 While the opposition between reason and appetite establishes their distinctness, it has another, more profound consequence. Most commentators read this section of the argument as implying that reason looks out for what is good for the soul while appetite seeks food, drink, and sex, heedless of their benefit for the soul (437d ff). Although open to various interpretations, the difference between reason and appetite does seem aimed at one of the central paradoxes of Socratic intellectualism. Common experience seems to contradict the claim that if one knows what is good he will do it; there seem to be obvious instances where someone does what she, in some sense, knows is not good, while having options to act otherwise. By introducing non-rational elements in the soul, the argument in the Republic also introduces the possibility of doing what one knows, all things considered, not to be good. In such cases, one is motivated by appetite, which lacks the capacity to conceive of what is good, all things considered.