Knowledge,Practical Syllogism And The Akratic’s Inner Conflict

The problem of akrasia in Aristotle’s practical philosophy is a very important and controversial conundrum. It involves a complex relationship between rational knowledge and desire, also concerns the positioning and understanding of a person’s "rational image". Focusing on this problem, the scholars’main concern include two questions. The first is that, since he affirms the possibility of akrasia obviously, whether Aristotle would agree with Socrates’s strong position that no one does wrongly unless he is ignorant. And if he does, to what extent? The second is that according to Aristotle’s interpretation of weak akrasia, though the agent gains the knowledge of how to act correctly, he cannot finish it because of the lure of desires. Thus, compared to knowledge, desire seems motivate the agent’s action more powerfully. Then, how to coordinate the tension between this conclusion and the fundamental teaching "human is rational animal"?For the two certain questions, the scholars provide two different sorts of interpretations——traditional interpretation and non-traditional interpretation. As the former argues, the conclusion of the practical syllogism means action. It follows that the reason that the akratic person cannot obtain the knowledge of how to act correct is that he only "has" the knowledge of theoretic premises but cannot practice. As a result, there is no inner conflict in the akratic person. And this conclusion does not threaten the leading role of reason and knowledge in human action. Correspondingly, the core problem of traditional interpretation lies in its denying the possibility of genuine akratic person. The revision still cannot resolve the contradiction among Aristotle’s different views. If the genuine akratic person obtains the knowledge of how to act correctly but does not practice, then it indicates that practical reasoning cannot motivate the behaviors efficiently. As for non-traditional interpretation, the main point is that the conclusion of practical syllogism is mere decision or determination possibly.Through the analyzing of traditional and non-traditional interpretation, this paper indicates, traditional interpretation and its revision over-emphasize the role of knowledge and practical syllogism in the explanation of human action, namely, the action of an agent cannot be motivated by mere reason and practical syllogism. Non-traditional interpretation pays their attention on the effect that the genuine akratic person’s inner conflict puts on his action however, they do not describe the conflict in detail. On the basis of non-traditional interpretation, this paper analyzes the constitutes of a soul which causes the agent’s action, especially desires, inquires the motives of the akratic person, and describes the inner conflict of the genuine akratic person, by comparing akrasia with temperance, self-indulgence and self-control. Moreover, it indicates that Aristotle does not degrade the effect of knowledge and reason in human action with admitting the existence of genuine akratic person, and it provides more detailed narratives about the complicated role which desires and emotions play in human action. In conclusion, in order to be a decisive role in human action, knowledge has to be fulfilled under the condition that the agent has the correct desire and pleasure for the result that knowledge and practical syllogism aim at.