Book 2 / Chapter 9
Paragraph 4 - The Difficulty of Judging Anger and Moderation
Explanation - Part By Part
"But this is no doubt difficult, and especially in individual cases; for or is not easy to determine both how and with whom and on what provocation and how long one should be angry;"
Aristotle is acknowledging here that navigating emotions, particularly anger, is a complex and nuanced task. It’s not always straightforward to figure out the right circumstances for anger—like whom to be angry with, why you’re angry, how much anger is appropriate, or how long that anger should last. Each of these factors varies depending on the situation, and striking the right balance isn't a simple formula, but rather something that requires thoughtful judgment.
"for we too sometimes praise those who fall short and call them good-tempered, but sometimes we praise those who get angry and call them manly."
Aristotle is pointing out that people's judgments about emotions like anger can vary depending on the situation. For instance, we might admire someone who shows restraint and avoids excessive anger, calling them "good-tempered," which reflects a calm, measured attitude. On the other hand, in certain circumstances, we might praise someone for expressing anger, labeling it as "manly" or courageous, especially if their anger is tied to defending something honorable or standing up for what's right. The takeaway here is that how we view emotional expressions like anger can depend on the specific context and social values at play.
"The man, however, who deviates little from goodness is not blamed, whether he do so in the direction of the more or of the less, but only the man who deviates more widely; for he does not fail to be noticed."
Aristotle is essentially saying that if someone strays only a little from what is morally good—whether they're being slightly too indulgent or a bit too restrained—they're typically not criticized. These small deviations are often overlooked or even tolerated. However, when someone's behavior veers significantly away from what is considered virtuous or appropriate, it stands out and draws attention. In such cases, they become noticeable and are more likely to be judged or blamed for their excess or deficiency.
"But up to what point and to what extent a man must deviate before he becomes blameworthy it is not easy to determine by reasoning, any more than anything else that is perceived by the senses; such things depend on particular facts, and the decision rests with perception."
Aristotle is emphasizing here that it's incredibly difficult to determine, purely through logical reasoning, the exact point at which someone's behavior becomes worthy of blame. This isn't something you can calculate in an abstract, universal sense. Instead, just like how we perceive things with our senses (like distinguishing between light and dark or hot and cold), understanding when someone's behavior crosses the line depends on specific situations and context. Decisions about such matters rely on perception—real-life judgment in the moment—rather than rigid rules. In short, human behavior can't always be measured by precise formulas; it's situational and requires thoughtful interpretation.
"So much, then, is plain, that the intermediate state is in all things to be praised, but that we must incline sometimes towards the excess, sometimes towards the deficiency; for so shall we most easily hit the mean and what is right."
Aristotle is emphasizing that the "mean" or the moderate path—balanced behavior between extremes of excess and deficiency—is always the ideal to strive for. However, because life is complex and situations are nuanced, achieving this balance isn't always straightforward. Sometimes, in order to get closer to what is right or virtuous, we might need to lean slightly toward one of the extremes (either excess or deficiency), depending on the context. This flexibility helps ensure that our actions align as much as possible with what is appropriate and virtuous in a given situation.
This highlights a practical approach to moral behavior: while balance is key, rigidly sticking to the exact "middle point" isn't always feasible, and slight adjustments toward one side may be necessary to act in the most reasonable and ethical way.