Book 3 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 9 - The Nature and Number of Ignorance in Actions
Explanation - Part By Part
"Perhaps it is just as well, therefore, to determine their nature and number. A man may be ignorant, then, of who he is, what he is doing, what or whom he is acting on, and sometimes also what (e.g. what instrument) he is doing it with, and to what end (e.g. he may think his act will conduce to some one's safety), and how he is doing it (e.g. whether gently or violently)."
Aristotle is categorizing different types of ignorance that could lead someone to act unintentionally or involuntarily. He lists various aspects a person might potentially be unaware of during an action:
1. Who they are – Though rare (since most people know themselves), ignorance of one's role or identity might cause confusion.
2. What they are doing – Someone might not fully realize the nature of their action or its impact.
3. Who or what they are acting on – Understanding the target or recipient of the action is critical; mistakes here might lead to unintentional harm.
4. The tool or means they are using – A person might not be aware of what they are employing to carry out the action (e.g., a weapon or device), possibly misusing it.
5. The purpose or outcome of their action – Someone could mistakenly believe their action will lead to a good result (like helping someone), only to unknowingly cause harm instead.
6. The way the action is performed – A person might not realize whether they’re acting gently, harshly, or appropriately, which could affect the outcome or the perception of their behavior.
This breakdown highlights that ignorance in any of these aspects could lead someone to act contrary to their intentions or moral responsibility. Aristotle is preparing to build the case for how such ignorance plays into the concept of involuntary actions.
"Now of all of these no one could be ignorant unless he were mad, and evidently also he could not be ignorant of the agent; for how could he not know himself? But of what he is doing a man might be ignorant, as for instance people say 'it slipped out of their mouths as they were speaking', or 'they did not know it was a secret', as Aeschylus said of the mysteries, or a man might say he 'let it go off when he merely wanted to show its working', as the man did with the catapult."
In this part, Aristotle is discussing the types of ignorance that can lead to actions being considered involuntary. First, he dismisses the idea that someone could be ignorant of who they themselves are or the fact that they are the one acting—unless they are out of touch with reality (mad). Basically, he’s saying it’s unreasonable to imagine a person not understanding their own identity in the act.
However, someone can be ignorant about other aspects of their actions, such as what they are doing or the consequences of their actions. For example:
- Someone might say something without realizing its significance, like accidentally sharing a secret—thinking it was harmless to say, but later realizing it wasn’t.
- Aeschylus’ example (from a real-life incident): he allegedly revealed sacred mysteries not understanding the impact, showing ignorance of what he was revealing.
- Another example: someone might accidentally fire a weapon (a catapult, for instance) while merely intending to demonstrate how it works. The person didn’t mean to cause harm but lacked proper awareness of the full impact of their actions.
Aristotle uses these examples to highlight how ignorance of particular details of an action, rather than ignorance of oneself or general principles, leads to mistakes that are considered involuntary.
"Again, one might think one's son was an enemy, as Merope did, or that a pointed spear had a button on it, or that a stone was pumicestone; or one might give a man a draught to save him, and really kill him; or one might want to touch a man, as people do in sparring, and really wound him."
Aristotle is giving examples of situations where a person acts out of ignorance of certain details or circumstances, which might lead to unintended consequences. For instance:
1. Merope mistaking her son for an enemy - This is a reference from a Greek myth, where ignorance of the identity of the person leads to a grave error. Such mistakes often happen when someone doesn't fully realize who they are dealing with.
2. Thinking a pointed spear had a button on it - This refers to being mistaken about the nature of an object. If someone thought the spear was safe (due to a button on its tip protecting it) but it turned out to be dangerous, their actions involving the spear could end up causing harm unintentionally.
3. Mistaking a stone for pumice - This is another example of misunderstanding the properties of an object, which could lead to unintended consequences.
4. Giving a man a draught to save him, but really killing him - This illustrates how someone might mean to do something beneficial (like giving medicine to help someone recover) but unintentionally causes harm due to ignorance, perhaps about the medicine's true effect or the recipient's condition.
5. Wanting to touch someone gently but accidentally wounding them - As in sparring, one might intend harmless contact but accidentally hurt someone because they didn’t realize the force or the impact of their action.
These examples highlight how ignorance about certain factors—such as the identity of a person, the nature of objects, or the consequences of a specific act—can lead people to unintentionally cause harm. Aristotle uses these scenarios to illustrate how actions performed in ignorance of these details can be classified as involuntary, especially if the person later feels regret or pain over what happened.
"The ignorance may relate, then, to any of these things, i.e. of the circumstances of the action, and the man who was ignorant of any of these is thought to have acted involuntarily, and especially if he was ignorant on the most important points; and these are thought to be the circumstances of the action and its end."
Here, Aristotle is explaining that ignorance can pertain to various aspects of an action, specifically the surrounding circumstances or context. If someone is unaware of a critical detail about their action—like the specific situation, the people involved, or the intended outcome—their action might be considered involuntary. However, this "involuntariness" is most significant when the ignorance relates to the most crucial aspects of the situation, especially the purpose or outcome of the action. For an act to be genuinely involuntary due to ignorance, it’s not just about being unaware of trivial details—it’s about key facts that directly influence what the person is doing and why.
In simpler terms, if a person doesn't know something essential about the context of their actions—like mistaking a friend for an enemy or believing something harmless is dangerous—they may not fully be at fault because they lacked critical awareness.
"Further, the doing of an act that is called involuntary in virtue of ignorance of this sort must be painful and involve repentance."
Aristotle is emphasizing that for an action to truly be considered involuntary due to ignorance, it must meet two criteria:
1. It must cause the person who performed the action some form of pain or regret once they realize what happened.
2. This regret or repentance shows that the person didn't intend to act in this way; they didn't deliberately or knowingly choose to cause harm or wrongdoing.
In other words, if someone does something harmful or wrong out of ignorance (e.g., not knowing a particular fact or misjudging a situation) but feels no remorse or regret afterward, their action isn't truly "involuntary." True involuntary actions stem from ignorance and result in emotional recognition of the mistake.