Book 7 / Chapter 14
Paragraph 1 - The Nature of Bodily Pleasures and Pains
Explanation - Part By Part
"With regard to the bodily pleasures, those who say that some pleasures are very much to be chosen, viz. the noble pleasures, but not the bodily pleasures, i.e. those with which the self-indulgent man is concerned, must consider why, then, the contrary pains are bad."
Aristotle is posing a challenge to the idea that only "noble" pleasures (like intellectual or virtuous pleasures) are worth choosing, while bodily pleasures (like eating, drinking, or other physical enjoyments) are not. He asks, if we dismiss bodily pleasures as not worth pursuing, then why do we consider their opposites—bodily pains—to be bad? If bodily pleasures aren't good or worth choosing, why should we view the avoidance of bodily pain as important at all? Essentially, he’s pointing out a contradiction: if bodily pain is acknowledged as bad, then bodily pleasure, its opposite, must have some value or goodness.
"For the contrary of bad is good. Are the necessary pleasures good in the sense in which even that which is not bad is good? Or are they good up to a point?"
Aristotle is delving into the relationship between pleasures and their opposites, pains. His reasoning begins with a simple premise: if something is "bad," its opposite must be "good." For example, pain (considered bad) would make its contrary, pleasure, good.
However, he then questions what kind of good pleasures might be. Are "necessary pleasures" (such as those tied to basic needs like food, drink, or rest) universally good? Or are they merely "not bad," meaning they’re neutral or good to an extent—but not inherently praiseworthy? Aristotle raises this tension to prompt the reader to critically consider how pleasures should be evaluated, not just on whether they’re good or bad, but in what way, and to what degree.
He's asking us to reflect on the nature of necessary pleasures: Are they essential and positive in themselves, or only "acceptable" because they fulfill basic human needs?
"Is it that where you have states and processes of which there cannot be too much, there cannot be too much of the corresponding pleasure, and that where there can be too much of the one there can be too much of the other also?"
Aristotle is raising an important question about balance and moderation here. He is examining whether pleasures are directly tied to how much of something can be experienced appropriately. In cases where there are activities or qualities that inherently cannot be overindulged (e.g., perhaps intellectual pursuits or virtuous actions), does it follow that the pleasure associated with them also cannot be excessive? By contrast, in things that can be excessive—like bodily goods (e.g., food, drink, or other physical indulgences)—is it possible to also overdo the pleasure that accompanies them? Aristotle seems to be suggesting a connection between the nature of the activity itself and the limits (or lack of limits) of the pleasure experienced through it.
"Now there can be too much of bodily goods, and the bad man is bad by virtue of pursuing the excess, not by virtue of pursuing the necessary pleasures (for all men enjoy in some way or other both dainty foods and wines and sexual intercourse, but not all men do so as they ought)."
Aristotle is saying that bodily goods—like food, drink, and pleasure from physical experiences—are not inherently bad. Everyone naturally experiences and enjoys these things to some extent, and that's normal and necessary for life. The problem comes with excess. A person isn’t considered bad for simply enjoying these necessary pleasures; they’re bad when they pursue them excessively or inappropriately, beyond what is reasonable or proper. Essentially, enjoying life's physical pleasures in moderation is fine, but being consumed by or indulging too much in them is what leads to moral failings. It’s a matter of balance and self-control.
"The contrary is the case with pain; for he does not avoid the excess of it, he avoids it altogether; and this is peculiar to him, for the alternative to excess of pleasure is not pain, except to the man who pursues this excess."
Aristotle here is pointing out something interesting about how people deal with pain and pleasure. When it comes to pain, a person doesn’t just try to avoid too much pain (the "excess" of it)—they aim to avoid pain entirely. This is a distinctive characteristic of human behavior: unlike with pleasure, people aren’t willing to tolerate even a small amount of pain if they can help it.
On the other hand, with pleasure, the alternative to "too much" isn’t necessarily pain. You can have an absence of excessive pleasure without experiencing pain. However, for someone who overindulges or constantly chases extreme pleasure, anything less than that excess might feel like pain to them, even though it isn’t actually pain. This distinction highlights how our perception of balance between pleasure and pain can get distorted, especially for those overly focused on seeking indulgence.