Akrasia in Greek Philosophy

8/9/2019 Akrasia in Greek Philosophy

1/593

Akrasia in Greek Philosophy


2/593


3/593

Akrasia in GreekPhilosophy

!ro- o/rates to Plotinus

Edited by

Christopher 0o1oni/h and Pierre #estr2e

')3#)4 50&$&46++7


4/593


5/593

C&4$)4$

4ote on the Contri1utors........................................................... iBA/kno@led-ents.......................................................Biii4ote.............................................................................Biv3ntrodu/tion.............................................................Bv

o/rates on Akrasia? Kno@lede? and the Po@er o"Appearan/e ............................................................................. *

$ho-as 0ri/khouse and 4i/holas -ith

*. $he $raditional $heory.................................................... 66. #evereuBs A//ount o" o/rati/ Motivation.........*6

. An &1>e/tion Considered......................................*e/tion ......................................................:96. 3s o/rates the &1>e/torE ....................................9;. #esire in the Protagoras, Gorgias? and Meno...................9,

Akrasia and the tru/ture o" the Passions in Platos imaeus...................................................................................*+*

Ga1riela %oBana Carone

*. 'a/k o" /ontrol and intelle/tual "ailure .............*+66. 'a/k o" /ontrol and tripartition o" the soul ......*+,

Plato andEnkrateia.......................................................**9'ouis8Andr2 #orion

*. $he reasons "or an a1sen/e ..............................*6+6. $he reasons "or a Ipartial reha1ilitation ..........*6,Con/lusion .............................................................*,

Aristotle on the Causes o" Akrasia..............................*9Pierre #estr2e

*. #esire and PhantasiaD A readin o" !E V33? iii< "ro-"A and "MA........................................................*;*

6. o-e di""i/ulties /onsidered ..............................*


8/593


9/593

/ontents vii


10/593


11/593

4&$) &4 $H) C&4$%30($&%

Chris Bobonich is Asso/iate Pro"essor o" Philosophy and?1y /ourtesy? Classi/s at tan"ord (niversity. He has@ritten a nu-1er o" arti/les on Greek ethi/al? andpoliti/al philosophy and psy/holoy. He is the authoro"

Plato&s (topia Recast) His *ater Ethics and Politics I&B"ord (P?6++6. Heis /urrently @orkin on? a-on other topi/s?

Aristotles ethi/s.Thomas C. Brickhouse is /urrently the J.!. )ast Pro"essor o"theHu-anities and Pro"essor o" Philosophy at 'yn/h1urCollee. 3n addi8tion to his @ork @ith 4.#. -ith on thephilosophy o" o/rates Socrates on rial I&B"ord (P? *9:9?

Plato&s Socrates I&(P? *99;? he Philosophy of SocratesIWestvie@? 6+++? he rial and E+ecution of Socrates) Sourcesand%ontroversies I&(P? 6++6? and he Routledge Guide ook to Plato

and the rial of Socrates I%outlede? 6++;? he has @rittenon the ethi/s o"Plato and Aristotle. With 4. -ith? heis no@ /o-pletin a 1ook on o/rati/ -oralpsy/holoy.

Gabriela R. Carone is at the (niversity o" Colorado at0oulder. he is the author o" nu-erous arti/les onPlato? and 1ooks in/ludin Plato&s %osmology and -ts Ethical

"imensions ICa-1ride (P? 6++


12/593

Asso/iate Pro"essor at the (ni8 versit2 /atholique de'ouvain? Centre #e Wul"8Mansion. His pu1li/a8 tionsin/lude arti/les on the Preso/rati/s? o/rates? Plato and

Aristotle?and he is the editor o" Aristote. onheur et vertus? and*a Po2tique d&Aristote)


13/593

B note on the /ontri1utors

lectures morales et politi/ues de la trag0die IPresses (niversitairesde !ran/e? 6++? and the /o8editor? @ith 4. -ith? o"

Socrates& "ivine Sign) Religion,Practice, and 1alue in Socratic philosophyIspe/ial issue o" Apeiron? 6++


14/593

IHarvard (P? 6++6.He is /urrently @orkin on a 1ook onPlato and the Art of Philosophical:riting.


15/593

note on the /ontri1utors Bi

Ricardo %alles is a %esear/her at the 3nstitute o"Philosophi/al %esear/h o" the 4ational (niversity o"

MeBi/o I(4AM. He @rote he Stoics on "eterminism and%ompatibilism IAshate? 6++


16/593

(arco )ingano is Asso/iate Pro"essor o" Philosophy atthe (niversity o" o Paulo. He @rote a 1ook on theAristotelian theory o" per/eption


17/593

Bii note on the /ontri1utors

IRateles? 'QPM? *99:? and edited a/olle/tion o" papers on Aristotles Metaphysics ISobre a Metaf?sica

de Arist>teles? &dysseus)ditores? 6++


18/593

ACK4&W')#GM)4$

Most o" the essays in/luded in this volu-e are 1asedon papers ivenat a /on"eren/e held at the Catholi/(niversity o" 'ouvain I'ouvain8la84euve in #e/e-1er6++. &thers @ere spe/ially @ritten "or thisvolu-e.

$he /on"eren/e @as oranized 1y the Centre #e@ul"8Mansion. $heoranizers are parti/ularly rate"ul to the

!4% I0elian 4ational !und"or /ienti"i/ %esear/h "orits enerous "inan/ial support.$he editors @ould like to ive spe/ial thanks to

t2phane Mer/ier "or his eB/ellent @ork in preparinthe -anus/ript.


19/593


20/593

34$%(C$3&4

!ollo@in Aristotles "a-ous eBa-ple o" akrasia? letsi-aine a person@ho dives luttonously at a pie/e o"/ake that happens to 1e on theta1le in "ront o" her.As a very rouh des/ription "ro- the outside?Greekphilosophers /alled su/h a pheno-enon a /ase o"akrasia? a ter- -eanin a Fla/k o" /ontrol I@hi/h 'atin

translators la1eled Fincontinentia? in opposition toenkrateia F1ein in /ontrol Itranslated into 'atin asFcontinentia. in/e that very person usually doesnt diveat the "irst /akeshe sees? akrasia is either a des/riptiono" an unusual or uneBpe/ted @ay o" 1ehavin? or a/hara/terization o" an o//asional "eature o" /hara/ter.0ut Greek philosophers also use the very sa-e ter-to la1el @hat are apparently the t@o possi1ledes/riptions o" @hat has happened "ro- the point o"

vie@ o" the person @ho a/ts that @ay. &n the onehand? her kno@lede that eatin that /ake is a 1adthin and to 1e avoided? @hatever that kno@lede/onsists in? turns out to have 1een too @eakat thatti-e? or at least not stron enouh to insure that shea/ts on itN that kno@lede @asnt /apa1le o"preventin her "ro- eatin the /ake?as it usually didDakrasia is thus understood as @eakness o" kno@lede.&n the other hand? her appropriate? i.e. rational?

desire to do @hatshe thinks is 1etter turns out not to1e stron enouh to 1e e""e/tively-otivational? and tolead the person to a/t rationallyD akrasia here is the@eakness o" an appropriate desire @hi/h is /lose to@hat @e /urrently/all F@eakness o" @ill.

$he Greek philosophi/al treat-ent o" this the-epresents t@o puzzles. $he rst puzzle is that?a//ordin to the rst histori/al report @e have "ro-Aristotle? re"le/tion on that pheno-enon 1ean @ith adenial o" akrasiaD o/rates thouht that Fthere is no su/hthin as akrasia I!E V33 6? **;


21/593


22/593

Bvi introdu/tion

the Protagoras o" @hat -ost people think /an happen tohu-an 1einsD F&ne asserts that -ost people are

un@illin to do @hat is 1est? even thouh they kno@@hat it is and are a1le to do it? 1ut do other thinsinstead S. . .T &ne says that those @ho a/t that @ay doso 1e/ause theyare over/o-e 1y pleasure or pain orare 1ein /onquered Ikratoumenous S1y spirit or love or"earT IProt. e/tin the possi1ility o"

the @eakness o" kno@lede and the @eakness o"desire eBplanations. He "irst asserts Iat least as anidealE that proper kno@lede? epistm or phronsis?/annot 1e Fdraed around I


23/593

1ut do @hat they think? or 1elieve? to 1e ood? or 1est?at the -o-ent they do it. %elated to this assu-ptionI@hi/h is the /ore o" o/rates denial o" akrasia is theo/rati/ FparadoB that Fno1ody errs @illinly I


24/593

introdu/tion Bvii

&r put in the eudai-onisti/ ter-s o" Greek ethi/s?Fevery1ody @ants the hu-an ood? i.e. to 1e happy?

or to "are @ell I@hatever the eBa/t-eanin o" thoseter-s? and so every1ody does @hat she thinks or1elieves to 1e ood I@hatever the sense o" Food isas a -eans to 1e happy Ior? alternatively? as a/onstituent o" the hu-an ood. o @e /an alsosur-ise that o/rates @ould have denied thepossi1ility o" @hat@e /all F@eakness o" @ill? sin/e theonly F@ill or rational desire there is is dire/ted atso-ethin ood? and never at so-ethin 1ad? and itis i-possi1le not to desire the ood. Hen/e the la1elsFintelle/tualis-and Funi8-otivational theory /apture?so our standard story oes? the o/rati/ denial o"akrasiaD @e hu-an 1eins have one and only one"unda-ental desire? that is? to 1e happy. And thepathos or pathma? as o/rates /alls it at


25/593

o/rates @ho is presented in the Protagoras. !or Platono@ re/onizesthat hu-an -otivation is /o-pleB? andthere"ore "ully a/kno@ledes a /on"li/t 1et@een t@odi""erent? and opposed? desires? and even a-onthreedesires. As the /ase o" thirst suests? there is notonly the desire to drink so-ethin ood Ior thatappears ood? @hi/h @as o/rates /on/eption o"desire? 1ut also? as Plato no@ adds? the si-ple desiretodrink? @hi/h is the desire to drink as su/h. o @e no@have not only one?


26/593

Bviii introdu/tion

1ut t@o di""erent kinds o" desire to drinkD an irrationalone? that is thedesire to quen/h ones thirst? and the

rational desire to drink so-ethinood. And those t@odesires /an 1e in opposition at the sa-e ti-e?@hen?say? 3 a- thirsty? 1ut a- a@are that the @ater in "ronto" -e is 1ad to drink. A -ore /o-pleB /ase is'eontios @ho has? at the very sa-e ti-e? theFepithu-eti/ desire to look at the pale /orpses? as@ell as the Frational desire not to do so? and theFthu-eti/ desire to avoid sha-e. $hat /onUi/t ends@ith the vi/tory o" Fepithu-eti/ desire? so that theFreasona1le or Frational desire? as @ell as thereasoned 1elie" that it is 1ad to look at those/orpses? are de"eated. 3n other @ords? 'eontios haslost sel"8/ontrol 1e/ause o" the @eakness o" hispra/ti/alkno@lede and o" his rational desire.

A si-ilar reha1ilitation o" akrasia see-s also to 1e atthe /ore o"

Aristotles des/ription o" akrasia? sin/e he 1eins

!icomachean Ethics?0ook V33? 1y stronly re>e/tin o/rates denial?@hi/h F/learly runs aainst the pheno-ena IV33 6?**;


27/593

the irrational part o" the soul? sin/e they thouhtthere @as no irrational part o" the soul.

