Table of Contents
Why do we repeatedly do things we know we shouldn't? Cornell philosopher Rachana Kamtekar reveals Plato's surprising answer to this fundamental question about human nature and self-improvement.
From dating the wrong people to breaking our diets, we constantly act against our better judgment. Most theories blame weakness of will or conflicting desires, but Plato offered a radically different explanation that challenges our assumptions about temptation, virtue, and moral responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- Plato argued we never truly act against our knowledge of good—we're simply deceived by false appearances of what's beneficial
- The human soul contains three parts: reason (seeks truth), spirit (seeks honor), and appetite (seeks pleasure)—all naturally oriented toward good
- Akratic actions occur when appetite overpowers reason by making lesser goods appear greater than they actually are
- Spirit always serves as reason's ally, never opposing rational judgments about what's truly good for us
- Wrongdoing is fundamentally unwilled because it contradicts our natural desire for genuine good and harms our souls
- Self-improvement requires both rational understanding and practical training of our non-rational parts through education and discipline
- Blame is counterproductive; correction and pity are appropriate responses to moral failures since they stem from ignorance
- Each part of the soul achieves its truest pleasures when reason guides the whole person toward authentic human flourishing
Timeline Overview
- 00:00–06:40 — Introduction: The puzzle of akratic action and why understanding Plato's theory is crucial for anyone struggling with self-sabotage and personal improvement
- 06:40–10:04 — Competing Views: Desire for the Bad: Examining whether humans have an actual drive for evil (Freud, Nietzsche, Augustine) and why Plato rejects this explanation
- 10:04–18:53 — Competing Views: Rationality: Whether we really make rational judgments constantly and how Plato accommodates non-rational but good-directed motivations
- 18:53–21:24 — Competing Views: Sloth: The weakness of will problem versus Plato's tripartite soul as a more sophisticated explanation for procrastination and laziness
- 21:24–24:02 — Competing Views: Overpowering: Why the popular "overpowered by pleasure" theory becomes incoherent when applied consistently
- 24:02–46:35 — Plato's Tripartite Soul: Deep exploration of the three-part soul (reason, spirit, appetite) and how internal conflicts actually operate in moral decision-making
- 46:35–END — Wrong-Doing Is Unwilled: Revolutionary view that wrongdoing stems from ignorance rather than malice, with implications for blame, punishment, and moral responsibility
The Socratic Paradox: We Never Act Against True Knowledge
Socrates made one of philosophy's most counterintuitive claims: we never act against our genuine knowledge of good. When you eat that extra scoop of ice cream despite knowing you shouldn't, Plato argues you're not actually acting against your knowledge—you're being deceived by appearances.
His famous analogy compares moral choice to visual perception. Two men stand in the distance, and the closer one appears taller. But when accuracy matters, you measure rather than trust appearances. Similarly, when we give in to temptation, we're governed by how things appear rather than by scientific knowledge of what's truly good for us.
The ice cream appears more pleasant than the healthy body you'd have long-term. But this apparent judgment isn't your genuine knowledge speaking—it's an appearance-based assessment that can be corrected through proper understanding. Plato suggests we often rationalize our choices with "little conversations" about why "just one scoop" won't matter, revealing how we're fooled by these misleading appearances.
This view has enormous stakes for human improvement. If Socrates is right, then virtue can be taught through education and philosophical inquiry. If we can act against our knowledge, then mere learning isn't enough—we need different approaches to moral development.
Challenging Alternative Theories of Moral Failure
Several competing theories attempt to explain why we act against our better judgment. Plato systematically addresses each objection to defend his intellectualist position.
The first challenge suggests humans have an actual drive for evil or badness. Freud's death drive, Nietzsche's will to cruelty, and Augustine's confession about stealing pears "just because it was wrong" all seem to contradict Plato's good-oriented psychology.
Plato questions whether our self-descriptions of motivation are accurate. Do we really know our own motivations through introspection, or are our explanations shaped by ideological formations? Augustine's interpretation reflects Christian ideas about original sin, while Nietzsche deliberately inverts traditional philosophical assumptions.
More fundamentally, Plato argues we're always drawn to what appears good to us, even when we describe it as bad. The "bad boy" archetype seems appealing not because badness itself is attractive, but because we perceive certain aesthetic or social goods in that rebellious image. Evil may be good in specific respects even when harmful overall.
A second objection questions whether humans make rational judgments as pervasively as Plato's theory seems to require. Most people don't constantly deliberate about good and bad—even philosophers don't analyze every action rationally.
Plato doesn't actually require every action to involve rational ascent to propositions. Instead, he believes our pursuit of pleasure, honor, and good overall represents distinct motivations that are naturally good-directed, even when non-rational. When hungry, your appetite drives you toward food not through calculation but through biological organization aimed at survival—a limited but genuine good.
The Tripartite Soul: Three Sources of Human Motivation
Rather than positing a single "will" that can conflict with intellect, Plato divides the human soul into three functional parts, each with distinct aims and characteristics.
The reasoning part pursues truth and genuine good through calculation and deliberation. It's capable of achieving correct judgments but is motivationally weak on its own. Reason can determine what's truly beneficial but often lacks the power to enforce its conclusions against competing impulses.
The appetitive part responds to bodily conditions and seeks physical pleasures necessary for survival. Described as a "many-headed beast," appetite contains multiple conflicting desires but is naturally organized to secure limited goods like nutrition, rest, and reproduction. Though non-rational, appetite serves the good of maintaining our animal existence.
