BeCuriouzLearn something new every day
Why Socrates thought "weakness of will" is impossible
💡 Socrates argued weakness of will is really disguised ignorance — you never do wrong while genuinely knowing better; Aristotle countered that you can hold the right belief yet fail to act on it.
You know you shouldn't eat the third slice of cake — and you eat it anyway. Philosophers call this akrasia, or weakness of will: acting against your own better judgment. It feels like the most obvious thing in the world. Yet Socrates flatly denied it could happen.
His reasoning: if you truly knew, in the fullest sense, that abstaining was better for you, you would abstain. So when you reach for the cake, you don't really possess that knowledge at that moment — your desire has quietly convinced you the cake is the better option after all. On this view, all wrongdoing is really a kind of ignorance, and "no one errs willingly." There is no genuine gap between knowing the good and doing it.
Aristotle found this too tidy. He agreed knowledge matters but distinguished between having knowledge and actively using it. The akratic person, he argued, has the right belief but, in the grip of appetite, fails to bring it to bear — like someone who can recite a rule while drunk without applying it. That preserves the everyday intuition Socrates threw out: you can know better and still lose.