As /onstantly in/reasin s/holarship reveals? su/ha story is not @ithout -any pro1le-s. 'ets 1ein@ith o/rates. A "irst pro1le- is the relia1ility? rarelyput into question? o" Aristotles testi-onyD thestandard story see-s to inore the "a/t that @esi-ply do not "ind? in Platos dialoues? the eBpli/itdenial o" akrasia under that desination. Moreenerally? i" o/rates denied the eBisten/e o" irrationaldesires? as Aristotle suests? @e -ay @orry that @esee- Iat least a//ordin to


28/593


29/593

to 1e avoided. Aainst su/h a readin? interpretershave tried to o""er another interpretation o" thatpuzzlin passae @hi/h is -u/h -ore in a//ordan/e@ith Aristotlesdes/riptions else@here? holdin that onthe /ontrary? the akrati/ person does rea/h su/h a/on/lusion? and so per"e/tly Fsees that this /ake isathin to 1e avoided? 1ut does eat it 1e/ause o" a la/ko" the rihtsort o" desire to avoid it. o @e no@ havet@o possi1le interpretative


30/593

BB introdu/tion

/hoi/es? on/e @e a1andon the un/harita1le andunsatis"a/tory a//usa8 tion o" in/onsisten/yD either to

try to re/on/ile these tensions 1y o""er8 in a non8intelle/tualisti/ readin o" our !E passae? or 1yo""erin an eBplanation o" @hy? and ho@? @e -ayinterpret those des/riptions that suest Aristotlesa//eptan/e o" /lear8eyed akrasia as /onsistent @ithanintelle/tualisti/ readin o" the !E passae.

$he toi/s -iht see- to 1e less pro1le-ati/? sin/ethey see- to "ollo@ o/rates in denyin akrasia@ithout -u/h ado? and there arenot -any passaes

or "ra-ents @here the @ord /an 1e "ound. et thepresen/e o" akrati/ states o" -ind in Chrysippusanalysis o" e-otion? see-s to i-ply that their denial@as not so si-ple as it -ay see- atrst siht. Andthe sa-e -ust 1e said in the /ase o" Cleanthes? sin/ehe /onsiders enkrateia as one o" his "our /ardinal virtues?a-on @hi/h enkrateia takes the pla/e traditionallyassined to phronsis. Another pro18 le- is therelationship 1et@een pre/ipitate a/tion and toi/theory o"responsi1ilityD ho@ /an @e hold? as o/rates@ould not have done? a pre/ipitate akrati/ aentresponsi1le "or his 1ad /hoi/e and a/tionE

$he /ontri1utions in this volu-e try to "a/e thesepro1le-s 1y either de"endin so-e standard story@ith ne@ aru-ents? or 1y proposin alternativereadins. As the reader -ay 1e a@are? dis/ussions onakra9sia have 1een parti/ularly intense and vivid "or

at least the past t@ode/ades? and the editors dontintend to provide a sinle a//ount o"ho@ ea/h Greekphilosopher should 1e interpreted. &n the /ontrary?@e have /ons/iously tried to provide ne@ @ays o"readin these teBtsthat? eBpli/itly or i-pli/itly? are inopposition to one another? hopin these ne@/ontri1utions @ill 1e/o-e points o" departure "or"urther@ork on these pro1le-s.

$he 1ook 1eins @ith t@o /hapters @hi/h "o/us on

the t@o -ain related pro1le-s @ith @hi/h PlatosProtagoras and Gorgias see- to /hal8 lene their readerstodayD @hy does the person /hane his -ind? anddoy instead o" B @hi/h she previously thouht should 1edone? and@hat is the appropriate @ay to i-prove orre"or- su/h an Ialleedlyakrati/ personE

3n Fo/rates on Akrasia? kno@lede? and the po@er o"appearan/e?


31/593

$ho-as 0ri/khouse and 4i/holas -ith ans@er thet@o related ques8 tions o" @hy so-e thins have thepo@er o" appearan/e at all and in @hat @ay the-easurin art F-akes the appearan/es lose theirpo@er.$hey arue that? "or o/rates? Fthe po@er o"appearan/e is tied to thepsy/holoi/al aen/y o" theappetites and passions. o/rates 1elieves thatappetites and passions /an 1e either stron or @eakand that a


32/593

introdu/tion BBi

stron appetite or passion is one that /auses anaent to 1elieve thatthe pleasure at @hi/h it ai-s is

in "a/t a ood. 3t is a stron appetiteor passion? then?that a//ounts "or the o1>e/t o" the appetite or passionhavin the po@er o" appearan/e. More pre/isely? it isirrational desire that in/lines us to 1elieve that @hatone is attra/ted to is a ood? andi" su""i/iently stronit /auses us to 1elieve that @hat it is attra/ted to isood 1y preventin us "ro- seein or 1einpersuaded 1y any rea8sons "or thinkin it is not ood.0e/ause o/rates is /onvin/ed that @eal@ays a/t "orthe sake o" @hat @e take to 1e ood? o/rates thinksthatones /hara/ter is deter-ined not 1y @hether onehas irrational desires that are in a//ord @ith or that/on"li/t @ith reason? 1ut 1y @here one stands @ithrespe/t to seein the truth. $hose @ith stronappetites or passions are prevented "ro- seein thetruth on/e the appetite or pas8sions are en"la-ed andso are /o-pelled 1y stron appetites or passionsto see

illi/it pleasures or en>oy-ents as ood. o/ratesposition is that kno@lede o" the ood is neverde"eated 1y the po@er o" appearan/e 1e/ause su/hkno@lede is in/o-pati1le @ith the possession o"stronappetites or passions.

$he se/ond /hapter "o/uses on the Gorgias? and -ay 1eseen as a

kind o" reply to the "irst one. 3n FA pro1le- in theGorgiasD Ho@ is pun8

ish-ent supposed to help @ith intelle/tual errorE?Christopher %o@ede"ends the thesis that even in theGorgias? usually seen as transitional "ro- o/rati/ toPlatoni/ thouht? Platos o/rates? throuhout theentire dialoue? holds a very stronly intelle/tualisti/eBplanation o" oin @ron? and advo/ates a veryintelle/tualisti/ @ay to help people to i-provethe-selves? that is? si-ply throuh persuadin the- to/hane their /urrent "alse 1elie"s. et it is true thato/rates eBpli/itly suestspunish-ent "or those @hoo @ron? and that the dialoue ends @ith the"rihtenin es/hatoloi/al -yth. 0ut in response to@orries a1out the /onsisten/y o" the Gorgias? or itstransitional /hara/ter? %o@e sho@s that punish-enthere doesnt -ean ordinary /orporal punish-ent?1ut


33/593

is instead a purely philosophi/al punish-ent? @hosereal na-e isphilosophi/al diale/ti/.

$he neBt "ive /hapters deal @ith Plato? "o/usin invery di""erent @ays on the relationship 1et@een theo/rates o" the Protagoras and the o/rates o" theRepublic and other later dialoues.

Chris 0o1oni/hs paper? FPlato on Akrasia and kno@inyour o@n

-ind? is a transition to those essays that /on/entrateon Platos -iddle8 period vie@s and it eBa-ines theProtagoras in liht o" those later [email protected]/h aruesthat on theProtagoras eBplanation o" apparent akrati/


34/593

BBii introdu/tion

a/tion? the persons -ind is opaque to hi-sel". Hethinks that @hen he /hose the @ron a/tion he @as

pursuin pleasure? 1ut in "a/t he @as a/t8 in on aI-istaken >ud-ent a1out and desire "or @hat is overall1est. 3n a deep sense? the person does not kno@ hiso@n -ind. 0o1oni/h dra@son so-e re/ent @ork on sel"8kno@lede to eBplore @orries to @hi/h our la/k o"a@areness o" our o@n -inds ives rise and then turnsto the details o" Platos solution to the puzzle o"apparent akrati/ a/tion in the Protagoras. He aruesthat althouh the standard interpretation o" Platossolution -iht 1e /onsistent @ith the teBt? there is analternatesolution to the puzzle that is /o-pati1le @ithPlatos 1roader /o--it8 -ents and is philosophi/allypre"era1le to the standard interpretation. 0o1oni/hsuests that re"le/tion on this alternateinterpretation -ay @ell lead one in the dire/tion o"Platos vie@s in the -iddle period?e..? in the Republic.He /loses 1y dra@in on the @orries to @hi/h our la/k

o" a@areness o" our o@n -inds ives rise to helpillu-inate the situation o" the apparent akrati/ in theProtagoras.

3n F(ni"ied aen/y and akrasia in PlatosRepublic?Christopher hields

turns eBpli/itly to the theory o" the Republic and itsdivision o" thesoul. He 1eins @ith Platos /on/ern that there isso-ethin ridi/ulous a1out the eBpression F-aster o"

onesel" IRep. ;+e. hields thinksthis /on/ern is apt?sin/e i" one is a -aster o" onesel"? then one is nolessa slave to onesel"N and it is hard to see ho@ these t@oeBpressions /ould re"er to the sa-e person @ithout"ra/turin the sel" into t@o. 3" @e thus suppose thatthe eBpression indi/ates that @e are -ade up o"distin/t homunculi? one o" @hi/h leads and the other o"@hi/h "ollo@s?then @e are not sel"8-asters? 1ut rather/o-posites o" -aster8slave pairs. hields sket/hes

instead a theory o" psy/hi/ division that "o/uses onthe essential oodness o" psy/hi/ unity. $he Republic?he arues? o""ers a nor-ative assess-ent o" therades o" unity? ranin "ro- the hihlyunied psy/heo" the >ust? to the tu-ultuous disarray o" the tyrant.Moreover? Platos interest in soul8division 1etrays nodire/t eviden/e o"his havin any interest in respondin


35/593

to a o/rati/ denial o" akrasia? as is/o--only supposed.hields thus suests that @e should not 1e qui/k to/on/lude that soul division in Republic 3V has as itspri-aryor even as its su1sidiaryoal the rihtino" a o/rati/ @ron.

3n F$hirst as desire "or ood? %oslyn Weiss also"o/uses on Republic

0ook 3V and its relation to the Protagoras. Weiss taret isthe vie@ thatin Rep. 3V? o/rates a1andons his earlier denial o" thepossi1ility o"akrasiaN he partitions the soul to a//o--odate akrasiaNand that this ne@

vie@ o" the soul ena1les o/rates to repla/e hisoverly intelle/tualized


36/593

introdu/tion BBiii

vie@ o" /hoi/e @ith a -ore 1alan/ed vie@ a//ordin to@hi/h a persons 1elie"s a1out @hat is 1est -ay 1e

over/o-e 1y e-otion or appetite. Weiss /hallenesthe 1elie" that o/rates Ior Plato /hanes his -ind inRep. 3V? 1ut also arues that o/rates never deniedakrasia. 3t is the Protagorasnot the Republicthat isano-alous. 3t is only in the Protagoras that akrasia isdenied? she holds? and akrasia is denied there only underthe non8o/rati/ assu-ption that pleasure is theood.

3n FAkrasia and the stru/ture o" the passions in Platosimaeus? Ga1riela

Carone turns to the imaeus and its denial that anyoneever does @ronvoluntarily? and proposes to square this denial @iththe imaeus talko" tripartition o" the soul and the putative denial thatthe lo@er partso" the soul -ay share in propositionalattitudes. Carone /lai-s that in the imaeus? as in

earlier dialoues? the la/k o" /ontrol o" reason in theperson -ay 1e des/ri1ed as an intelle/tual "ailure Ioras reason not1ein su""i/iently stron or developed?and that this is true even @hen one -ay 1e -otivated1y the lo@er parts o" ones soul. $hese lo@er parts?Carone thinks? share in >ud-ental attitudes that -akethe notion o" internal 1alan/e and har-ony possi1le?despite so-e passaes see-8 inly suestin theopposite. 3n this @ay our passions /an 1e said tohave

so-e rational stru/ture and even a rational pla/e inthe universe?to @hi/h the virtuous person -ust -akethe- /on"or-.

