Akrasia and the Rule of Appetite in Plato's Protagoras and Republic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v8i2p57-91Keywords:
akrasia, republic, appetite, reason, psychology, tripartition, tripartite, soulAbstract
According to a prevalent developmentalist line of interpretation, Plato’s introduction of the three-part soul in Republic 4 was motivated in part by his desire to acknowledge and account for cases of akratic action, and thereby to repudiate the psychology and the conclusions of the earlier dialogue Protagoras. In this paper I reject this interpretation, arguing that countenancing akrasia was never a major philosophical concern for Plato, and a fortiori that it was not his motivation for introducing the tripartite soul. I argue that his moral psychological focus and concern in the Republic was rather on the notion of psychic rule, and on illuminating various ways in which reasoning is corrupted by non-rational desires (rather than overcome by them through brute psychic ‘force’). I then offer an explanation of Plato’s lack of concern for akrasia by appealing to the Protagoras itself. I conclude with a rejection of sharp developmentalism between the two dialogues.
Downloads
References
Anagnostopolous, M. 2006. “The Divided Soul and the Desire for Good in Plato’s Republic”. In The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Ed. G. Santas. Malden, Massachusetts: 166-88. DOI: 10.1002/9780470776414.ch9
Annas, J. 1981. An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford.
Barney, R., T. Brennan, and C. Brittain (eds.). 2012. Plato and the Divided Self. Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511977831
Bobonich, C. 1994. “Akrasia and Agency in Plato’s Laws and Republic”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 76: 3-36. DOI: 10.1515/agph.1994.76.1.3
Bobonich, C. 2002. Plato's Utopia Recast: His Later Ethics and Politics. Oxford.
Bobonich, C. 2007. “Plato on Akrasia and Knowing Your Own Mind”. In Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Ed. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée. Leiden: 41-60. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308.18
Bobonich, C. and P. Destrée (eds.). 2007. Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Leiden. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308
Brickhouse, T. and N. Smith. 2007. “Socrates on Akrasia, Knowledge, and the Power of Appearance”. In Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Ed. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée. Leiden: 1-17. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308.8
Brickhouse, T. and N. Smith. 2010. Socratic Moral Psychology. Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511776946
Brown, E. 2012. “The Unity of the Soul in Plato’s Republic”. In Plato and the Divided Self. Ed. R. Barney, T. Brennan, and C. Brittain. Cambridge: 53-73.
Carone, G. 2001. “Akrasia in the Republic: Does Plato Change His Mind?”. Oxford Stud-ies in Ancient Philosophy 20: 107-48.
Carone, G. 2004. “Calculating Machines or Leaky Jars? The Moral Psychology of Plato’s Gorgias”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 26: 55-96.
Cleary, J. and D. Shartin (eds.). Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy VI. Lanham.
Cooper, J. 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis.
Cooper, J. 1999a. “Socrates and Plato in Plato’s Gorgias”. In Reason and Emotion. Ed. J. Cooper. Princeton: 29-75.
Cooper, J. 1999b. “Plato’s Theory of Human Motivation”. In Reason and Emotion. Ed. J. Cooper. Princeton: 118-37.
Cooper, J. 1999c. Reason and Emotion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Crombie, I. M. 1962. An Examination of Plato’s Doctrines, Vol. I. London.
Dorion, L. 2007. “Plato and Enkrateia”. In Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Ed. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée. Leiden: 119-38. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308.35
Dorion, L. 2012. “Enkrateia and the Partition of the Soul in the Gorgias”. In Plato and the Divided Self. Ed. R. Barney, T. Brennan, and C. Brittain. Cambridge: 33-52. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511977831.004
Dorter, K. 2006. The Transformation of Plato’s Republic. Lanham.
Dyson, M. 1976. “Knowledge and Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras”. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 96: 32-45. DOI: 10.2307/631222
Ferrari, G. R. F. 1990. “Akrasia as Neurosis in Plato’s Protagoras”. In Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy IV. Ed. J. Cleary and D. Shartin. Lanham: 115-40.
Ferrari, G. R. F. 2007. “The Three-Part Soul”. in The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. Ed. G. R. F. Ferrari. Cambridge: 165-201. DOI: 10.1017/ccol0521839637.007
Ferrari, G. R. F.(ed.) 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/ccol0521839637
Frede, M. 1992. “Introduction.” In Plato: Protagoras. Trans. K. Bell and S. Lombardo. Indianapolis: vii-xxxvi.
Gallop, D. 1964. “The Socratic Paradox in the ‘Protagoras’”. Phronesis 9: 117-29.DOI: 10.1163/156852864x00168
Gardner, T. 2002. “Socrates and Plato on the Possibility of Akrasia”. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 60: 191-210. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2002.tb01896.x
Gerson, L. 2003. “Akrasia and the divided soul in Plato’s Laws”. In Plato’s Laws: From Theory into Practice (Proceedings of the VI Symposium Platonicum). Ed. L. Bris-son and S. Scolnicov. Sankt Augustin: 149-54.
Gill, C. 1985. “Plato and the Education of Character”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philos-ophie 67: 1-26.DOI: 10.1515/agph.1985.67.1.1
Gosling, J. 1990. Plato. London.
