It is known that Aristotle tackled the problems concerning akrasia. But how he solved them has not been made clear. I propose an interpretation of his idea.
    Aristotle presents two types of arguments. One is the 'grammatical' argument, where he shows that in some sense of 'know', acting against one's knowledge is possible. The other is the 'factual' argument, where he shows that an akrates does not need to have inconsistent judgments.
    Some scholars say that Aristotle does not refute Socrates' thesis that akrasia is impossible. But I argue that they are wrong, and that Aristotle succeeds in solving the problems concerning akrasia.