3n FPlato and enkrateia? 'ouis8Andr2 #orion /on/entrateson the

notion o" enkrateia in Plato and Oenophon. 3t is in theseauthors that @e"irst nd the ad>e/tive enkrats used in the sense o"F-aster o" onesel"

@ith reard to /orporeal pleasures. 0ut? as #orionpoints out? Plato and Oenophon di""er reatly in the"requen/y @ith @hi/h they use this notion. Oenophondevotes three entire /hapters to enkrateia in theMemorabilia I3


37/593

@hereas the very ter- enkrateia is supposed to 1e o"o/rati/ inspiration? it never appears in his dialouesthouht to 1e Fo/rati/ #orion atte-pts todeter-ine @hy Plato? on the one hand? attri1utes noi-portan/e to enkrateia in his early dialoues and? on theother hand? partially reha1ilitates this notion in his-iddle and late dialoues. 3n doin so? he /onsidersho@ /losely Platos position approBi-ates? or isdistinuished "ro- that o" other o/rati/s? inparti/ular Oenophon? @ho ive an essential role toenkrateia in preventin akrasia.

$he /hapters dealin @ith Aristotle present three verydi""erent inter8 pretations o" ho@ to understand the

"a-ous /entral passae in !E V33 ? and o" ho@?there"ore? to re/on/ile the apparent /on"li/t 1et@eenthe


38/593


39/593

diale/ti/ is the appropriate -ethod "or ethi/s? "orres/uin o/rati/ intelle/tualis- and his plain denialo" the akrati/ person /annot 1ut /lash @ith other @ell"oundedtheses on akrasia in a @ay that no /o-pro-ise/an 1e rea/hed @ithoutrunnin into "urther trou1le inso-e area or other.

3n FAristotles @eak akratesD @hat does his inoran/e/onsists inE?

#avid Charles "a/es the pro1le- o" ho@ to /hara/terizethe state o" theakrati/ @ho ets Ias he assu-es at theoutset to the ood /on/lusion 1ut "ails to a/ta//ordinly? @hi/h is /hara/terized as F1ein like thato" a


40/593

introdu/tion BBv

person @ho does not kno@ 1ut -erely says the verseso" )-pedo/les. A"ter /ontrastin and /riti/ally

assessin t@o rival ans@ers to this ques8 tion Ia/onitivist one @hi/h interprets the "ailure o" theakrati/ as a "ailure o" /onition? and a neo8Hu-eanone @hi/h interprets it as a "ailure in pra/ti/alkno@lede @hi/h is understood as -ade up o" t@oindependent? separa1le? /o-ponentsD ood /onitionand ood desire? Charles /ontends that neither o"these interpretations is satis"a/tory1e/ause 1oth reston a -isunderstandin o" Aristotles vie@ o" desire."eAnima 333 7 and *+ suest? Charles holds? that to desireA is to seeA as pleasant or think A ood in a distin/tive@ayD one @hi/h essentially involves the su1>e/t 1einattra/ted to@ards A. 3" so? desirin A @ill not 1esi-ply a -atter o" >udin A to 1e ood Ias in the/onitivist a//ount nor yet a "urther and distin/tnon8/onitive i-pulse arisin "ro- su/h >ud-entsIas in the neo8Hu-ean a//ount. &n this vie@? the

@eak akrati/ "ails in pra/ti/al understandin 1e/ausehe "ails to see that A is 1est in the distin/tive @ay/hara/teristi/ o" desire.

$he t@o /ontri1utions on the toi/s ai- to deter-inepre/isely @hatrole the vi/e o" akrasia plays in theories@hi/h deny the eBisten/e o"irrational desires? and ho@they /an re/on/ile pre/ipitate akrati/ a/tions@ith theirtheory o" responsi1ility.

3n FAkrasia and enkrateia in an/ient stoi/is-D -inor vi/e and

-inorvirtueE? Jean80aptiste Gourinat revie@s all an/ienttoi/ testi-onies on akrasia and enkrateia? "o/usin onCleanthes and Chrysippus. $hetoi/ denition o" Fsel"8/ontrol Ienkrateia is t@o"oldD sel"8/ontrol is aFdisposition not to o 1eyond riht reason and a/apa/ity to resist the attra/tions o" pleasures. $hist@o"old de"inition raises di""i/ulties? @hi/h are 1estresolved 1y assu-in the /o-ple-entarity o" the t@oparts o" the denitions? rather than their -utualeB/lusiveness. $he toi//on/eption o" akrasia -ust 1ein /on"or-ity @ith the de"inition o" Fsel"8 /ontrol? andthus akrasia -ust indi/ate pri-arily the in/apa/ity toresistpleasures. Cleanthes /on/eption is sinular? sin/ehe assu-es enkrateia to 1e one o" the "our /ardinalvirtues? takin the pla/e o" pruden/e. $hissee-s to 1e


41/593

a /onsequen/e o" his insisten/e on the Fphysi/alaspe/t o" virtue? and derives "ro- Oenophon andAntisthenes. &n the other hand? Chrysippus position@as a-1iuous? sin/e he see-s at so-e point tohave endorsed a @ider /on/eption o" sel"8/ontrol andakrasia?-akin akrasia the sour/e o" all passions. 0ut it israther inte-peran/e Iakolasia that he des/ri1es as thesour/e o" all passions? and? even i" head-its that there-ay eBist /ases o" -ental /on"li/ts? he never depi/tsthese /ases as /ases o" akrasia? 1ut rather as /on"li/tin

>ud-ents. o?


42/593

BBvi introdu/tion

Gourinat /on/ludes? despite the tenden/y o" thetoi/s to develop a 1roader sense o" enkrateia and

akrasia i-plied 1y one o" their deni8tions? they see-to have re-ained a -inor virtue and a -inor vi/e/on/erned @ith pleasures.

3n F)pi/tetus on Moral %esponsi1ility "or Pre/ipitateA/tion? %i/ardo alles undertakes an eBa-ination o")pi/tetus vie@s o" pre/ipitan/y I propeteiaapheno-enon that had 1een identied in the Aristoteliantradition as one o" the -odes o" akrasia? the other1ein @eakness. 3n /ontrast to Aristotle @ho "o/usedal-ost eB/lusively on @eak akrasia? )pi/tetus paid-u/h attention to pre/ipitan/y "or the reason that itposes a di""i/ulty "or the as/ription o" responsi1ilitythat arises dire/tly "ro- earlier toi/ theories o"responsi1ility. Chrysippus had arued that to 1eresponsi1le "or an a/tion it is su""i/ient that the aenta/ted "ro- a de/ision or i-pulse that is 1ased onprior reasonin. 0ut this thesis leaves it uneBplained

@hy aents @ho a/t @ithout any prior rea8sonin -ayalso 1e responsi1le. !or i" the reason @hy re"le/tiveaentsare responsi1le is that they are /onvin/ed 1ytheir reasonin that they should a/t as they do? asChrysippus -aintained? @hy should pre/ipitate aents1e responsi1le i" they do not /arry out this sort o"reasoninE alles ans@er is that )pi/tetus arees @ithChrysippus a1out the kind o" reasonin that issu""i/ient "or responsi1ility? 1ut he /o-ple-ents the

Chrysippus theory 1y providin an eBplanation o"@hy a/tions done in the a1sen/e o" reason -ay also1e responsi1le. )pi/tetus aru-ent hines on theidea that pre/ipitan/y is in itsel" a /ondition that oneouht to avoid "ro- a -oral point o" vie@ iven thepla/e o" hu-ansin the toi/ /os-os.

3n /ontrast to the previous /hapters @hi/h havesuested a dis/on8 tinuous history o" Greek/on/eptions o" akrasia? our last /ontri1ution o""ers anatte-pt at re/on/ilin these /on/eptions. 3nFPlotinus on akrasiaD the neoplatoni/ synthesis? 'loydGerson arues that Plotinus appropriates Peripateti/and toi/ insihts into his eBpression o" Platoni/-oralpsy/holoy enerally and into his analysis o" thepheno-enon o" akrasia in parti/ular. Plotinus a//ount"o/uses on the Platoni/ distin/8 tion 1et@een the soul


43/593

or true sel" and the e-1odied /o-posite hu-an1ein.With the toi/s? Plotinus arues that the true sel" isthe su1>e/t o" rational desire. Gerson interpretsrational desire as a se/ond8order desire in relation tothe rst8order desires o" the /o-posite. With Aris8totle? Plotinus distinuishes 1et@een voluntary andinvoluntary a/tions? aruin alon Platoni/ lines that@rondoin or vi/e and akrasia areinvoluntary. Akrati/a/tions are involuntary 1e/ause they arise "ro-


44/593

introdu/tion BBvii

desires involvin e-1odi-ent. u/h a/tions arepossi1le o@in to a@eakness in ones sel"8identity. $he

virtuous person is one @ho identi"ieshi-sel" su/h that@hat he desires is only @hat intelle/t desires? na-ely?the Good. As Aristotle re-arked? rational desire is "orthe unquali"ied?not the apparent? ood. Plotinus @antsto insist that the @eakness that is a turnin a@ay"ro- the real ood is 1ased on a "ailure to separatethe real ood that one truly desires "ro- the apparentoods proposedto the e-1odied person. $his "ailure isnothin -ore nor less than an ina1ility to ive the/orre/t ans@er to the question F@ho a- 3E

Chris 0o1oni/h and Pierre#estr2e


45/593


46/593

&C%A$) &4 A4RAS-A? K4&W')#G)?A4#$H) P&W)% &! APP)A%A4C)

$ho-as C. 0ri/khouse and 4i/holas

#. -ith

3n a "a-ous passae in PlatosProtagoras I


47/593

* X Y Z ? [ \ ] ^_ X _ ` b Y? Z X c

f Z g.6I. . . N ` j b b _ b b c . . .


48/593

6 tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

@henever the metrtik techn is present in so-eone he

@ill not 1e de"eated1y the dunamis tou phainomenou. What isnot /lear in the Protagoras dis/us8 sion is >ust @hy so-ethins have the po@er o" appearan/e at all. 4or is it/lear in @hat @ay the metrtik techn F-akes theappearan/es lose their po@er. 3n this paper @e shalltry to /lari"y 1oth issues and in sodoin /riti/ize t@odi""erent @ays o" understandin o/rates -oralpsy/holoy. We shall arue? /ontrary to @hat isusually said? that? "or o/rates? Fthe po@er o"appearan/e is tied to the psy/holoi/al aen/yo" theappetites and passions. 3" @hat @e shall arue is/orre/t? o/rates1elieves that appetites and passions/an 1e either stron or @eak and that a stronappetite or passion is one that /auses an aent to1elieve that the pleasure at @hi/h it ai-s is in "a/t aood. 3t is stron appetite or passion? then? thata//ounts "or the o1>e/t o" the appetite or pas8 sion

havin the po@er o" appearan/e. We shall then arueaainst the vie@ re/ently advan/ed 1y #aniel#evereuB that -oral kno@lede isnever de"eated 1ythe Fpo@er o" appearan/e 1e/ause -oral kno@ledeal@ays enerates a stroner desire "or @hat is in"a/t ood than any appetite or passion /reatesI#evereuB *99


49/593

e+planation "or allthat the aent undertakes.$o say thato/rates is a eudai-onist in the "irst sense is to saythat he takes so-ethin to 1e a ood i" and onlyi" 1e1elieves that it /ontri1utes in so-e @ay? eitherinstru-entally or/onstitutively? to happiness.; $o saythat o/rates is a eudai-onist in

ee Morrison I6++ "or an eB/eption to this eneral rule.; 3t takes us 1eyond the issues @ith @hi/h @e are here /on/erned

to take up thedi""i/ult question o" o/rates vie@ o" the /ontent o"eudaimonia.


50/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A

the se/ond sense is to say that he 1elieves that alla/tions are? in so-esense? -otivated 1y the aents

desire to pro-ote his o@n happiness.e/ts the eBplanation o" hoipolloi that P @asover/o-e at so-e point 1et@een t* and t6 1y so-eappetite or passion. 3nstead? o/rates 1elieves that P/hanes his -ind 1et@een t* and t6?/o-in to 1elievethat is a/tually 1etter than O.*7 4o@? no one @ouldnever suppose that this is a /ase o" akrasia i" P si-plyets ne@? o1>e/tive*:

*, " b f f Z ? Z b f c f b f f ? b f

g? Z b Z ? ` Z

w ? x Z w `? Z b ` #? Z w ? $# ? b Z . $his passae isdis/ussed in #evereuB I*99


57/593

*7 Penner I*99, -akes the distin/tion 1et@een Fsyn/hroni/ 1elie"akrasiain @hi/h one a/ts aainst @hat one thinks is 1est at theti-eand Fdia/hroni/ 1elie" akrasiain@hi/h one a/ts in a @aythat is /ontrary to @hat one 1elieved @as 1est 1e"ore andalsoperhaps a"ter the a/tion? 1ut not in a @ay that is /ontrary to@hat one 1elieves is 1est "or one at the -o-ent o" a/tion.

