How Practical Reasoning Is Effective In Action

The problem of incontinence is a very important issue in Aristotle’s practical philosophy.Although the phenomenon of incontinence issue is quite common,there are still few systematic conclusions in the history of philosophy.The issue of incontinence was raised by Socrates first and from the perspective of knowledge,he concluded that there is no such thing as incontinence.When Aristotle admitted that incontinence is possible,to what extent did he agree with Socrates’ position that "if someone does what is wrong,he does it only by reason of ignorance" ? By going back to the historical background,then elucidating and reconstructing the text of Aristotle’s theory of incontinence,and finally discussing the development of Aristotle’s incontinence under the context of contemporary philosophy,this article tries to clarify Aristotle’s thought of incontinence constructively.First of all,the article tries to show that when Socrates argues that incontinence is impossible,if plowing in the original field of incontinence issue,his core argument is that " if someone does what is wrong,he does it only by reason of ignorance ".In addition,his union of virtue guaranteed by "virtue is knowledge" also requires the impossibility of incontinence.From the Doctrine of the Tripartite Nature of the Soul,Plato reveals the opposition between desire and reason,and also reveals that desire does not necessarily desire good things,which provides the possibility for existence of incontinent.However,although Aristotle acknowledges the existence of incontinence and defends Socrates’ rationalism,he classifies the incontinence as ignorance.Secondly,it focuses on Aristotle’s discussion of incontinence and reveals how practical syllogism can be effective in action.At first,the relevant concepts in Aristotle’s text are examined and debated.On the one hand,the comparison between incontinence and wisdom reveals that incontinence and wisdom are incompatible,and wisdom represents the state of combination of knowledge and action.On the other hand,the contrast between incontinence and indulgence shows that the incontinence goes against the correct logos for the pleasure of the present,but it is not out of choice and always has regret afterwards.And then,it focuses on Aristotle’s discussion of incontinence from the perspective of knowledge.One is to clarify the traditional and non-traditional interpretations of Aristotle’s text in contemporary philosophical discussions.Traditional interpretations defend the conclusion of practical syllogism as action.From the standpoint of traditional interpretation,this paper first reveals the tension between the possibility of incontinence and practical syllogism.The second is to reveal the knowledge state and causes of the people who are incontinent.They are in the state of having knowledge without using it,which is similar to a beginner in the intermediate state of half-understanding and half-knowing.The cause lies in the state of the soul,and the transformation of incontinence requires the cultivation of the soul for a long time.The third is to discuss how practical syllogism guarantees the effectiveness of the conclusion in action.Through the reconstruction of Aristotle’s practical syllogism by contemporary traditional interpreters,it is revealed that the character of actors,such as temperance,is an important factor to ensure the practical effectiveness of practical syllogism.Finally,it enters into the discussion of contemporary philosophy on the incontinence.Davidson redefined his incontinence,and the Anscombe call back to the tradition of Aristotle.Davidson argues the existence of incontinence by distinguishing between conditional judgment and unconditional judgment.The best judgment is conditional,and it can be transformed into unconditional judgment by following the principle of self-control.Beliefs and desires belong to different mental divisions made up of semi-autonomous structures,which provide the reason for the existence of incontinence.Anscombe argues that the contemporary context misunderstands Aristotle’s practical syllogism as a deductive process of reasoning.By distinguishing the premise and starting point of practical syllogism,she clarified the source of action effectiveness of practical reasoning.Wanting,the starting point of the actor in the major premise,guarantees the action effectiveness of the conclusion for practical reasoning.Anscombe also put forward practical knowledge,the intention of the non-observational knowledge is practical knowledge.In the field of modern knowledge,there is only speculative knowledge without practical knowledge.Therefore,Anscombe reveals the significance of Aristotle’s discussion on practical syllogism in the field of contemporary knowledge.Through an examination of the ancient and modern concept of "akrasia",this paper reveals that the action effectiveness of practical reasoning comes from the actor’s wanting,which is accompanied by the actor’s intention.It is the starting point of practical reasoning that consists of wanting and intention,which is different from the major premise,that guarantees the action effectiveness of practical syllogism.In order for the practical syllogism to be actionable,the minor premises of the practical syllogism need to include the intrinsic driving force such as the quality of abstinence or the external normative requirements.It is the lack of the actor-referring part in the minor premise of practical syllogism that hinders the generation of the final minor premise and leads to the failure of incontinent person to draw action-oriented conclusions.