The spirited part, containing emotions like anger and the love of honor, represents our social vulnerability and responsiveness to others' judgments. Spirit is reason's natural ally, always supporting reasoned views about good and bad. It provides the motivational force that reason lacks, enforcing rational conclusions through feelings of shame, pride, and moral indignation.
This functional organization serves human flourishing. Plato views the human being as naturally designed to achieve the good, with different capacities working together toward that end. Reasoning provides the best guidance for determining genuine good, while spirit and appetite contribute their own forms of motivation and awareness.
Internal conflict arises when we're simultaneously attracted to and repelled by the same object. Your thirst makes drinking appealing while your reasoning judges that particular drink harmful. This creates the distinctive push-and-pull that requires dividing the soul into parts—unlike simple preference conflicts between eating and sleeping, which involve different objects rather than opposing attitudes toward the same thing.
How Moral Conflict Really Works
The tripartite theory reveals why traditional "weakness of will" explanations fail. Instead of one faculty being overpowered by another, akratic action occurs when appetite drives us toward lesser goods that appear greater due to proximity, intensity, or misleading circumstances.
Spirit never opposes reason directly. Like a well-trained sheepdog responding to its shepherd's call, spirit immediately complies when reason issues commands. Plato provides examples of spirit supporting reason against appetite—such as Odysseus restraining his anger against unfaithful servants when reason counsels patience—but never cases where spirit rebels against rational judgment.
This asymmetry explains why some conflicts feel different from others. Reason can tell spirit to calm down, and spirit obeys. But appetite operates according to its own biological imperatives and can't be reasoned with directly. Instead, appetite must be trained through discipline, habit, and environmental management.
When properly ordered, each part achieves its truest pleasures. Appetite enjoys stable, lasting bodily satisfaction rather than the intense but temporary pleasures of excess. Spirit experiences genuine honor based on real achievements rather than empty social recognition. Reason delights in understanding truth rather than mere clever argumentation.
This doesn't mean appetite always gets what it immediately wants. The philosophical lover who abstains from sex may achieve a calmer, more stable bodily condition that appetite itself would prefer if it could take a long-term view. But appetite is limited by its focus on immediate pleasure and can't make such extended calculations independently.
Wrongdoing as Unwilled Action
Plato's most radical claim is that all wrongdoing is fundamentally unwilled. This doesn't mean wrong actions happen without the agent's causal involvement, but rather that they contradict our natural desire for genuine good.
Since wrongdoing is bad for us—impairing our souls and interfering with our pursuit of true good—it goes against what we naturally will. We're designed to seek our own flourishing, so actions that undermine that flourishing are contrary to our deepest motivations, even when we perform them voluntarily.
This creates a distinctive approach to moral responsibility. Plato advocates correction rather than retributive punishment, pity rather than blame. Wrong actions express the agent's soul condition and therefore indicate a need for rehabilitation, but they don't deserve harsh moral condemnation since they stem from ignorance rather than malice.
The wrongdoer has made a mistake about what's truly good, similar to someone who miscalculates in mathematics. The appropriate response is education and correction, not punishment designed to inflict deserved suffering. Blame is counterproductive because it tends to create defensiveness rather than moral improvement.
However, this doesn't eliminate all moral evaluation. Good actions deserve praise and celebration because they express virtue and proper understanding. The difference lies in treating bad actions as symptoms of ignorance requiring remedy rather than crimes deserving retribution.
Shame plays an interesting role in this system. While Plato discourages blaming others, he accepts self-directed shame as potentially corrective. The key distinction may be instrumental: shame often motivates self-improvement, while external blame frequently produces defensive reactions that impede moral progress.
Common Questions
Q: How can Plato claim we never act against knowledge when people clearly do things they know are wrong?
A: Plato distinguishes between mere appearances and genuine knowledge—we're deceived by how things appear rather than acting against true understanding.
Q: Why divide the soul into exactly three parts instead of more or fewer?
A: Each part serves a distinct function in human flourishing, and conflicts requiring soul division only occur when we're simultaneously attracted to and repelled by the same object.
Q: If wrongdoing is unwilled, does this eliminate moral responsibility?
A: No—wrong actions still express the agent's character and require correction, but deserve pity and rehabilitation rather than retributive punishment.
Q: How can reason control appetite if they can't communicate directly?
A: Through indirect training involving habit, environment, and physical discipline rather than rational persuasion of appetitive desires.
Q: What makes spirit reason's reliable ally when emotions often seem irrational?
A: Spirit responds to social cues and honor, which naturally align with reasoned judgments about virtue when properly cultivated through education.
Implications for Modern Self-Improvement
Plato's moral psychology offers a sophisticated framework for understanding persistent self-defeating behaviors and developing more effective approaches to personal change.
Rather than viewing temptation as a simple battle between good and evil impulses, we can recognize how misleading appearances make harmful choices seem beneficial. The key isn't suppressing desires but correcting our understanding of what truly serves our long-term flourishing. This suggests combining rational analysis with practical training of our non-rational motivations through environment design, social accountability, and gradual habit formation.
His insights about punishment and moral failure also reshape how we respond to our own mistakes and those of others. Replacing self-blame with self-correction, and harsh judgment of others with compassionate guidance, may prove more effective for actual moral improvement than traditional approaches based on guilt and retribution.