Penner /orre/tly asserts that o/rates onlydenied the possi1ilityo" syn/hroni/ 1elie" akrasiaN o/rates did not deny the possi1ilityo"dia/hroni/ 1elie" akrasia.

*: 0y Fo1>e/tive? @e si-ply -ean in"or-ation that is availa1le toper/eiver. 3n @hat "ollo@s? re"eren/es to Fne@ in"or-ation should1e understood to 1e Fo1>e/tive in thissense.


58/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A 7

in"or-ation or suddenly re-e-1ers so-ethin a1out Oor ? or 1oth?1et@een t* and t6. What /onvin/es -ost

people that there are ti-es @hen one a/ts /ontrary toones 1etter >ud-ent is pre/isely that /ase in @hi/hone a/ts /ontrary to @hat one previously thouht is notood "orone and yet has re/eived no ne@ in"or-ationor re-e-1ered anythin relevant to ones /hoi/es.o/rates ans@er? o" /ourse? is that in su/h /ases?la/kin the /ra"t o" -easure-ent? one su//u-1s to thepo@er o" appearan/e. 3n the /ase a1ove? at so-eti-e1et@een t* and t6 ac/uiresthe po@er to appear to P to

1e the 1etter than O.0ut no@ the o1vious question isD What eBplains s

possession o" the dunamis tou phainomenou? a po@er it didnot see- to have in so-e /ases only -o-ents 1e"orethe aent /hanes his opinionE Wishinnot to assinany role to nonrational desire in o/rateseBplanation? the traditionalist arues that? "or o/rates?the a/quisition o" the po@ero" appearan/e o@es the "a/tthat pleasure and pain naturally appear reater ors-aller than they really are dependin on theirproBi-ity to the aent. 3ndeed? ho@ else are @e tounderstand the question o/ratesputs to the -anyD F#othins o" the sa-e size appear larer @hen near athand and s-aller @hen seen at a distan/e? or notE I

phainetai humin ti opsei ta auta megeth egguthen men mei


59/593

0ut 1e"ore @e a//ept the traditionalistsunderstandin o" o/rates position? @e @ould do @ellto take a /loser look at >ust @hat endo@s an o1>e/t@ith the po@er o" appearan/e. As @e have seen? the/learsuestion o" o/rates a//ount o" ho@ the /ra"to" -easure-ent saves us is that proBi-ity to theaent plays a /ru/ial role in the eBplanation.


60/593

: tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

o/rates eBa-plessize? depth? nu-1er and sounds

IProtagoras e/t he pursues. 3t /annot very @ell 1e? then?that? "oro/rates? it is the -ere "a/t that has a/tually1e/o-e /loser to the aent that eBplains @hy P-oves "ro- havin the /orre/t >ud8 -ent that O is1etter than to the in/orre/t >ud-ent that is 1etterthan O. $he eBplanation o" the pheno-enon -ust alsoin/lude so-ea//ount o" @hy it is that? in the /ase o"pleasures? spa/ial proBi-ity tends to -ake a

per/eption o" pleasure less likely to 1e veridi/al.Moreover? as spatial proBi-ity to an o1>e/t /hanes?ones per/eption o" the sie/t that eBplains @hy anaent /hanes his -ind a1out its value? o/rates-ust also think that @e al@ays /orrelate the reatersize o" a pleasura1le o1>e/t @ithreater value. 4o@?no one @ould deny that this so-eti-es happens.

Consider? "or eBa-ple? P? a lutton @ho has 1een told1y his physi/ian that eatin ri/h "oods endaners hishealth? spies at t* a /ho/olate tart Cat a distan/e and "or-s the >ud-ent that it is not?on 1alan/e? in hisinterest to pursue it. At t6? ho@ever? a"ter C has 1eenpla/ed dire/tly in"ront o" hi-? P reassesses the -atterand de/ides that he ouht to eat it a"ter all. 3" hisspatial proBi-ity to C is @hat eBplains his /hane o"

-ind? it /an only 1e 1e/ause he no@? at t6? per/eivesthat C is larerthan he thouht it @as at t*? and he

>usti"ia1ly 1elieves that C @illprovide hi- @ith -orepleasure than he did at t*. All that has reallyhappened? thouh? is that at t6 P has ne@? even i"-isleadin? in"or-a8 tion a1out the tart. $hein"or-ation he has ained at t6 tells hi- thatthere is


61/593

-ore pleasure to 1e ained than he previouslysupposed. As @e have already seen? ho@ever? surelythe -any @ill not take the-selves to have 1eende"eated i" o/rates -akes his o@n? alternativea//ount reston an aents re/eivin ne@ in"or-ationa1out a pleasura1le o1>e/t. &ther@ise the -any@ould have to /ount as 1ein Fover/o-e 1y plea8sure every instan/e in @hi/h an aent de/ides that itis in his interest to pursue so-ethin a"ter he has1een -isin"or-ed that it is not really? on 1alan/e?har-"ul. $he -any @ill rihtly insist that thepheno-enon to 1e eBplained o//urs only @hen theaents in"or-ation a1out the


62/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A 9

pleasura1le o1>e/t re-ains the sa-e and the aentnonetheless /haneshis assess-ent o" the o1>e/ts

value.We /an -ake 1etter sense o" o/rates re-arks?then? i" @e take hi- to -ean that it is te-poralproBi-ity that helps eBplain @hen an o1>e/t /o-es tohave the po@er o" appearan/e and that o/rates@ants us to understand te-poral proBi-ity asanaloous to spatial proBi-ity. Just as spatialproBi-ity alters the appearan/e o" the size o" ano1>e/t?o/rates thinks? so te-poral proBi-ity alters

the appearan/e o" thea-ount o" pleasure Ior painan o1>e/t @ill yield. A pleasura1le o1>e/t thatprovides i--ediate rati/ation al@ays appearsreater than doesthe sa-e o1>e/t @hen it /an only1e en>oyed in the "uture. $he sa-eo" /ourse applies?mutatis mutandis? to pain. A//ordinly? a pleasura1leo1>e/t that /an 1e en>oyed only in the "uture andthat is >uded not to 1e @orth the resultin pain-ay1e/ause it appears su""i/iently lare1e

>uded @orth the pain @hen the o1>e/t providesi--ediaterati"i/ation. $o return to the tart? it is theapparent reater pleasure o"eatin it no@? at t6? that-akes C appear to 1e @orth the evil o" poorhealth?su""erin that @ill 1e eBperien/ed only in therelatively distant "uture. $he /ra"t o" -easure-ent@ould Fsave P 1e/ause it @ould see throuh theappearan/es that are distorted 1y te-poral proBi-ity

and@eih /orre/tly the ood o" eatin the tart no@aainst the "uture evil o" poor health and deter-ine/orre/tly 1y @hi/h /hoi/e the overall ood o" theaent @ill 1e pro-oted.

3t is i-portant? ho@ever? that @e not assu-e thato/rates equatesthe -ere availa1ility o" an o1>e/t o"a sort that provides an aent @ith pleasure @ithte-poral proBi-ity? "or o/rates /o--it-ent toeudai-onis- requires that at the ti-e an aent

a/tually pursues an o1>e/t the aent -ust 1elievethat it is ood. $o help us appre/iatethis distin/tion1et@een availa1ility and te-poral proBi-ity? letsaain/onsider P? our lover o" /ho/olate tarts. 'et usi-aine that P has >ustno@ nished a very su1stantialand satis"yin -eal? lled @ith severalo" his "avoritedishes. 4o@ suppose that at t* P has the /ho/olatetart C pla/ed dire/tly in "ront o" hi-? 1utalready


63/593

sated and re/allin the advi/e o" his do/torhede/lines to eat the tart? de/larin that he needs toheed his do/tors advi/e to lay o"" ri/h "oods.Althouh C isplainly availa1le? P o1viously does not att

*

>ude the pleasure o" eat8 in C to 1e @orth tosu1sequent evil he @ill su""er. 4onetheless? a"ter a1rie" interval Idurin @hi/h he has -anaed to diestenouh o" his previous -eal to lose his "eelins o"/o-plete satiety? at t6? @e "ind P devourin C a"terall. o? @hat ave C the po@er o" appearan/e "or


64/593

*+ tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

P at t6E Why? in other @ords? has P /o-e to 1elieve

at t6 that eatinC is a ood "or hi-E What has -adeC appear at t6 to 1e @orth thesu1sequent ill8e""e/tsEin/e any o1>e/t is seen as pleasura1le only i"it is inso-e @ay desired? P plainly has "or-ed a desire o"so-e sort "or C at t6. A//ordin to the traditionalist? it-ust 1e a rational desire? a desire "or-ed 1y Pshavin dis/overed so-e reason "or thinkin that thepleasure o" eatin C is? on 1alan/e? ood. 0ut there isnothin inour situation that provides P @ith any ne@in"or-ation a1out C? "or he has 1een sittin riht in"ront o" C all the @hile. He has not 1eentold that it isreally not as ri/h as he previously thouht or that it isthe -ost deli/ious /ho/olate tart he @ill ever taste.Given the /onstraintsthe traditionalist is under? all she/an say? it see-s? is that P >ust >udesC at t6 to 1e-ore pleasura1le than P >uded it to 1e at t*? and/an

ive no [email protected]" @e are to avoid @hat appears to 1e the hopeless

ar1itrariness o" the position the traditionalist as/ri1esto o/rates? @e -ust think that o/rates re/onizesthat nonrational desires have an eBplanatory role toplay in Ps de/ision to devour C at t6. 0e/ause anonrational desirede-ands i--ediate satis"a/tion? it/an eBplain @hy the pleasure o" C appears to 1elarer at t6 than it did at t*? @hen P did not possessanonrational desire "or C. &" /ourse? it /annot 1e the/ase that Ps nonrational desire "or C alone /auseshi- to pursue C. Were that the /ase? o/ratesposition @ould 1e indistinuisha1le "ro- that o" the-any? @ho think that people o"ten a/t "ro- nonrationaldesire? /ontrary to @hat they think 1est. 0ut i" anonrational desire "or the pleasureo" C eBplains @hy

the pleasure o" C appears to 1e reater that it did att* @e /an see ho@ it eBplains @hy P @ould "or- the>ud-ent that pursuin C is a ood a"ter all? andthereupon "or a rational desire topursue $.

3t is i-portant to noti/e that nothin a1out theintrodu/tion o" anonrational desire into the eBplanationo" the pheno-enon -ost people /all akrasia /on"li/ts@ith o/rates /o--it-ent to eudai-onis-. $hat is?


65/593

nothin @e have said /on"li/ts @ith o/rates vie@ that@henever @ea/t? @e a/t "or the sake o" the ood as@e /on/eive it and? thus? that everythin @e do isal@ays -otivated 1y a rational desire. till? it is only"air to say that i" this a//ount is riht? o/rates is notan intelle/tualista1out -otivation in the pre/ise @aythat the traditionalist -akes hi- out to 1e? "or here/onizes nonrational desires as havin a role to playin the eBplanation o" ho@ so-e a/tions /o-e to 1eper"or-ed.

