Aristotle on Incontinence: Akrasia and Moral Weakness
This paper examines Aristotle's philosophical account of incontinence, derived from the Greek concept of akrasia, which describes the failure of rational self-control in the face of passion and desire. The paper contrasts Aristotle's position with Socrates' denial that moral weakness is possible, arguing that Aristotle's framework more accurately reflects human nature. It traces Aristotle's hierarchy of moral character—from temperance through continence and incontinence to intemperance—and explores his nuanced view of pleasure as a necessary component of virtuous living rather than an end in itself. The paper concludes that Aristotle's account better accommodates the reality of human moral failure without reducing all wrongdoing to deliberate vice.
- Introduction to Incontinence and Akrasia: Defines akrasia and Aristotle's view of incontinence
- Vice, Brutality, and the Moral Hierarchy: Ranks temperance, continence, incontinence, and intemperance
- Aristotle on Pleasure and Virtue: Pleasure as condition for virtue, not highest good
- Socrates and the Denial of Moral Weakness: Socrates denies incontinence; judgment overrules all desire
- Aristotle vs. Socrates: A More Realistic Account of Human Nature: Aristotle's framework better fits human moral experience
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It clearly defines the central concept (akrasia/incontinence) before building the argument, giving readers a firm conceptual foundation.
- It uses direct comparison between Aristotle and Socrates to sharpen the thesis, making the philosophical stakes concrete and easy to follow.
- It connects abstract moral categories to everyday human experience, making the argument accessible without sacrificing philosophical depth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs philosophical contrast as its primary analytical method. By presenting Socrates' denial of incontinence alongside Aristotle's acceptance of it, the writer demonstrates how to use competing positions to illuminate and strengthen a central claim. This technique — often called dialectical reasoning — is a hallmark of philosophical writing and shows an understanding that ideas gain clarity when tested against opposing views.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional introduction establishing akrasia and Aristotle's position. It then moves through Aristotle's moral hierarchy (temperance, continence, incontinence, intemperance), addresses Aristotle's nuanced treatment of pleasure, pivots to critique Socrates' contrary view, and closes with a comparative conclusion defending Aristotle. The argument flows logically from definition to analysis to critique to resolution.
Introduction to Incontinence and Akrasia
Incontinence is a term used by philosophers. It stems from the Greek word akrasia, which means lack of mastery — or the condition in which a person is unable to withhold his or her desires. According to Aristotle, it describes human passion and desire and the act of giving in to one's pleasures without considering whether that act is the right thing to do. Akrasia, as a philosophical concept, has been debated since antiquity, with Aristotle and Socrates holding sharply opposing views on its very possibility.
Socrates believed that incontinence does not exist, because if a person truly knew what the right thing to do was, he would not act in the opposite direction — since judgment, in his view, overrules all desires and pleasures. Aristotle, by contrast, believes that incontinence is not necessarily a mark of bad character, since a person can at times act irrationally. Incontinence does exist, and it does not mean that a person who gives in to his or her pleasures is of bad judgment; it only means that at the moment of the act, he or she was led by passion and desire rather than by rational thinking.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.