 |
| Today |
Blackburn explains the philosophical concept of incontinence which is known as, from the Greek as akrasia, is described as the weakness of the will where a person knows what to do, but does something else. (10).
Although I reason that a person, that is not under significant force or coercion from another cause, to do otherwise, will, via human nature, follow his/her greatest desire via the use of the human will; I can also acknowledge that a person can have a significant, reasonable understanding of what is ethically (external) and moral (internal) right and yet do otherwise. This is as philosophy in basic agreement with the theology of Romans 1:
New American Standard Bible
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.
I can acknowledge that philosophical incontinence (akrasia) is a reasonable and true concept.
 |
| Last week |