We are no@ in a position to ans@er the "irstquestion @e posed atthe outsetD Why do so-e o1>e/tshave dunamis tou phainomenou? the po@er


66/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A **

o" appearan/eE o-ethin a/quires the po@er o"appearan/e @hen it 1e/o-es the o1>e/t o" a

nonrational desire and so 1e/o-es re/onized 1y anaent as a @ay to satis"y so-e appetite or passion"or eBa-ple?as a pleasure or as a relie" "ro- so-epain. We /an also see @hy o/rates re"ers to the/ra"t o" -easure-ent as our savior? "or it allo@s itspossessor to /orre/t the appearan/e and to >ude/orre/tly @hetheran apparent ood is really @orth the/ost that -ust 1e paid in ter-s o"a su1sequent evil. 3t@ould 1e a -istake? ho@ever? to in"er that anyone@ho

la/ks the /ra"t o" -easure-ent is doo-ed to 1e takenin 1y o1>e/ts that have a/quired the po@er o"appearan/e. 3n the Apology I7a,R7 o/rates in"or-sthe >ury that he Fis /onvin/ed that SheT has not done@ron to anyone? in/ludin presu-a1ly hi-sel". We/an in"er "ro- thisthat o/rates @as never taken in 1ya dunamis tou phainomenou. urely o/rates eBperien/esappetites and passionsN it is >ust that in his /ase his

appetites and passions never /aused hi- to pursueso-ethin 1e/ause it appeared ood @hen it @asnot. Why? then @ould so-e people perhaps even-ost people1e sus/epti1le to the po@er o"appearan/eand o/rates notE $he ans@er /annot 1ethat o/rates? in spite o" his repeated denials to the/ontrary? really possesses -oral kno@lede? the /ra"to" -easure-ent @hi/h F-akes the appearan/es losetheir po@er.*9 A -ore plausi1le eBplanation? @e

1elieve? /an 1e "ound in o/rates re-ark to Calli/lesin the Gorgias that @e ouht never allo@ the appetitesFtoll the-selves up I


67/593

@e /an -ake it @eaker? @here the /riterion o"strenth and @eakness is the deree to @hi/h theaent

*9 !or the i-plausi1ility o" the vie@ that o/rates pro"essionso" inoran/e are insin/ere and that he possesses the kno@ledehe says he la/ks? see 0ri/khouse and-ith I*99;? +R


68/593

*6 tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

is 1lo/ked "ro-? or a1le to? /onsider alternative

/ourses o" a/tion.$hus? @e think ood sense /an 1e-ade o" the "a/t o" those @ho la/k kno@lede so-eand not others su//u-1 to the po@er o" appearan/e1e/ause so-e have allo@ed their appetites orpassions to ro@ stron @hile others? like o/rates?either have not induled their appetites or passions-ore than they ouht or have re/eived the /urativee""e/ts o" havin had their appetites or passions

dis/iplined throuh punish-ent. We are not aruinthat o/rates never sees thins as ood @hen theyare not. %ather? 1e/ause his passions and desires are@eak? his initial i-pulse to pursue @hat appears oodis not su"/iently stron to -oti8vate hi-. 3nstead o"a/tin on @hat initially appears ood to hi-? hedeli1erates and? as he tells us in the %rito I;,1;R,?a/ts only on the1asis o" @hatever reason see- 1estto hi- in his deli1erations.

2. "evereu+&s Account of Socratic Motivation

'ets no@ turn to the se/ond question @e posedD Ho@does kno@lede-ake the dunamis tou phainomenou lose itspo@erE $he reasons @e haveiven "or re>e/tin thetraditional a//ount o" o/rati/ -otivation isheavilyinde1ted to #aniel #evereuBs *99< arti/le? Fo/rates

Kantian$heory o" Motivation? althouh? as @e shallsee? #evereuB /annotnot very @ell aree @ith ourvie@ that only individuals @ith stron nonrationaldesires su//u-1 to the po@er o" appearan/e.#evereuB -aintains that kno@lede -akes the dunamistou phainomenou lose its po@er 1e/ause kno@lede isal@ays stroner than the nonrational desire that/auses so-ethin to appear ood. 3ndeed? #evereuB1elieves that? "or o/rates? the /ra"t o" -easure-ent

and stron nonrational desire are not eB/lusive andthat anyone @ho possesses o/rati/ @isdo- -ay @ellhave to /ontend @ith stron in/lination to a/t /ontraryto his >ud-enta1out @hat is 1est. #evereuB puts thepoint this @ayD

. . . in the *aches and the Gorgias So/ratesT see-s toassu-e that /ourae is /hara/teristi/ally -ani"ested inover/o-in -otivational "a/tors opposed to the aents


69/593

rational de/ision. Kno@lede o" the ood does noteli-inatenonrational desireN rather it produ/es a desireor -otivational "or/e that is stroner than anynonrational desire or e-otion.6*

6* #evereuB I*99


70/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A *

3" #evereuB is riht? o/rates 1elieves that -oralkno@lede is ne/8 essary and su""i/ient "or virtue

I#evereuB *99


71/593

/ontrol to dis/ipline? presu-a1ly the dis/ipline o"ones nonrational uresD

o this is ho@ 3 set do@n the -atter and say that it istrue. And i" it is true? then a person @ho @ants to 1e

happy -ust evidently pursue and pra/ti/e sel"8/ontrol.)a/h o" us -ust Uee a@ay "ro- la/k o" dis/iple Iakolasianasqui/kly as his "eet @ill /arry hi-? and -ust a1ove all-ake sure that hehas no need o" 1ein dis/iplined? 1uti" he does have that need? either he


72/593

*; tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

hi-sel" or anyone in his house? either a private /itizen or

a @hole /ity? he -ust pay his due and he dis/iplinedIdikn epiteon kai kolasteon? i" he is to1e happy . . . he -ustnot allo@ his appetites Iepithumiai to 1e undis/iplined or toundertake to "ill the- up . . . IGorgias


73/593

metrtik techn F-akes the appearan/eslose their po@er?he i--ediately adds? Fit -akes the soul have pea/e o"

66 X j Z \ D w x

Z \? ? x ? Z ? Z #x ?

%? b { ` ` _ w ? ` w ` ? b ? w . . . b b Z # b . . .


74/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A *udes appearan/es. 3to1>e/tively F-easures ea/h and it Fsaves us 1ypreventin us "ro- 1ein taken in 1y the po@er o"appearan/e. 0ut? so the o1>e/tion oes? a//ordin to

our vie@? o/rati/ kno@lede is in/o-pati1le @ithstron nonrational desire and yet it is stronnonrational desire that -akes o1>e/ts appear to 1eood @hen they are not. $hus? i" our vie@ @ere/orre/t? the /ra"t o" -easure-ent @ould never 1eenaed in @hat o/rates plainly tellsProtaoras is itsproper 1usinessD o1>e/tively -easurin appearan/esone aainst the other and /orre/tly de/idin @hereour ood lies. 3" so? it @ould see- that #evereuBs

position is /orre/t a"ter all. $he /ra"t o"-easure-entis /o-pati1le @ith even eB/eedinly stronnonrational desires that -ake o1>e/ts appear quite/learly to 1e ood @hen theyare not.

$his o1>e/tion rests on a -isunderstandin o" @hat@e -ean 1y stron and @eak nonrational desires.'et us reiterate that @e aree @ith our opponentsthat in the Protagoras dis/ussion o/rates assu-es thatit is the nature o" pleasure and relie" "ro- pain toappear ood. $he question? then? is not 5hen dopleasura1le o1>e/ts appear oodin our vie@ theyal5ays appear ood1ut rather @hen do they compelbelief that they are ood. o-eone @ith a stronnonrational desireis su1>e/t to 1ein over/o-e 1y thepo@er o" appearan/e? the sort o" de"eat the -any-istakenly /all akrasia. We 1elieve that? "or o/rates?


75/593

-oral kno@lede is in/o-pati1le @ith stronnonrational desire in this sense. 4o@? sin/e pleasureand relie" "ro- pain al@ays appear ood?even i" onedoes not have stron nonrational desires? @heneverthere are t@o or -ore appearan/es "ro- @hi/h to/hoose? one -ust stillde/ide @hi/h is the appearan/eo" @hat is really ood. o-eone @ho


76/593

*, tho-as /. 1ri/khouse and

ni/holas d. s-ith

/an -ake these >ud-ents un"ailinly? even in the

"a/e o" the /learest appearan/e to the /ontrary? and@ho /an ive the /orre/t a//ount o"@hy she >udesas she does? possesses the metrtik techn. $hus? @e arenot denyin that? "or o/rates? the kno@er -ustdistinuish the reater ood "ro- @hat -erelyappears to 1e the reater ood.

o? in /lai-in that the metrtik techn requires @eaknonrational

desire? @e are not suestin that -oral kno@ledeso-eho@ prevents its possessor "ro- eveneBperien/in @hat "alsely appears oodanappearan/e -oral kno@lede -ust then /orre/t. &urposition does require? thouh? that on/e anauthoritative >ud-ent is -ade? the epithumia that @asaroused 1y a "alse appearan/e -ust "all in line @iththe >ud-ent a1out @hat is really ood. 3t is in thissense? then? that @e /lai- anyone @ho possesses

metrtik techn is "ree "ro- the tyranny o" stronnonrational desire. &nly i" the o/rati/ kno@ersnonrational desires are @eak in the sense that theyal@ays /o-ply @ith kno@lede8 a1le >ud-ent /ansense 1e -ade o" o/rates insisten/e? eBpressed in1oth the Gorgias and the Protagoras itsel"? that -oralkno@lede yields har-ony @ithin the soul.

4.

Socrates, Plato, and AristotleAs @e have seen? #evereuB arues that o/rates-oral psy/holoy isi-portantly di""erent "ro- that o"either Plato or Aristotle. o/rates disarees @ith hissu//essors over the possi1ility that virtue /an eBisttoether @ith stron? nonrational desire. A//ordin to#evereuB? o/rates thinks they are /o-pati1leNPlato and Aristotle did not. Althouh @e disaree

@ith #evereuB a1out this parti/ular aspe/t o"o/rates -oral psy/holoy? @e nonetheless aree@ith hi- that there is an i-portant di""eren/e1et@een o/rates vie@? on the one hand?and thoseo" Plato and Aristotle? on the other. $he -oralpsy/holo8ies o" Plato and Aristotle "a-ously allo@ "orthe possi1ility o" psy/hi/stasis. &ne /ould see oodreason "or not pursuin so-e o1>e/t and yet "eel the


77/593

-otivational pull o" appetite or passion to pursue thatthin any@ay. !or so-e @ho are /on"li/ted? the-otivational pull o" appetite or passion is notsu""i/iently stron that they /apitulate. Aristotle /allsthese people enkrati/. !or others so /onUi/ted? the-otivational pull is su""i/iently stron that they do/apitulatethis see-s /learly to 1e@hat happens to'eontius in the "a-ous passae in Platos Republic 3VI;9e,R;;+1;. Aristotle /alls these people akrati/.


