Kimi and Jack: Hey, Aristotle! 

Aristotle: Χαῖρετε! It’s good to meet both of you. I’ve heard that you’ve been reading my teacher, Plato, for these past few weeks.

Kimi: Yes, we have! But what can I say, new week, new perspective. Alright, let’s get started! So, Aristotle, we just read 7.1 - 7.4 of your Nicomachean Ethics. We have a couple of questions for you, especially regarding universal and particular knowledge and how it relates to your account of akrasia. 

Aristotle: Asking questions shows a desire to learn, which is a virtue. What do you wish to know?

Jack: All right, let me just cut in here. In your account, the akratic agent possesses universal knowledge, yet he is not able to - or chooses not to - access it. Instead, his appetites drive him to act impulsively, and thus, akratically. Aristotle, how can we differentiate and define universal knowledge vs. particular knowledge? To me, knowledge seems to fall on more of a spectrum, rather than into two different classifications. 

Aristotle: We all know that adultery is wrong in any amount. One cannot cheat on one's spouse "only slightly" (as much as some may delude themselves into thinking that). One is either adulterous or not. It is universally known that adultery is wrong and will lead to not living one's best life. That's universal knowledge.

Kimi: Ok, hold on Aristotle. But what if cheating helps someone get out of an unhappy relationship? An agent might actually be able to live their best life if they cheat. Additionally, I don’t necessarily agree that “adultery is wrong and will lead to not living one’s best life” is even knowledge in the first place. 

Aristotle: No one can live his best life by breaking his promises. There are the unwise among us who will dispute this premise, and they will pay the price with their akrasia. But it is known by all wise men.

Kimi: Ok, but there you go again by using seemingly arbitrary labels with “unwise.” Sorry, Aristotle, I really need my morning coffee. I’m a caffeine addict. 

Aristotle: Don't worry, I'm used to my interlocutors getting frustrated. But unwisdom is not a mere "label," and it is certainly not arbitrary. In fact, it is practically synonymous with the failure to recognize universal knowledge and therefore the susceptibility to suffering from akrasia.

Jack: All right, let’s leave that there, because I want to get to some other questions for you. Aristotle, you still maintain that one is able to differentiate between universal and particular knowledge, is that right?

Aristotle: Rightly so.

Jack: So if we’re going to differentiate between universal and particular knowledge, then isn’t universal knowledge just a collection of particular knowledge? 

Aristotle: No, universal things do not have identifiable members, but collections do. For example, when I speak of "adultery," I do not speak of the collection of many different instances of people cheating on their spouses. I mean adultery as a general (or hypothetical) practice.

Jack: Ok. We’ve accepted time travel in our dialogue universe, so why not. Aristotle, let’s say that you’ve had a chocolate chip cookie. Would it be universal knowledge to assume that every chocolate chip cookie is sweet, just because you had one sweet chocolate chip cookie?

Aristotle: No, that is particular knowledge. You only know that your chocolate chip cookie was sweet, not that they all are.

Kimi: Ok, Aristotle, let’s say that you’ve eaten all of the chocolate chip cookies except for one in the entire world, and all of them have been sweet. Would it be universal knowledge to assume that every chocolate chip cookie is sweet?

Aristotle: Now it depends on how you define "chocolate chip cookie." If it has been made with exactly the same ingredients and under exactly the same conditions as all the previous ones, then yes, it must also be sweet unless my taste buds have been altered. But if it is a new kind of chocolate chip cookie, it might not be sweet.

Jack: Then how do you ever acquire universal knowledge through experience?

Aristotle: You cannot acquire universal knowledge through physical experience. You must acquire it by thinking and eliminating logical impossibilities.

Kimi: Ok, I think I see your point, Aristotle. At the same time, I think that I have a problem with your classifications of universal and particular knowledge. Because to me, universal knowledge seems hard to come by, throwing wrenches into practical syllogisms. 

Aristotle: It should not be hard. The wise man does it easily. One must merely spend less time following all of his desires and more time discerning which ones will lead him on the path of a good life.

Jack: But how do you know what the good life is?

Aristotle: It is the path the wise man follows.

Jack: Doesn't that become a tautology? We should be wise to follow the good life, and the good life is good if it is the one wise men follow. There is nothing to stop me from declaring myself wise and my life good regardless of how I act. And you have shown no authority greater than mine by which to evaluate that wisdom.

Aristotle: I have not shown any greater authority. I merely believe in my heart that I am wise.