Book 3 / Chapter 10
Paragraph 4 - Pleasures and Self-Indulgence in Animals and Humans
Explanation - Part By Part
"Nor is there in animals other than man any pleasure connected with these senses, except incidentally. For dogs do not delight in the scent of hares, but in the eating of them, but the scent told them the hares were there; nor does the lion delight in the lowing of the ox, but in eating it; but he perceived by the lowing that it was near, and therefore appears to delight in the lowing; and similarly he does not delight because he sees 'a stag or a wild goat', but because he is going to make a meal of it."
What Aristotle is explaining here is that animals don't experience pleasure from their senses (like smell, hearing, or sight) in the same way humans do. When a dog smells a hare or a lion hears an ox, they aren't enjoying the smell or sound for its own sake. Instead, these sensory experiences are signals that food is nearby. The pleasure they feel comes from eating, not from the sensory experience itself. For instance, the dog is happy because the scent of the hare means it can chase and eat it, and the lion reacts to the ox's lowing because it indicates its next meal is nearby. So, the joy animals show in these cases is not from the senses themselves but from the anticipation or outcome, which is tied to survival needs like eating.
"Temperance and self-indulgence, however, are concerned with the kind of pleasures that the other animals share in, which therefore appear slavish and brutish; these are touch and taste."
Aristotle is saying that the concepts of temperance (self-control) and self-indulgence (overindulgence) are closely tied to pleasures that humans share with other animals, namely those related to touch and taste. These pleasures are considered more basic and instinctual, even "brutish" or animalistic, because they arise from bodily sensations and physical desires. Essentially, they are the types of pleasures that connect us more to our animal nature than to our rational, human side.
"But even of taste they appear to make little or no use; for the business of taste is the discriminating of flavours, which is done by winetasters and people who season dishes; but they hardly take pleasure in making these discriminations, or at least self-indulgent people do not, but in the actual enjoyment, which in all cases comes through touch, both in the case of food and in that of drink and in that of sexual intercourse."
Aristotle is making an important distinction here about the senses and human indulgence. He points out that self-indulgent people don’t really engage with the sense of taste in its more refined or intellectual function — the ability to distinguish and appreciate flavors, like a wine taster analyzing a drink or a chef skillfully seasoning a dish. Instead, their focus is on the more basic physical pleasure that comes through touch, which he describes as the direct bodily enjoyment of consuming food, drink, or engaging in sexual activity.
In modern terms, Aristotle is describing how self-indulgence is less about savoring or appreciating something thoughtfully (like the subtle flavors of a gourmet dish) and more about chasing the raw, bodily sensations that come from satisfying cravings. It’s not the sophisticated pleasure of understanding or appreciating the experience, but the physical gratification that takes over. This focus on touch as the dominant sense ties self-indulgent behavior to simpler, more animalistic drives.
"This is why a certain gourmand prayed that his throat might become longer than a crane's, implying that it was the contact that he took pleasure in."
Aristotle is highlighting the excessive and almost absurd desire for indulgence by mentioning a "gourmand" (a person who excessively loves fine food). This gourmand humorously wished for a throat as long as a crane's (a bird with an especially long neck) so he could prolong the sensation of food passing through it. The point being made is that this person’s pleasure wasn’t just about eating for sustenance or flavor—it was about an irrational obsession with the physical sensation itself, the contact of the food.
Aristotle uses this example to critique self-indulgence, characterizing it as a base, animalistic focus on physical enjoyment rather than a more refined or reasoned approach to pleasure.
"Thus the sense with which self-indulgence is connected is the most widely shared of the senses; and self-indulgence would seem to be justly a matter of reproach, because it attaches to us not as men but as animals. To delight in such things, then, and to love them above all others, is brutish."
Aristotle is emphasizing that self-indulgence, which is closely tied to pleasures of touch and appetite (like eating, drinking, or sexual desires), connects us to the most basic and widespread sensory experience shared by all animals. Because of this, he sees self-indulgence as deserving criticism. Why? It centers us on what we share with animals, not what elevates us as rational and moral human beings. To prioritize or excessively love these base pleasures is to act more like a brute, driven by instinct, than as a thoughtful and virtuous person.
"For even of the pleasures of touch the most liberal have been eliminated, e.g. those produced in the gymnasium by rubbing and by the consequent heat; for the contact characteristic of the self-indulgent man does not affect the whole body but only certain parts."
In this part, Aristotle is refining his thoughts about the pleasures of touch and their connection to self-indulgence. He points out that not all physical sensations or pleasures derived from touch fall into the realm of self-indulgence. For instance, there are wholesome or "liberal" tactile pleasures, like the warmth and comfort from being rubbed down after exercise (a common practice in ancient Greek gymnasiums). These types of physical pleasures were seen as more balanced, related to general well-being, and affecting the whole body.
However, Aristotle contrasts these with the particular kinds of physical pleasures that self-indulgent people pursue. These pleasures are more narrowly focused—not on the entire body, but on specific areas associated with over-indulgence, like eating, drinking, or sex. For him, this focus on isolated bodily pleasures reflects a more base, brutish nature that draws humans away from their higher, rational qualities and closer to the behavior of animals. Such indulgences are marked by an excessiveness that lacks reason or moderation.