Book 7 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 3 - Godlike Men and Brutes
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now, since it is rarely that a godlike man is found-to use the epithet of the Spartans, who when they admire any one highly call him a 'godlike man'-so too the brutish type is rarely found among men; it is found chiefly among barbarians, but some brutish qualities are also produced by disease or deformity;"
Aristotle is making a comparison between two extremes: the "godlike man" and a person with brutish qualities. The Spartans, showing admiration for extraordinary individuals, would call them "godlike," suggesting such ideal virtue or greatness is exceptionally rare. At the opposite end of the spectrum, those with "brutish" characteristics—behavior lacking in reason or moral virtue—are also uncommon. Aristotle associates brutishness with certain groups of people (like "barbarians," meaning those outside Greek culture in his context) but acknowledges that brutish qualities can also be the result of specific circumstances, such as illness or physical deformity. Essentially, both extremes deviate from the norm of human behavior in different ways and are scarcely found in humanity.
"and we also call by this evil name those men who go beyond all ordinary standards by reason of vice."
Here, Aristotle is noting that the term "brutish" isn’t just used to describe people who lack humanity due to things like disease, deformity, or barbaric origins. It’s also applied to those who, through their extreme levels of vice, go far beyond the usual moral failings of an average person. These individuals, consumed by their corruption, embody a kind of behavior that is so excessive in its moral degradation that it falls outside normal human standards. In essence, their wickedness is so extreme that it resembles something subhuman or brutish.
"Of this kind of disposition, however, we must later make some mention, while we have discussed vice before we must now discuss incontinence and softness (or effeminacy), and continence and endurance;"
Aristotle is signaling a shift in the conversation. He’s saying that while he has already talked about vice (moral corruption or badness in character), he now wants to focus on analyzing specific behavioral traits: incontinence and softness (or effeminacy) versus continence and endurance. These traits are not exactly the same as full-fledged virtue or vice, but neither are they entirely separate categories. In other words, they occupy a kind of middle ground that needs its own nuanced discussion.
To clarify, incontinence refers to a lack of self-control or the inability to resist temptations despite knowing better. Softness or effeminacy is a sort of weakness or inability to endure hardships or challenges. Opposing these are continence (self-restraint and control over desires) and endurance (the ability to persist and bear difficulties). Aristotle sees these qualities as crucial for understanding the moral character but distinct enough from pure virtue and vice to warrant their own treatment.
He sets the stage to dive deeper into these ideas, promising to explore them in a systematic way.
"for we must treat each of the two neither as identical with virtue or wickedness, nor as a different genus."
Aristotle is saying here that certain qualities, like incontinence (a lack of self-control) and continence (self-control), should not be lumped together with full-fledged virtue or full-fledged wickedness. At the same time, however, they aren’t so radically different that we should treat them as belonging to a completely separate category (or "genus," as he puts it).
In other words, these traits don’t fully define someone's moral character, whether good or bad, but they also aren’t so unrelated that we can ignore them when trying to understand someone's behavior or ethical tendencies. They occupy a sort of middle ground between extremes.
"We must, as in all other cases, set the observed facts before us and, after first discussing the difficulties, go on to prove, if possible, the truth of all the common opinions about these affections of the mind, or, failing this, of the greater number and the most authoritative; for if we both refute the objections and leave the common opinions undisturbed, we shall have proved the case sufficiently."
Aristotle is emphasizing his method for tackling philosophical questions, particularly those concerning human behavior and the mind. He starts by gathering and considering the observed facts—real-life examples that give insight into the topic at hand. Then, he analyzes the difficulties or problems those facts present, essentially breaking them down and discussing their nuances.
After this initial analysis, he aims to examine the commonly held opinions (or beliefs) about the subject. His goal is not to dismiss or ignore those opinions outright but to test them. He tries to either prove them to be true or, if not all opinions can hold up, validate the ones that are most logical, credible, or widely regarded by authoritative sources. If he can both disprove objections (counterarguments) and leave the well-founded common beliefs intact, Aristotle believes he will have made a strong case for his conclusions.
This approach shows Aristotle’s careful balance between logic and respect for social wisdom. It's a method grounded in investigation, reason, and a respect for collective human insight, which remains a core aspect of philosophical inquiry even today.