Save

Two Kinds of Mental Conflict in RepublicIV

In: History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Philosophy, School of Arts and Sciences, Iona College, New Rochelle, USA
  • | 2 Department of Philosophy, College of Arts and Science, University of Missouri – Kansas City, Kansas City, USA
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

Abstract

Plato’s partition argument infers that the soul has parts from the fact that the soul experiences mental conflict. Alasdair MacIntyre poses a dilemma for the argument that highlights an ambiguity in the concept of mental conflict. According to the first sense of conflict, a soul is in conflict when it has desires whose satisfaction conditions are logically incompatible. According to the second sense of conflict, a soul is in conflict when it has desires which are logically incompatible even when they are unsatisfied. The dilemma is therefore this: if the mental conflict is supposed to be the latter kind of conflict, then the partition argument is valid but is likely unsound; if it’s supposed to be the former kind, then the partition argument has true premises but is invalid. We explain this dilemma in detail and defend a dispositionalist solution to it.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 406 406 22
Full Text Views 13 13 3
PDF Views & Downloads 22 22 6