Book 7 / Chapter 10
Paragraph 1 - Practical Wisdom and Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"Nor can the same man have practical wisdom and be incontinent; for it has been shown' that a man is at the same time practically wise, and good in respect of character."
Aristotle is saying here that it’s impossible for someone to possess practical wisdom (a deep understanding of how to make the right choices and act virtuously in real-life situations) while also being incontinent (lacking self-control over their desires). Why? Because practical wisdom isn’t just about knowing what’s right—it requires a strong moral character to act on that knowledge. A truly wise person is not only intellectually capable but also virtuous in their character, meaning they consistently align their actions with what’s good and just. Incontinence, on the other hand, involves a failure to act on what one knows to be right, which is incompatible with the moral integrity that practical wisdom requires.
"Further, a man has practical wisdom not by knowing only but by being able to act; but the incontinent man is unable to act-there is, however, nothing to prevent a clever man from being incontinent; this is why it is sometimes actually thought that some people have practical wisdom but are incontinent, viz. because cleverness and practical wisdom differ in the way we have described in our first discussions, and are near together in respect of their reasoning, but differ in respect of their purpose-nor yet is the incontinent man like the man who knows and is contemplating a truth, but like the man who is asleep or drunk."
In this part, Aristotle is drawing a distinction between practical wisdom (a deeply virtuous ability to make good decisions and act on them) and cleverness (a more technical or intellectual skill of reasoning that doesn’t necessarily align with moral action). Practical wisdom isn’t just about knowing what’s right; it’s about actually doing it. It’s a blend of knowledge and action, guided by good moral purpose.
However, the incontinent person (someone who struggles with self-control and gives in to desires, even when they know it's not the right thing to do) fails here. While they might understand what should be done, they are “unable to act” on that understanding due to their lack of control over their impulses.
Aristotle also points out that being clever isn’t the same as having practical wisdom. A clever person might be very skilled at arguing or problem-solving but can still lack the ability to align their intentions and actions with moral principles. This can lead to the misconception that someone who is clever might have practical wisdom, even if they behave incontinently. Cleverness and practical wisdom are close in the sense that they both involve reasoning, but they differ in their ultimate purpose: practical wisdom strives for the good, while cleverness can serve any purpose, good or bad.
Finally, Aristotle uses a striking analogy: the incontinent person is like someone who knows what’s true but acts as though they are “asleep or drunk.” In other words, while they might have knowledge, their ability to act on it is clouded or overridden by their impulses. Thus, they are not truly wise but are held back by their lack of self-mastery.
"And he acts willingly (for he acts in a sense with knowledge both of what he does and of the end to which he does it), but is not wicked, since his purpose is good; so that he is half-wicked."
Aristotle is making a subtle distinction here about the incontinent person (someone who knows the right thing to do but fails to act on it due to their impulses). He says that such a person acts willingly—in other words, they are aware of their actions and the goal they are pursuing, making their choice conscious to some extent. However, the incontinent person is not fully wicked (or morally corrupt) because their underlying purpose remains good. The problem lies in their failure to follow through on what they know is right, not in a malicious intent or deliberate choice to do something bad.
This is why Aristotle labels the incontinent person as "half-wicked." They falter in self-control, but they aren't fundamentally driven by evil or bad intentions like a truly wicked person would be. Their struggle comes down to a weakness of will, rather than a deliberate embrace of wrongdoing.
"And he is not a criminal; for he does not act of malice aforethought; of the two types of incontinent man the one does not abide by the conclusions of his deliberation, while the excitable man does not deliberate at all."
Aristotle here is distinguishing between two types of people who exhibit incontinence—that is, a lack of self-control—but in different ways.
1. The first type knows what the right thing to do is and may even think through or deliberate on the best course of action. However, when the moment comes, they fail to stick to their decision. They understand what is morally or practically best but do not follow through with it. For example, someone might think, "I shouldn't eat this cake because I'm on a diet," but then eats it anyway.
2. The second type, the excitable or impulsive person, doesn’t deliberate at all. They act purely on impulse, without pausing to consider or reflect on what would be the best course of action or how their behavior aligns with their values. For example, they see the cake and immediately eat it without even a moment of reflection.
Aristotle makes a key point that these individuals are not criminals because their actions are not done with intentional malice or with a premeditated desire to do harm. They lack control but do not act out of evil intent. Their error lies in weakness, not in deliberate wrongdoing.
"And thus the incontinent man like a city which passes all the right decrees and has good laws, but makes no use of them, as in Anaxandrides' jesting remark, The city willed it, that cares nought for laws; but the wicked man is like a city that uses its laws, but has wicked laws to use."
In this analogy, Aristotle compares the incontinent (lacking self-control) person to a city that has excellent laws and makes all the right decisions on paper, but then fails to enforce or follow those laws in practice. Essentially, the city knows the right thing to do but doesn't act on it. Similarly, an incontinent person understands what is good and virtuous—knowing how one ought to act—but fails to translate that knowledge into action due to an inability to control their desires or impulses.
On the other hand, Aristotle contrasts this with the wicked person, who is like a city that does act consistently according to its laws but has bad laws. This means the wicked person’s thinking and principles are fundamentally flawed—they truly believe their actions are right, even though they are actually wrong or immoral. The wicked person is deliberate and calculated, but their goals and values are corrupted from the start.
The key point Aristotle is making here is that the incontinent individual is not entirely "wicked" or evil—they have the right principles but fail to act on them—while the wicked person is much more dangerous because their very understanding and judgment are fundamentally wrong.