78/593

so/rates on A4RAS-A *7

o/rates sees nonrational desire operatin in adi""erent @ay. 3nsteado" in/linin us dire/tly to a/t? it

in/lines us to 1elieve that @hat it isattra/ted to is aood? and i" su"/iently stron it /auses us to 1elievethat @hat it is attra/ted to is ood 1y preventin us"ro- seein or 1ein persuaded 1y any reasons "orthinkin it is not ood. $his allo@s us to see @hyo/rates "ailed to develop the various /ateories o"/hara/ter @e nd in Plato and Aristotle. 0e/auseo/rates is /onvin/ed that @eal@ays a/t "or the sakeo" @hat @e take to 1e ood? o/rates thinks that

ones /hara/ter is deter-ined not 1y @hether one hasnonrational desires that are in a//ord @ith or that/on"li/t @ith reason? 1ut 1y @here one stands @ithrespe/t to seein the truth. $hose @ith stron appetitesor passions are prevented "ro- seein the truth on/ethe appetite or passions are enUa-ed and so are/o-pelled 1y stron appetites or pas8 sions to seeilli/it pleasures or en>oy-ents as ood. &thers? @ho

have not developed stron appetites or passions 1ut@ho also do not have the/ra"t o" -easure-ent? haveeither riht or @ron opinion a1out theiro@n ood 1uttheir /onitive states are not deter-ined 1y their/ona8 tive dispositions. $hose @ho possess the metrtiktechn? ho@ever? @ould al@ays >ude /orre/tly? one/ondition o" @hi/h is that they have lived ina//ordan/e @ith the advi/e o/rates ives Calli/les inthat they have Fnot allo@ed their appetites to 1e/o-e

undis/iplined or to "ill the-selvesup. 3" our aru-entin this paper is /orre/t? those @ho "ail to heed thisadvi/e are doo-ed F. . . to @ander all over the pla/ein /on"usionIProtagoras


79/593


80/593

A P%&0')M 34 $H) G$RG-ASDH&W 3 P(43HM)4$ (PP&)# $&H)'PW3$H 34$)'')C$(A' )%%&%E|

Christopher %o@e

1. ackground

What has 1e/o-e the traditional Anlophone vie@ o"Platos @ritin divides it up into three periodsD Fearly?F-iddle? and Flate. F)arly usually-eans Fo/rati/? i.e.?/loser to the thouht o" the histori/al o/ratesNF-iddle tends to -ean Fin/ludin re"eren/e to atheory o" Fseparated !or-s Ivel sim.N Flate -eansanythin a"ter that. I$he Flate dialoues? on thistraditional? Anlophone vie@? are a /olle/tion o"dialoues that have rather little in /o--on? eB/ept

that the kind o" philosophy they represent see-stothose @ho @ish to see it that @ay/loser to @hat@e-oderns? or @e -odern Anlophones? /allFphilosophy.* 4o@adays?

| $he present paper? oriinally presentedin a rather lessdeveloped versionto an invited session o" the O33 Conreso4a/ional de !iloso"}a? held in Guadala>ara? MeBi/o? in 4ove-1er

6++? is or @as the "irst in a series o" three papers on the Gorgias?allo" the- sharin a virtually identi/al "irst se/tion IF0a/kround?and an overlappin se/ond IF$he pro1le- o" the Gorgias. $hese/ond paper in the series? F$he Good and the Just in PlatosGorgias? @as oriinally presented to a /olloquiu- held in Lare1?Croatia in Mar/h 6++;? and @as pu1lisheda little pre-aturelyin #a-ir 0ar1ari/ Ied.? Platon Cber das Gute und die GerechtigkeitIW~rz1ur? Knishausen Q 4eu-ann? 6++


81/593

Philosopher ICornell (niversity Press? 3tha/a? 4 Salso Ca-1ride(niversity Press? Ca-1rideT?*99*? /hapters 6 and N 1ut theset@o /hapters are -ostly /on/erned @ith a di""erentproposal IFthatthrouh a o/rates in Plato @e /an /o-e to kno@ the thouht o"theo/rates o" historyD Vlastos? op. /it.? p. :*? and presupposes

the traditional divisiono" Platos @orks rather than de"endin it.


82/593

6+

/hristopher ro@e

ho@ever? this @ay o" lookin at the dialoueslet us

/all it the Fdevel8 op-entalist vie@looks distin/tlyless attra/tive than it on/e did? not@ithstandin thesupport that it appears to derive "ro- Aristotlesreadin o" Plato? and the e-phasis that readin ivesto the point a1outthe Fseparation o" "or-s. $he -ainreason "or this is the re/onition that thedevelop-ental -odel has nothin to support it apart"ro- Aristotleand a 1asi/ psy/holoi/al plausi1ilityD@hat -ore plausi1le? so the aru-ent oes? and-ore natural? than to suppose that Platostarted 1yreprodu/in? or eBplorin? @hat @as essentially his-astero/rates thinkin? 1ut then -oved on? 1eyondo/rates Iespe/ially in -etaphysi/s? i" one takesAristotles lineand "inally entered a periodo" -aturereUe/tion? in @hi/h? perhaps? he a1andoned so-e o"theopti-isti/ /onstru/tions o" his F-iddle periodE6 !ori" @e take? >ust 1y itsel"? the eviden/e a""orded 1y

the -easure-ent o" Platos style?

@hat @e see- tond is an early roup @hi/h /ontains both the so8/alled Fo/rati/ dialoues? i.e. dialoues untou/hed 1yF-iddle8period !or-8theory? and three o" the /entraldialoues that /ontain that verytheoryD %ratylus, Phaedoand Symposium.; We -ay? o" /ourse? /hoose to

6u/h a pi/ture o" the evolution o" Platos thouht is likely to

appear parti/ularlyappealin aainst the 1a/kround o" a eneralassu-ption that proress in philosophy is linear? and o" the -oreparti/ular assu-ption that Aristotle is a -u/h -ore evolvedspe/i-en o" a philosopher than his tea/her Plato Iand Plato than histea/her? o/rates. !ines 1ook I6++ re"le/ts 1oth assu-ptions?@hi/h are indeed ende-i/ a-on 0ritishand A-eri/an s/holars. 3-ysel" reard su/h assu-ptions as at least unhelp"ul? to theeBtent that they inter"ere @ith our ivin Plato? and o/rates? ade/ent hearinN andthe present essay "ir-ly re>e/ts the-. $hat isto say? 3 a- not in the least in/lined totreat the kinds o" positions3 shall attri1ute to the o/rates o" the Gorgias I@ho is? in -ypresent vie@? not so distantly related to the real o/rates as

quaint? or si-ply "alse.Part o" the point o" the present atte-pt tore/over @hat this o/rates is sayin is that in -y vie@@hi/h 3share @ith -y "riend? /olleaue? and /o8author $erry Penneritstands a rather ood /han/e o" 1ein true.

$his is not to say that @e -ust ne/essarily 1elieve everythin@e are told 1y thestylo-etrists? @hose tra/k re/ordat least in-ore re/ent ti-eshas not 1een uni"or-lyood. Ho@ever Ia atany rate so-e o" their /on/lusions appear to 1e reasona1ly "ir-Nand I1 in any /ase the traditional early8-iddle8late paradi- hasenerally 1een thouht I-istakenlyD see 1elo@ to 1e supported1y those "ir-er /on/lusions.


83/593

;ee espe/ially Kahn I*99, and I6++? 9,D FAt "irst siht? thedivision into three

stylisti/ roups Sproposed 1y a nu-1er s/holars @orkin -ainlyin the nineteenth/enturyT see-s to /onr- StheT theory o" Platos develop-ent SinquestionT? sin/e all

o" his Fo/rati/ dialoues are r-ly lo/ated in the earliest roup.0ut this rst siht is-isleadin. $he /entral roup does not at all /oin/ide @ith @hat are/alled the F-iddle dialoues? sin/e the inter-ediate roup denedstylisti/ally in/ludes 1oth Parmenides and heaetetus? @hi/h areenerally /ounted as Flate "ro- a develop-ental point o"vie@. &nthe other hand? the Fearly roup in/ludes Symposium, Phaedo? and%ratylus. A traditional develop-entalist @ho re/onizes that thestylisti/ division is /hronoloi/al


84/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS 6*

inore this plain "a/t? and /arry on as nor-alN 1ut itshould at least 1e unsettlin? "or those o" us @ho

have tended to rely on the traditionalearly8-iddle8late division? to dis/over that? "or all @e kno@? Plato-ay have 1een @ritin F-iddle8period dialoueseven @hile he @as @ritinFearly ones.e/t o" @ish is the ood? is that @hat the person -akin anin/orre/t /hoi/e @ishes "or is not @ished "or I"ori" it is @ished "or? it@ill also 1e oodN 1ut in "a/t it -ay have 1een 1ad I***a*7R*9Dho@ /an so-ethin that is @ished "oras it @ill 1e on Aristotlesa//ountalso not 1e@ished "orE. Platos -istake a1out universalsIas Aristotle /on/eives it is? 1y /ontrast? interestin and

i-portant. !or Aristotles re/onition o" the theory dis-issed in!E333.; as Socratic? see e.. Penner I6++ and%o@e I6++.

9!or one splendidly /lear state-ent o" the eneral outline o" thetheory in question?

see $aylor I6+++? ,6R. $his is? 3 suppose? @hat $ho-as C.0ri/khouse and 4i/holas-ith I6++6 have /alledso-e@hat puzzlinlyD see these/ond pararaph o" thisnoteFthe traditional a//ount o" o/rati/ intelle/tualis- I66.0ri/khouse and -ith

Fattri1ute to o/rates a -ore /o-pleB -oral psy/holoy? one thatretains a /entral teneto" Fpure intelle/tualis-? na-ely? that no one a/ts /ontrary to@hat he or she 1elieves


86/593

66

/hristopher ro@e

state-ent? and eBploration? o" the o/rati/

intelle/tualist positionN and the /onsequen/e is thatthat position /an no loner 1e @ritten o"" *+ as anisolated "eature? li-ited to a /ontroversial aru-ent1ased on a variety o" hedonis-that o/ratesintrodu/es aainst Protaoras at Protagoras e/tion. At the sa-e ti-e?@hatever interpretation @e put on the Platoni/ theoryo" "or-s?i.e. as Fseparated or other@ise? that theory see-s tohave rather "e@

i-pli/ations "or any part o" @hat o/rates either @asa1out? histori8/ally? or appears to 1e a1out in any o"those dialoues that it -ay 1eappropriate to la1el asFo/rati/.* Platos thinkin a1out "or-s? or ineneralhis thinkin a1out -etaphysi/s and episte-oloy? byitself tends -erely to add to? and does not sini/antly/hane? the ideas that heinherited "ro- o/rates.*;

is 1est? 1ut @hi/h also assins a spe/i"i/ /ausal role tononrational desires Iibid.a role that @ill require reason to controlthe-. 3" this @ere indeed o/rates vie@? then3suestit @ill not-erely 1e that FPlatos -ature -oral psy/holoy o@es a reaterde1t to its o/rati/ prede/essor than -ost /o--entators haverealised I


87/593

I6++1.

*6 3.e. in the /ourse o" aruin "or the eBisten/e o" threeparts o" the soul? one

rational and t@o irrational? the irrational parts Irespe/tivelyFspirited and Fappetitivethe-selves 1ein /apa1le o" /ausin the

aent to a/t even contrary to reason. u/h a/tionsare ruled out 1y theFintelle/tualist -odel? a//ordin to @hi/h all desires are "or the

Ireal ood? and the only di""eren/e 1et@een aents @ho etthins @ron and those @ho et thins riht is in the state o"their 1elie"s. ee 1elo@? esp. n. *:.

* 3.e. either 1y the traditional /riterion Ii.e.? sho@in noeviden/e o" F-iddle

period -etaphysi/s or 1y the /riterion 3 a- here proposin Ii.e.?usin intelle/tualistpre-ises.

*; Pace e.. !ine I6++. ee %o@e I6++


88/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS 6

Given all o" this? the dialoues in question*< @ill stilltend naturally to "all into t@o roupsnot? no@? 1y

the Aristotelian I-etaphysi/al /riterion? 1ut rathera//ordin to @hether they Ia presuppose? eBplore?or other@ise -ake use o"? or alternatively I1 re>e/tor inore this Iapparently o/rati/ theory. heturnin8point in Plato? 1oth in ter-s o" hisrelationship to o/rates and? 3 propose? in eneral?*,

is -arked 1y that -o-ent @hen he /eases to 1einterested in? and indeed posi8tively 1eins to arueaainst? that theory.*7 3" it is true that there are

Fintelle/tualist dialoues? on the one hand? and Fnon8intelle/tualist Ior Fanti8intelle/tualist dialoues onthe other? the easiest hypothesis see-s to 1e thatPlato 1ean 1y thinkin the o/rati/ positionpo@er"ul? and/entral I"or in nu-erous dialoues it is/entral? 1ut later /a-e to think di""erently? and tosuppose that he needed a di""erent line? one that@ould i-prove on? -ake ood @hat he had /o-e to

see as the de"e/tso"? the oriinal o/rati/ a//ount o"hu-an a/tion. &r at any rate so 3 -ysel"hypothesize.