Grube, G. M. A. 1980. Plato’s Thought. Indianapolis.
Hackforth, R. 1928. “Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras”. The Classical Quarterly 22: 39-42.
Irwin, T. 1977. Plato’s Moral Theory. Oxford.
Irwin, T. 1995. Plato’s Ethics. Oxford. DOI: 10.1093/0195086457.001.0001
Johnstone, M. 2011. “Changing Rulers in the Soul: Psychological Transitions in Republic 8-9”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 41: 139-67.
Kahn, C. 1987. “Plato’s Theory of Desire”. Review of Metaphysics 41: 77-103.
Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form. Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511585579
Lesses, G. 1987. “Weakness, Reason, and the Divided Soul in Plato’s Republic”. History of Philosophy Quarterly 4: 147-61.
Lesses, G. 1990. “Commentary on Ferrari”. In Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy VI. ed. J. Cleary and D. Shartin. Lanham: 141-48.
Lorenz, H. 2006. “The Analysis of the Soul in Plato’s Republic”, In The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Ed. G. Santas. Malden, Massachusetts: 146-65.DOI: 10.1002/9780470776414.ch8
Miller, Jr., F. 1999. “Plato on the Parts of the Soul”. In Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy Vol. 33: Plato and Platonism. Ed. J. Van Ophuijsen. Wash-ington, D. C.: 84-101.
Morris, M. 2006. “Akrasia in the Protagoras and the Republic”. Phronesis 51: 195-229. DOI: 10.1163/156852806778134072
Moss, J. 2005. “Shame, Pleasure, and the Divided Soul”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Phi-losophy 29: 137-70.
Nussbaum, M. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge.
O’Brien, M. 1967. The Socratic Paradoxes and the Greek Mind. Chapel Hill.
Parry, R. D. 2007. “The Unhappy Tyrant and the Craft of Inner Rule”, In The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. Ed. G. R. F. Ferrari. Cambrdige: 386-414. DOI: 10.1017/ccol0521839637.014
Penner, T. 1971. “Thought and Desire in Plato”. In Plato: A Collection of Critical Es-says. Ed. G. Vlastos. Garden City: 96-118.
Penner, T. 1990. “Plato and Davidson: Parts of the Soul and Weakness of Will”. Canadian Jour-nal of Philosophy, Supp. 16: 35-74.
Penner, T. 1997. “Socrates on the Strength of Knowledge: Protagoras 351B-357E”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 79: 117-49. DOI: 10.1515/agph.1997.79.2.117
Price, A. W. 1995. Mental Conflict. London. DOI: 10.4324/9780203983126
Rees, D. A. 1957. ‘Bipartition of the Soul in the Early Academy’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77.1: 112-18. DOI: 10.2307/628642
Reeve, C. D. C. 1988. Philosopher-Kings. Indianapolis.
Robinson, T. M. 1995. Plato’s Psychology. Toronto.
Rowe, C. 2003. ‘Plato, Socrates, and Developmentalism”. In Desire, Identity, and Exist-ence: Essays in Honour of T. M. Penner. Ed. N. Reshotko. Kelowna, Canada: 17-32.
Rowe, C. 2007. “A Problem in the Gorgias: How Is Punishment Supposed to Help with Intellec-tual Error?”. In Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Ed. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée. Leiden: 19-40. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308.13
Santas, G. (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Malden, Massachusetts.
Segvic, H. 2000. “No One Errs Willingly”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29: 1-45.
Shields, C. 2001. “Simple Souls.” In Essays on Plato’s Psychology. Ed. E. Wagner. Lan-ham: 137-56.
Shields, C. 2007. “Unified Agency and Akrasia in Plato’s Republic”. In Akrasia in Greek Philos-ophy: From Socrates to Plotinus. Ed. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée: 61-86. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004156708.i-308.22
Singpurwalla, R. 2006. “Reasoning with the Irrational: Moral Psychology in the Protagoras”. Ancient Philosophy 26: 243-58. DOI: 10.5840/ancientphil20062621
Stalley, R. 2007. “Persuasion and the Tripartite Soul in Plato’s Republic”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 32: 63-90.
Weiss, R. 2006. The Socratic Paradox and its Enemies. Chicago. DOI: 10.5860/choice.44-2062
Whiting, J. 2012. “Psychic Contingency in the Republic”, In Plato and the Divided Self. Ed. R. Barney, T. Brennan, and C. Brittain. Cambridge: 174-208. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511977831.011
Wilburn, J. 2012. “Akrasia and Self-Rule in Plato’s Laws”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 43: 25-53. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199666164.003.0002
Wilburn, J. 2013. “Tripartition and the Causes of Criminal Behavior in Laws ix”. Ancient Philosophy 33.1: 111-34. DOI: 10.5840/ancientphil20133317
Wilburn, J. forthcoming. “Courage and the Spirited Part of the Soul in Plato’s Republic”. Philosopher’s Imprint.
Vlastos, G. 1956. “Introduction”. In Plato: Protagoras. Trans. B. Jowett rev. M. Ostwald. Indianapolis: vii-lviii.
Vlastos, G. 1969. “Socrates on Acrasia”. Phoenix 23: 71-88. DOI: 10.2307/1086569
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC By 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
