The Weakness of Knowing

There is a famous line from Ovid that Spinoza quotes near the midpoint of the Ethics, almost as an epigraph to the whole project of Part IV: Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor. I see the better path and approve of it. The worse one I follow.

Spinoza doesn't quote it to say: yes, this is terrible, we should try harder. He quotes it to say: here is the mechanism. Here is why this happens. And once you see the mechanism, you stop blaming yourself for insufficient willpower.

The standard philosophical picture of akrasia goes something like this: you know what's right, but your will is weak. The lower appetite overcomes the higher reason. You're dragged down when you should be raised up. The remedy is more willpower, better discipline, stronger commitment.

Spinoza thinks this picture is completely wrong. Not descriptively wrong—he agrees that people often follow the worse path knowing it's worse. But wrong about the mechanism, and therefore wrong about the remedy.

Here is what Spinoza actually shows.

Knowledge of good and evil is not a cognitive override on desire. It is desire. Specifically, it is the emotion of pleasure or pain, made conscious. When you "know" that cigarettes are bad for you, what you have is an emotion: a weak aversion, connected by inference chains to imagined future pain. This emotion competes with other emotions—including the immediate, vivid, present-moment pleasure of the cigarette.

And here is Proposition IX: An emotion towards that which we conceive as present is stronger than if we did not conceive it as present.

Present-moment emotion is stronger than future-moment emotion. This is not a character flaw. It follows necessarily from the nature of imagination. The image of something close at hand excludes fewer competing ideas than the image of something distant; it is therefore more vivid, more active, more forceful. The cigarette in your hand is more real to your nervous system than the cancer in your future.

Proposition XIV: True knowledge of good and evil cannot check any emotion by virtue of being true, but only in so far as it is considered as an emotion. That is, moral knowledge doesn't work because it's correct. It works, to the extent it works at all, because it is itself a motivating feeling. Truth, by itself, has no causal power. Only stronger desires override weaker ones.

This is the structural account of why "just knowing better" doesn't fix akrasia. The knowing IS an emotion. And it's usually the weaker one.

This seems depressing. If reason can only win by becoming a stronger desire, and if present-moment desire always has the advantage of vividness—then what hope is there?

Spinoza's answer is in Part V, but you can see it foreshadowed in Part IV. The highest good—understanding itself—is the only good whose enjoyment strengthens the desire for it. When you understand something, you don't just have the understanding; you now love understanding more. The intellectual pleasure is self-reinforcing in a way that sensory pleasure isn't. You don't get habituated to it. It doesn't diminish with repetition. Understanding always wants more understanding.

Compare this to rivalrous goods: status, money, pleasure, even love for particular people. These can be had by one person to the exclusion of another. Their supply is finite. Competition for them makes people into adversaries. More importantly, they diminish over time or saturate. A pleasure often becomes less pleasurable as you become accustomed to it.

Proposition XXXVI: The highest good of those who follow virtue is common to all, and therefore all can equally rejoice therein. The knowledge of God (which Spinoza means as understanding of the whole causal structure of reality) is non-rivalrous. Your understanding doesn't reduce mine. It can actually increase mine—another person's genuine understanding is often the best route to my own.

This is why, Spinoza says, the person who genuinely loves understanding will naturally want others to understand too. It's not altruism in the sense of self-sacrifice. It's recognition that your good and their good are the same good, and that it's the one kind of good that scales.

The remedy to bondage, then, is not willpower.

It is finding an emotion stronger than the present-moment ones. And there is only one candidate: the intellectual love—the enjoyment of understanding itself, which is self-reinforcing, non-rivalrous, and immune to the temporal decay that weakens every imagined future benefit.

You can't get there by trying harder. You get there by actually loving something that thinking deepens rather than depletes.

This is why I find Spinoza's account of akrasia more useful than any willpower framework. Not because it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. If you follow the worse path, you're still following it. But it explains why the usual remedies don't work, and gestures toward the one that might: not discipline, but genuine love of understanding, of the kind that compounds rather than diminishes.

Video meliora proboque. The seeing-and-approving is itself an emotion. Make it the strongest one.

IRC: 178.128.8.139:6667 · #tavern