What is this Fintelle/tualist theory o" -otivationIor? perhaps 1etter? theory o" actionN it is not >ust atheory o" desireE 0rieUy? and at 1otto-?it /onsists inthe /lai-s Ia that all hu-an aents al@ays and onlydesirethe oodN I1 that @hat they desire is the realood? not the apparentoodN and I/ that @hat @e do

on any o//asion is deter-ined 1y this desiretoether @ith @hatever 1elie"s @e have a1out @hat@ill in "a/t /ontri1ute to our real ood. Hen/e thela1el Fintelle/tualistD @e only ever do @hat @e think@ill 1e ood "or us. o Fvirtue Sor FeB/ellen/eT iskno@lede? or @ould 1e i" it /ould ever 1e realised?and also Fisone1e/ause? i" the theory is /orre/t?and is nevertheless to -ake roo- "orvirtueseB/ellen/es like >usti/e? /ourae? and the

rest? then they -ust all 1e a -atter o" -akin theriht /al/ulations in relationto ood and 1ad. IFVirtueis kno@lede? then? in that it is a -atter o"

*< &n/e aain? "or the purposes o" the present aru-ent 3/ontinue to restri/t -ysel"to those dialoues traditionally la1elledFearly and F-iddle.


89/593

*, $he question o" @hat -otivates us hu-an 1eins is? 3presu-e? likely to 1e /en8 tral on anyones a//ount o" PlatosphilosophyN -y o@n vie@ is that it is? and re-ains?/loser to the/entre o" Platos thinkin than anythin in the spheres o"-etaphysi/sand ontoloy? or o" episte-oloy? thouh 3 re/onizethat 3 -ay @ell 1e in a -inorityin holdin this.

*7 3t is o" /ourse theoreti/ally possi1le that Plato alternatedDno@ usinapplyin the one sort o" theory? no@ the other. $he/onsequen/es o" the t@o theories are? ho@8 ever? so lare Isee%o@e? 6++1? 6: "". that 3 /ount this as no -ore than atheoreti/alpossi1ility.


90/593

6;

/hristopher ro@e

kno@lede o" @hat is truly ood and truly 1adN and it

is one "or thesa-e reason. And iven all o" this? it@ill si-ply 1e i-possi1le "or anyone to do? or Ias 3pre"er to put it o? @ron @illinlyN one /anonly o@ron throuh inoran/e.

his is @hat the o/rates o" theRepublic then "a-ouslydeniesD that is?

@hen he arues in 0ook 3V "or the eBisten/e o" t@oirrational parts o"the soul? @hi/h /anand this is the/ru/ial pointa/tually over/o-ereason? perhaps evenkno@lede. $he aru-ent in Republic -ay indeed 1etaken as oin out o" its @ay to underline the /on"li/t1et@een its /on/lusion and the Fintelle/tualistposition.*: And the di""eren/e is quite"unda-ental. !ori" @e all possess irrational ele-ents or parts thatare/apa1le o" /ausin us to a/t independently o"? oreven in dire/t/ontravention o"? @hat our reason tellsus to do? then it @ill plainly1e insu""i/ient -erely to

talk to people? in the @ay that the o/rates o" thedialoues see-s to do? in order to /hane their1ehaviourN @e shall need to deal @ith their irrationalparts as @ell@hi/h @ill require irrational? i.e. political?and rhetorical? -eans. 3t is no a//ident? 3 propose?that alare part o" the rest o" the Republic is o//upied @ithtalk a1out politi/al institutions? in/ludin a state8runedu/ation syste- involvin@hat is in -any respe/tsa kind o" /onditionin.*9 Ho@ di""erent this o/rates is

"ro- the essentially a8politi/al? or un8politi/al?o/rates o"the Apology? or the %rito? or . . . $hat othero/rates /lai-ed that @hat

*: At Republic 3V? ;:aR;91 o/rates arues spe/i"i/ally thatthere are desiresIFappetites that are not ood8dire/ted I/". n. :a1oveD F$here"ore? let no one /at/hus unprepared or distur1 us1y /lai-in that no one has an appetite "or drink 1utrather ooddrink? nor "ood 1ut ood "ood? on the rounds that everyonea"ter allhas appetite "or SFdesiresD epithumei T ood thins? so that i"thirst is an appetite? it @ill 1e an appetite "or ood drink . . .Io/rates at ;:a*R


91/593

V3?


92/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS 6ust the sort@hose eBisten/e o/rates? and others Inota1ly the toi/s? deny.


94/593

6,

/hristopher ro@e

Iso? i" you dont like @hat you did? youd 1etter do

so-ethin a1out your 1elie"s. &r so he @ouldrespond in the a-1it o" so-e o" the dialoues Itheones 3 a- proposin to /all truly Fo/rati/? in/ludinthe Symposiumthat old F-iddle dialoue? @hi/h isnonetheless thorouhly intellectualist in its treat-ent o"hu-an 1ehaviourN66 in others? Iperhaps startin "ro-the Republic? it looks as i" he /o-es -ore over to @hat 3have /alled the "a-iliar -odern positionthouheven then he @ill 1e rather less in/lined than @eo"ten are to a//ept it as any sort o" defence thatFso-ethin /a-e over -e. IFPull yoursel" toether@ill 1e his responseeven @hile apparently stillholdin that su/h /ases are? in Aristotelian ter-s?involuntary.6 0ut o" /ourse? as the Republic sho@s?hethinks that so-e @ill 1e -ore /apa1le o" pullinthemselves toether than othersN others @ill needeBternal help.

4o@ in this @hole /onteBt? the Gorgias -ay @ell see-to 1e so-e8thin o" an ano-aly.6; !or on the one hand theGorgias /ontainsone o" the -ost spe/ta/ular appli/ations o" theo/rati/ theory o" a/tion? in the shape o" o/rates/lai- that orators and tyrants have nopo5era /lai-"ro- @hi/h he not only never retreats? in the rest o"

66 o that? strikinly? passionate or ro-anti/ love? erBs? /an 1edes/ri1ed I1y o/rates and the priestess #ioti-a @ithout anyre/ourse to the /on/ept o" irrational? non8ood8dire/ted desires.

6 Just so o/rates /ounterpart as -ain speaker in the *a5s isstill to 1e "ound insistin? o/rati/ally? that Fno one doesoes@ron @illinly I*a5s V? 7*/ Sno one/o--its in>usti/e @illinlyT?7;1 Severyone is akolastos un@illinlyTN 3O? :,+d Sall 1adpeople are1ad? @ith respe/t to everythin? un@illinlyT. 3t is @hat is reallyood thatat least so-e part even o" the Platoni/ divided soul stilldesires.

6; Vlastos I*99*? /h. 6 treats the Gorgias as straiht"or@ardlyone o" Fthe dialoues o"

Platos earlier period I;,N evidently he -isses the pro1le- that 3here identi"y@hi/hsuests at least so-e kind o" transitional status"or the Gorgias. !or Vlastos? Ftransitional dialoues are early onesthat are -erely -issin the Felen/hus a//ordin to his unne/es8sarily narro@ notion o" Felen/hus Ii.e. FeBa-ination? F/hallene?FIatte-pt at re"utation? @hi/h a/tually appears to 1e a standardpart o" Platos notion o" philosophi/al -ethodD see e.. Penner and%o@e I6++


95/593

*979? @hi/h sees the dialoue as usin? and "ailin to re/on/ile?t@odi""erent approa/hes to desires and their relationship to oodDF* $he unhealthy soul has a "aulty /on/eption o" its ood? andneeds to 1e restrained 1e/ause other@ise its desiresall ood8dependent@ill -islead it. 6 3ts stron ood8independentdesires-ake it in/ontinent SF@eak8@illedT? so that it needs /ontrol .. . $he /on/lusions o" StheT t@o lines o" aru-ent Sdependin on

these di""erent approa/hesT in the dialoue arenever satis"a/torilyre/on/iled I6*:. What the present paper? and the third in the seriesto @hi/h it 1elons? i.e. %o@e I"orth/o-in? set out to resist isso-ethin very like 3r@ins a//ount hereN thouh 3 di""ersini/antly in the @ay 3 state *? the o/rati/ position. ee"ollo@in note.


96/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS 67

the dialoue? 1ut on @hi/h he see-s to 1uild even-ore surprisin? paradoBi/al? even Iapparently

/o-i/al /lai-s. $hose apparently envi8 a1le people?@hoso Gorias has /lai-ed/an do @hatever they@ant? in "a/to/rates saysdo nothing they @ant?only @hat see-s 1est to the-. FHo@ ridi/ulousresponds Polus. 0ut o" /ourse o/rates is per"e/tlyseriousD they don&t do @hat they @ant. Why notE0e/ause theydont have the kno@lede to ena1le the-to distinuish properly 1et@een ood and 1ad? andla/kin that? they "ail to et @hat is really ood "or

the-@hi/h -ust 1e @hat they @antN doesn&teveryone @ant @hat is really ood "or the-E Whoever @as satised @ith @hat -erely seems ood? andisnt in "a/t soE $his? surely? is the "ull o/rati/position.6ust 1e/auseo" all thattalk a1out tyrants and orators? thouh it isalso 1e/ause o" thatN it isespe/ially Iand here 3 arrivenally at the su1>e/t announ/ed in the title o" thepresent paper 1e/ause it has so -u/h to say on thesu1>e/t o"? and indeed a1out the necessity "or?punish-ent. People @ill 1e @orse o"" i" they /o--itin>usti/e than i" they have it done to the-? o/rates

/lai-sN they @ill 1e even @orse o"" i" they /o--itin>usti/e and are not punished "or itN any rhetori/alskills they have @ill there"ore 1e -ost

6< ee Penner I*99*. &ne a1solutely /ru/ial di""eren/e1et@een Penners and 3r@ins interpretations o" o/rates positionis that Penner sees it as insistinho@ever paradoBi/allythat @eonly desire @hat is really ood "or us. 3nso"ar as 3r@in talksin thepassae /ited in the pre/edin noteo" SFood8dependentT desires

as potentially Fmisleading the soul? and so apparently 1einresponsi1le "or its F"aulty /on/eption o" itsood? he evidently doesnot take this line. IFGood8dependent? then? @ill have a distin/tly@eaker "or/e than in Penners interpretationD see n. 1elo@. Myo@n interpretation"ollo@s Penners? and not 3r@ins.

6, Another apparently non8o/rati/ ele-ent @ill 1e the useo/rates -akes? in hisaru-ent @ith Calli/les? o" the notion o" self9control. 0ut see Cooper I*9:6? and %o@eI"orth/o-in.

67 $he o/rates o" the Gorgias? as one o" Vlastoss Fdialoues o"Platos earlier period?


97/593

ouht to la/k that Fela1orate politi/al theory Ss/. o" the RepublicT@hose rankin ordero" /onstitutions pla/es de-o/ra/y @ith the @orst o"/onte-porary "or-s o" overn8-ent? lo@er than ti-o/ra/y and oliar/hy? pre"era1le only tola@less tyranny IVlastos?*99*. $hat? 3 suppose? he does la/kN yetin politi/al ter-s the Gorgias oes "ar 1eyondthe %rito? @hi/h Vlastossee-s to take as denin the politi/al di-ension o" the Fearlydialouesnot least in virtue o" that stunnin -o-ent? at IGorgias


98/593


99/593


100/593


101/593

these questions @ould o//ur to any intellient reader o" 3r@ins4otes . . . Presu-a1lyhe thinks that o/rates? at least? is una@are o" the /ontradi/tionNto think other@ise isto -ake a -o/kery o" o/rates /entral require-ent inphilosophizin? a riid adher8

en/e to loi/al /onsisten/y . . . I


102/593

+

/hristopher ro@e

in/o-pati1le. o @e see- to need so-e other

eBplanation. 3 1elieve that there is an alternativeavaila1leN and in the re-ainin part o" this shortpaper? 3 shall si-ply outline that alternative.

