Part I, Question 2: Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of akrasia: impetuosity (propeteia) and flunk (astheneia). The individual who is weak goes through a process of reflectivity and renders a choice; but rather than act in consonance with his apprehension out choice, he acts chthonic the make of a passion. By contrast, the impetuous psyche does not go through a process of reflection and does not make a reasoned choice; he simply acts under the influence of a passion. At the time of action, the impetuous person experiences no infixed conflict. But once his act has been completed, he decline what he has done. Aristotles discussion of akrasia relates to a position held by Socrates. When he origin introduces the topic of akrasia, and analyzes some of the problems involved in apprehensiveness it, he says that Socrates held that there is no akrasia, and he describes this as a dissertation that clearly conflicts with the appearances. Since he says that his goal is to p reserve as galore(postnominal) of the appearances as possible, it may come as a mental confusion that when he analyzes the conflict between reason and feeling, he arrives at the conclusion that in a way Socrates was right after(prenominal) all. For, he says, the person who acts against reason does not have what is melodic composing to be unqualified knowledge.
In a way he has knowledge, but in a way does not. But Aristotles cartel with Socrates is exclusively partial, because he insists on the power of the emotions to rival, weaken or evacuate reason. Emotion challenges reason in all terzetto of these ways. In bo th the akratic and the enkratic, it competes! with reason for control over action. veritable(a) when reason wins, it faces the difficult task of having to struggle with an internal rival. Second, in the akratic, it... If you penury to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment