When it comes to increasing the impact that we can create—whether on EA causes, in our career, education, or daily lives—action takes precedence over mere knowledge. However, the disconnect between what we know and what we actually apply in our daily lives, also commonly referred to as the knowledge-action gap, is becoming more evident. 

Knowing what to do is not always sufficient enough without the action component. For instance, understanding the necessary steps to achieve a goal only brings us to the initial awareness stage. Despite this understanding, we may still feel unprepared or unwilling to proceed with the required course of action to achieve said goal.

Various works of literature explore why we often fail to take the actions we know will achieve our desired results. This post is particularly inspired by the knowledge-action gap discussed in 101 Essays That Will Change Your Life by Brianna Wiest, and the concept by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton. However, the idea of this knowledge-action gap predates modern terminology like "procrastination" and has roots in Greek philosophy, specifically in the concept of akrasia.

This post will therefore summarize akrasia and present the perspectives on it by reputed philosophers. 

Akrasia

Akrasia, stemming from Greek philosophy, is defined as "the state of mind in which someone acts against their better judgment through weakness of will." It describes the lack of mental strength or willpower to act in accordance with what one knows to be right. Consequently, there is a tendency to act against one's better judgment rather than aligning with what we know we should be doing. This concept has been extensively explored by notable philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, each offering unique insights into why individuals experience this disconnect between knowledge and action.

Socrates

Socrates, particularly in Plato's dialogues, argues that akrasia is impossible. His perspective is based on the idea that knowledge is power; if a person truly knows what is good, they will act in accordance with that knowledge. Instead, Socrates believes that ignorance causes wrongdoing. Hence, when people act against their better judgment, it is not because they lack willpower, but because they lack true knowledge.

Socrates believes that virtue and knowledge are intrinsically linked, as knowing what is right leads to doing what is right.

Plato

Plato's view on akrasia builds upon Socratic ideas but incorporates his theory of the soul. 

Plato posits that the soul consists of three parts: 

1. Rational - Responsible for reasoning
2. Spirited - Responsible for emotions
3. Appetitive - Responsible for desires. 

For Plato, akrasia occurs when the appetitive or spirited parts overpower the rational part. True knowledge involves harmony within the soul, where the rational part governs the other parts. In "The Republic," Plato suggests that those who possess true knowledge (philosopher-kings) have their soul in harmony, making akrasia impossible for them because their rational part always rules.

In summary, for Plato, knowledge is not merely intellectual understanding but involves a moral and psychological alignment. Because of this, he argues that if someone truly has knowledge, their actions will align with it. Thus, akrasia is impossible because true knowledge inherently prevents acting against one's better judgment.

Aristotle

Aristotle offers a more nuanced view, accepting the possibility of akrasia and analyzing its nature. He acknowledges that people can know what is right but still fail to act accordingly due to the influence of emotions or desires. For Aristotle, akrasia happens when a person's reason is temporarily overpowered by passions or appetites, leading them to act against their better judgment. This temporary lapse causes them to act in ways that contradict their understanding of what is right.