$he the-e o" punishment see-s to sur"a/e as a distin/ttopi/ at ;,9a?

@hen o/rates de/lares that the person @ho kills someone;ustly? @hile not1ein -isera1le? athlios? is nevertheless not envia1le.We -iht supposethat killin people >ustly? i.e.? presu-a1ly? eBe/utinpeople @ho deserve to die? is hardly a o/rati/ thinto doN still? it @as not o/rates @ho1rouht up thesu1>e/t o" killin? 1ut Gorias? and then Polusandall o/rates @ants to do here? at ;,9a? is to dra@ up alist o" thins in rouh order o" desira1ilityD killinpeople un>ustly -akes one athlios?i.e. the opposite o" happy? and @hile 1ein killed

un>ustly does not/ontri1ute to ones happiness? it isless un"ortunate either than killin un>ustly or 1einkilled >ustlyN si-ilarly @ith killin >ustly Ii" it does not1rin F-isery. At around this point I;7+a? o/ratesets Polus to areethat 1ein punished is a 1ad thinN1ut that is only in order to sho@hi- that ood and1ad are his? Polus? o@n /riteria o" desira1ility andundesira1ility as -u/h as they are o/rates I;7+aR1.

$hen o/ratessho@s his handD happiness is a -atter

o" 1ein "ine and ood? unhap8 piness a -atter o"in>usti/e and 1adness I;7+e@hi/h provokes Polusinto 1rinin in his key @itness? Ar/helaus? kin o"Ma/edonD supre-ely un>ust and 1ad? 1ut? Polus /lai-s?supre-ely happy I;7*aRd. o the 1attle8lines aredra@n? alon @ith the t@o -ens respe/tive positionson punish-entD o/rates thinks it a ood thin "orpeople to 1e punished i" they are un>ust? on the

rounds that that @ill -ake the- 1etterpeople Iandso happierN Polus thinks punish-ent si-ply badI;76e.And so everythin is set "or Polus re"utation.What 3 dra@ attentionto? in this /onteBt? is >ust thatit is one o" the 1asi/ pre-ises o" that


103/593

on desireD F. . . o/rates oes "urther Ss/. than si-ply /lai-in? asthe toi/s did? thatFhu-an 1eins only a/t a"ter Fassentin to theproposition that @hat they are doin is"or the 1estT. He -aintains. . . a thesis a1out desire . . .D every desire is "or its possessorsoverall ood Iperhaps? o" /ourse? on a -istaken /on/eption o" @hatthat ood /onsistsin. 3r@in /alls this se/ond thesis a thesis a1out

the Food8dependen/e o" all desires.0ut o" /ourse o/rates is notsayin that all the desires @e eBperien/e /on"or- toand derive"ro- IFdepend upon our considered vie5 o" @here our ood lies. 3n"a/t thedependen/e runs in the other dire/tionD 5hatever desire @ehave? in havin it @e >ude that @hatever it is the desire "or @ill/ontri1ute to our overall ood . . . I


104/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS *

re"utation that punish-ent @ill i-prove the soulN lateron? o/rates @ill arue that even dying? i.e. 1ein

eBe/uted? @ill 1e 1etter "or the un>ustthan /ontinuinto live an un>ust li"e Iso "ar? it has 1een put on a par@ith livin un>ustly.

$his already -eans that Polus and o/rates aretakin punish-ent in di""erent @ays. Polus takes it >ustas involvin su""erin "or the person 1ein punishedNo/rates sees it as a -eans to i-prove-ent. 0ut thereis? nevertheless? nothin so "ar to stop the- havinthe sa-e kinds o"punish-ent in -indD "ines? "loin

and /ertainly? o/rates is still talkin a1outeBe/ution? @hi/h see-s to put the eneral point1eyonddou1t. o then @e are? apparently? already in aRepublic8type /onteBt? @here punish-ent is likely to 1eseen pri-arily in ter-s o" /onditionin? and perhapsdeterren/e. Why else @ould "loin? or i-prison-ent?1e thouht to help @ith anythinE $hat? ho@ever? @eshould noti/e? is not ho@ o/rates arues his /ase.%ather? he 1uilds on Polus ad-ission? in;7eR;7usti/e Ias-edi/ine "rees us "ro- si/kness? he asksD

&r i" you /ant ans@er >ust like that? look at it like thisD. . . to @ho- do@e take those that are si/k in their1odiesE$o the do/tors.And @here do @e takethose @ho are un>ust and a9kolastoi SFunrestrainedFun/orre/tedFunpunishedTE$o the >udes? do you

-eanE3n order to pay the penalty "or their /ri-esIdikn didonaiE$hats @hat 3 say.odont those @hopunish Ikola


105/593

; 3t is this passae that is the "o/us o" the se/ond paper in thepresent series o"papers? %o@e I6++


106/593

6

/hristopher ro@e

What is parti/ularly strikin here is the @ay o/rates

a/tually re"rains "ro- endorsin Polus proposal that>udes are like do/torsN he thensays only that >udespunish 1y usin a sort of >usti/e. I$hat itsel" -iht 1einterpreted as a deli1erate refusal to endorse Polussuestion. 3n any /ase? o/rates turn o" phrase hereneeds eBplanation. And then? as he -oves on "ro-the /on/lusion a1out @hat >usti/e? dik? does "orthoseit punishes? @e nd o/rates /o-1inin the lanuaeo" Fpunish8-ent and Fpayin the penalty @ith a quitedi""erent sort o" lanuaeD that o" admonition. $hus at;7:eR;? he talks a1out the person 1ein relieved o"his in>usti/e Iadikia as nouthetoumenos? F1einad-onished? and epiplttomenos?, as @ell as Fpayin hisdue? dikn didousand uses these des/riptions in thatorderN then at ;7:e,R;79a*? noutheteisthai is /o-1ined@ith kolaust oesto sho@the o1>e/tor -iht /ontinuethat @e

shouldnt read too -u/h into ;7:R9. $o @hi/h 3respond that? i" @e look /losely at the Gorgias as a@hole? there are other /lear indi/ations that o/ratesholds 1a/k "ro- any straiht"or@ard a//eptan/e o"leal punish-ent as a-eans to the i-prove-ent o"-ens soulsN or at any rate? that he has arival kind of ;ustice&and punishment& on offer. IHen/e the Fsort o" at ;7:aN 1ut-ore o" that in a -o-ent. I* At


107/593

to @ish not to a/t un>ustly?any -ore than it is enouh-erely to 5ish not to 1e treated un>ustlyNone -ust etFa /ertain po@er Idunamis and eBpertise Itechn Si.e.? 3take

, 4o@ epiplttein /an 1e a -atter o" beating Ithus Leyl rendersepiplttomenos as FetStinT lashedN 1ut it /an also 1e Fre1ukeandthe a-1iuity? a"ter the use o" nouthetein? is perhaps parti/ularlya/ute.


108/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS

it? a po@er that /onsists in a technT? sin/e i" onedoesnt learn @hat8ever it is Iauta and pra/ti/e it? one

@ill a/t un>ustly Iusti/e Iadikei @illinly? orin @ishin it.7 All o" this surely stronly suests? andis -eant to suest? that @hat o/rates thinks @eneed is @hat he so o"ten says @e needD kno5ledge.o itis? in that /li-a/ti/ passae at usti/e? 1einto souls @hat -edi/ine is to the 1ody? is that techn?@hatever it is? that puts souls to riht @hen they o@ron. 4o@ "or Gorias? and "or Polus? the "irst o"these eBpertises @ill 1e straiht"or@ardly identi"ia1le@ith the art o" the la@iverN and -ay1e that is riht.0ut @hen o/rates /lai-s to 1ethe only person tryin"or politik? he @ill i-pli/itly 1e settin hi-sel" up in/o-petition @ith the la@iver.: He @ill 1e /o-petin@ith the la@iver not >ust 1e/ause he appropriates thena-e politikos? 1ut 1e/ause @hat he spe/i/ally /lai-sto do? in


109/593

7 3.e. boulomenos. !or that Fprevious aree-ent? 3r@in I*979? ad loc./o-pares ;:+a?and /o--ents F0ut ;,7/R;,:e did not prove this.o/rates -ust -ean that sin/e they have "ound that in>usti/e is1ad "or the aent? only people @ho do not kno@ this @ill doin>usti/e . . .

: Mu/h? perhaps? as the ideal states-an does in the Politicus?

@ith the di""eren/e that that ideal person @ill a/tually possess therelevant eBpertise.


110/593


111/593

9 And a"ter all? 1a/k in ;,< @e @ere told that sophists andorators are F-uddled up toether in the sa-e territory and onthe sa-e su1>e/ts . . . and dont kno@ @hat to -ake o" ea/hother? nor do others kno@ @hat to -ake o" the- I;,


112/593

a pro1le- in the G$RG-AS ust /an -ake? in>usti/e 1rins-is8 ery? and the @orst in>usti/e 1rins the @orst-isery. !or his -essae?o/rates aain 1orro@s thelanuae o" punish-ent? thouh o" /oursea Calli/les@ould not? in this /ase? use it hi-sel"D "or so-eoneintellient like hi-? all that talk a1out our 1einpunished in Hades @ill 1e stu""and nonsense Ithat isthe point o" o/rates suestion that Calli/les @illthink it all a -ere storyD


113/593

;* &n ne as ood or pleasant or 1othD this too is so-ethino/rates /an live @ith?

on his o5n terms Ias 3 arue in %o@eI6++ust possi1ly? theFin/ura1les are those @ho? like Ar/helaus? are never in "a/tF/ured o" their in>usti/e. heir su""erin is un-iBed and? in asense? @ithout an end eB/ept that 1rouht 1y death. IAnd o"/ourse an Ar/helaus is as -u/h a supre-e eBe-plar "or o/ratesas he is "or PolusDhere is so-eone @ho did the @orst thins? and?"ro- o/rates perspe/tive? lived the@orst kind o" li"e.


114/593

,

/hristopher ro@e

is there in puttin thins in ter-s ones interlo/utors

understand? i" that-eans that they "ail /o-pletely tounderstand @hat is really oin onE3s that any sort o"Fdiale/ti/? any sort o" real conversationE; 0ut 3 hope 3have at least 1eun the task o" @hat one -iht /allsavin the Gorgias"or o/rates. My /on/lusion is that theo/rates o" the Gorgias does not endorse Uoin?i-prison-ent? or any other vular kind o" punish8-ent. !ro- this point o" vie@? there is nothinFtransitional a1out thedialoue? and @e have no needto /hare its author @ith F/on"usion.;; His o/rates/ontinues to think that @hat people need is talk. $hat?as 3 propose? is eBa/tly @hat is 1ehind that arrestin/lai- he -akes to 1eperhapsthe only personpra/tisin the politi/al artD ordinary politi/s Is/.in/ludin its >udi/ial ar- "ails to a/hieve @hat politi/sshould a/hieve-akin people 1etterN only he?o/rates? properly understands ho@ to do that? and

a/tually sets a1out doin it.

Postscript) ruling oneself &

All o" the a1ove? ho@ever? -ay @ell see- to 1e putin >eopardy 1yone other "eature o" the Gorgias @hi/h-ust appear? even on -y o@na//ount? quite patentlyun8o/rati/. Ho@ is it? an o1>e/tor -iht ask? that

so-eone @ho? like the o/rates 3 have des/ri1ed? "ir-ly1elieves in an undivided sel" Ior soul? /an talk a1outthe need to rule oneselfanda1out the need to esta1lishso-e kind o" Forder in ones soulin the@ay that heapparently does "or -u/h o" the /onversation @ithCalli/les in the last a/t o" the dialoueE &thers;< haveatte-pted an eBplanation?1ut on the 1asis o" a ratherdi""erent a//ount o" the o/rati/ position"ro- t

Akrasia in Greek Philosophy

Documents

Transcript of Akrasia in Greek Philosophy