Write an argumentative essay leaning to philosophy of science more than just pure philosophy.
So a combination of scientific papers as well as philosophical pieces would be great (https://plato.stanford.edu/ would be a valid source!).
The assignment states that I should defend the topic statement, the statement is based on the notion that mind and actions/beliefs & values don′t necessarily always aline. I had in mind to start of with Aristotle′s idea of akrasia/weakness of will (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/) as an ideology that addiction is a show of weakness of character, thus serving as the inverse of what my statement tries to defend (that addiction does reflect one′s true beliefs and values as it′s most important in one′s life). From there I want to debunk the notion of akrasia both psychologically and philosophically. I thought of D. Kahnemans piece on dual processing of the brain (see attached file) as a psychological reason as to why addiction isn′t necessarily a true reflection of one′s beliefs (as addiction is linked to system I of the brain that makes fast, non-rational and unconsciously decisions). Another psychological reason would be the wanting system as proposed by Kent Berridge (also in attached files) that relates food cravings to short term pleasures that are more satisfying than cravings that would yield more positives in the long term. Addiction could be related in the same way that addiction is a satisfying short term craving that just overrules what the negatives are in the long term. Both these psychological findings should lead to it becoming apparant that addiction isn′t necessarily weak will or lapse in judgement as Aristotle′s akrasia would suggest. Lastly I want to refer to a philosopher/philosophical view that agrees with my initial statement. There may be something in Compatibalism, but I′m not too sure (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/).