul and of the diseased soul. We will thus show how Plato, contrary to the classic Christian theodicy, seeks to absolve human being from any real moral involvement in the causal genesis of his ‘‘bad’’ actions.