On Akrasia

 

Our ability to want things, sometimes, can be overwhelming. Some may point to addiction or obsession when confronting our talking about desire. Its pull is like a magnet upon a piece of steel or iron. Simply put, we, in these certain situations, cannot act otherwise. But what about the converse? Perhaps that isn’t mentioned enough or even talked about at all. The paralysis of desire can be much more debilitating and consequential than its more popular counterpart.

Akrasia literally means “weakness of will” in Greek. In larger part, it represents a school of thought in philosophy that deals with autonomy. Notoriously undervalued questions like: are we free; is fatalism true; and is agency possible with the existence of God, dominate these conversations. That said, I’d like to focus on the psychological conditions at play when it comes to freedom of the will and that abominable weakness that each and every person deals with on a daily basis.

Will, in large part, is our ability to desire things. They could be wants or needs. It really doesn’t matter as long as we are doing something for the benefit of another thing; or simply put, trying to fulfill the nagging needs of a given want. Of course, people want all sorts of things and for many different reasons. However, in an attempt to narrow the focus down to something manageable, let’s just assume that all of our desires and wants are affected by the grand want of happiness.

Now, we cannot forget that we live in units and tribes and communities, so much of that happiness could come from the approval of others and wanting favorable opinions of ourselves and who we are. This would be the will directed towards a socio/psychological benefit and it’s pretty understandable. When we are liked by others it makes us feel good about ourselves. So, their wants are also ours to some extent.

Now enter the narcissist. This is a person, and remember from the point of autonomy, that inserts their being into situations and varying circles in order to gain positive approval about themselves. It’s almost like a personal campaign trail for good polling numbers. Whatever their reason doesn’t really matter though because this behavior would fall under akrasia. They simply can’t help themselves, but on the opposite spectrum of obsession. This is not to be confused with refocusing blame or anything of the sort, as akrasia, by law, also falls under negligence.

Nevertheless, the underlying agent at play here has to be fear. Why else would somebody put themselves out there, in the company of others, with nothing to talk about but themselves? Of course, context should be taken into account. If there are situations where people are asking questions about who that person is and what not, then that may demand some type of reveal about them. However, this would have to be standard discourse. But this continual bidding and effort on the now-known adversary leads to a negative result. The irony, of course, is people are genuinely happier when that person is not around. It’s simple: if we want to know, we’ll ask.

At the end, ownership takes accountability and courage. Hey, there’s a lot of instances where we can blame others or have differing opinions, but when it comes to pure autonomy, responsibility is at the center of the concept. We can only be free as long as we allow it to be. Thus, everything else would have to be an excuse.

Obviously, it doesn’t stop here. These acumen also can result in secrets about ourselves and others. However, the focal point must remain on that individual and that seething weakness that provokes them into projecting themselves on to others. People, in large part, are all the same because we have opinions and most of them have to do with and be about other people. It’s not a big deal with who’s favorable or not until that person makes it one, or, as we’ve concluded, about themselves.