akrasia

Compiled with AI assistance and selectively reviewed. Please consult the cited passages; the books remain the authoritative source. About this companion

Editorial synthesis · provisional

Definition

Akrasia is knowingly and intentionally acting against one’s own better judgment. RB1’s native definition excludes action caused by compulsion or addiction; its surrounding argument interprets the phenomenon as a failure of integration among the constraints that organize agency. The proposal retains that particular account without treating every mistaken choice, involuntary behavior or disagreement about values as an instance of akrasia.

Explanation

The native note specifies awareness of the better course and a free, intentional action against it. A person who lacks the relevant knowledge, revises a judgment or cannot act otherwise through compulsion does not meet this source’s stated conditions. These restrictions are part of the entry rather than qualifications silently dropped from a generic weakness-of-will gloss.

The author then supplies a dynamical interpretation: higher-level constraints fail to organize behavior robustly, and action fragments. This interpretation belongs to the work’s account of constrained openness. It does not establish a medical diagnosis or imply that every failure of integration is intentional action against better judgment.

The adjacent agency discussion understands coherence as embodied organization sustained through reasons and norms, rather than an inner spectator escaping causality. Akrasia marks a possible failure within that architecture; it is not offered as evidence that organized agency is impossible or that every successful act is morally justified.

Scope and attribution

Keep the native intentionality and exclusion conditions, and attribute the integration interpretation to the author.

AB — The Actual Book

Source-verified occurrence; see the printed-page references below.

Occurrence locators: 72; Notes: 240.

RB1 — The Real Book, Volume I: The Possible Is Real

The restrictive native definition and the author’s dynamical interpretation remain distinct.

Occurrence locators: 304; Notes: 304.

Background used in the editorial explanation

Named theories and mechanisms are distinguished from neighboring background, homonyms and the author’s own synthesis. Reproduced AI passages retain their separate voice.