In this blog post, we will reflect on the inner turmoil of humans, who are torn between desire and reason, through the perspectives of Aristotle and Socrates.

The dilemma of human desire as seen through Socrates’ debates

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle identified three moral states that humans should avoid: “vices,” “brutishness,” and “akrasia.” Of these, “akrasia” is generally translated as “lack of self-control” or “failure to follow reason,” and is a concept that symbolically represents the conflict between reason and desire within the human mind.

Why did Socrates reject “lack of self-control”?

The concept of akrasia has been a long-standing topic of debate in ancient philosophy. Socrates takes a rather radical stance. According to him, if a person truly knows that something is “bad,” they will never do it. All wrong actions stem from ignorance, and true knowledge leads to right actions. From this perspective, the concept of “lack of self-control” itself does not hold water. This is because if a person has actually done something wrong, it is because they did not know that it was wrong, which is ignorance, not a “lack of self-control.”

Aristotle’s counterargument: Reality is different

However, Aristotle points out that Socrates’ theory is far removed from actual human life. He argues that “people often commit wrongdoing even though they know it is wrong.” In other words, even though we are fully aware that a certain action is wrong, there are many cases in which we are unable to exercise rational judgment because we are swayed by strong desires or emotions.
For example, consider a person who knows that they should eat less for their health but succumbs to the temptation of delicious food in front of them. They have already made the theoretical decision that they “should not eat,” but their momentary desire overpowers this decision, and they end up choosing to eat. Aristotle saw this state as a classic example of akrasia, or lack of self-control.

The two faces of akrasia: desire and anger

Aristotle further subdivides akrasia. He divides situations in which self-control is lost into two broad categories. The first is when one cannot control one’s pleasures or desires, and the second is when one cannot control one’s anger.
For example, a person who decides to go on a diet but cannot resist the temptation of food is a case where desire temporarily overcomes the rational judgment that they should not eat at that moment. On the other hand, when we are insulted, our reason warns us to restrain ourselves, but our emotions urge us to retaliate. If we cannot control our anger and react violently, this is also an example of akrasia.
Aristotle compares the two cases and says that not being able to control one’s desires is more shameful than not being able to control one’s anger. This is because desires ignore reason to a greater extent. Anger can sometimes be justified by reason, but desires are purely driven by the impulse for pleasure.

How are “intemperance” and “lack of self-control” different?

Aristotle believes that it is necessary to distinguish akrasia from “intemperance” (akolasia). Both concepts are related to physical desires and pleasures, but there is an essential difference between them.
An intemperate person pursues pleasure after rational judgment. In other words, he has no awareness that he should restrain his desires and acts with pleasure itself as his goal. Therefore, he has no regrets or remorse. Rather, these are people who have “rationally” structured their lives around pleasure. In such cases, change and correction are difficult because they have no awareness that they are doing anything wrong.
On the other hand, people who lack self-control make the right decisions but succumb to their momentary desires and emotions. They know that they will regret it later, and they know what is right, but they are unable to act on it. Aristotle evaluates them as people who have the potential to change and are therefore much better than people who are unrestrained.

Can lack of self-control be corrected?

Aristotle believes that people who lack self-control are not yet completely “corrupt.” They know the right path and sometimes have the will to follow it. Although they may temporarily succumb to their desires and emotions, they have not completely lost their judgment. Such people can be persuaded and can gradually improve through training.
On the other hand, people who are unrestrained are difficult to fix. This is because they have no awareness that they are doing anything wrong and base their lives solely on pleasure. Thus, akrasia and acolasia are not simply differences in moral state, but important criteria that distinguish the inner structure of human beings and the possibility of moral recovery.

Conclusion: Why do humans sometimes fail to follow reason?

The age-old philosophical question, “Does knowledge lead to action?” is still valid today. Aristotle convincingly shows that human behavior is not simply a matter of knowledge, but is a complex combination of emotions, desires, and situational conditions.
We all sometimes experience situations where we “know but cannot do.” This is proof that humans are not simply rational machines, but beings swayed by emotions, desires, and circumstances. However, even amid such fluctuations, striving to follow reason is what Aristotle referred to as a life of virtue.