 Some interpret this heedlessness as appetite’s being good-independent, whereas reason is good-dependent. Thus, appetite pursues what it pursues without reference to whether what it pursues is good; reason pursues what it pursues always understanding that what it pursues is good. In this kind of interpretation, Socrates in the Republic accepts the possibility of akrasia because some parts of the soul, which are indifferent to the good, can motivate actions that do not aim at what is good. Others interpret this heedlessness as appetite’s operating on a constrained notion of good; for instance, for appetite only pleasure is good. By contrast, reason operates on a larger notion, i.e., what is good, all things considered. In this interpretation, akrasia is also possible, but now because some parts of the soul, which motivate action, do so with a constrained view of good. In any event, the stage is set for conflict in the soul between reason and appetite. If we assume that either can motive action on its own, the possibility exists for the soul’s pursuing bodily pleasure in spite of reason’s determination that doing so is not good, all things considered. This potential gives rise to a separate strain of thinking about virtue. While, for Socratic intellectualism, virtue just is knowledge, in the aftermath of the argument for subdividing the soul, virtue comes to have two aspects. The first is to acquire the knowledge which is the basis of virtue; the second is to instill in the appetites and emotions – which cannot grasp the knowledge – a docility so that they react in a compliant way to what reason knows to be the best thing to do. Thus, non-rational parts of the soul acquire reliable habits on which the moral virtues depend.