23 Dec An akratic person happens against explanation because of some pathos (aˆ?emotionaˆ?, aˆ?feelingaˆ?)
In VII.1aˆ“10 Aristotle investigates figure traits-continence and incontinence-that aren't since blameworthy since vices not since praiseworthy due to the fact virtues. (We started the topic of those characteristics in point 4.) The Greek conditions were akrasia (aˆ?incontinenceaˆ?; virtually: aˆ?lack of masteryaˆ?) and enkrateia (aˆ?continenceaˆ?; literally aˆ?masteryaˆ?). Their defect comprise exclusively inside undeniable fact that, more than most people, he goes through passions that dispute with his rational option. The akratic individual has not only this problem, but provides the more drawback that he offers into feelings as opposed to factor more frequently than the average indivdual.
Aristotle differentiates two types of akrasia: impetuosity (propeteia) and weakness (astheneia). The one who was weakened passes through an ongoing process of deliberation and helps make a choice; but rather than work relative to their reasoned option, he serves under the influence of a passion. By comparison, the impetuous individual does not undergo a procedure of deliberation and will not generate a reasoned choice; he simply works under the influence of a passion. During activity, the impetuous individual goes through no interior dispute. But once his act was complete, the guy regrets what he has got completed.