Book 7 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 1 - The Nature of Incontinence and Continence
Explanation - Part By Part
"Of some such kind are the difficulties that arise; some of these points must be refuted and the others left in possession of the field; for the solution of the difficulty is the discovery of the truth."
Aristotle is pointing out that when grappling with complex issues, like understanding incontinence and self-control, some aspects of the argument must be challenged and disproven, while others should be accepted as valid and left as they are. By carefully addressing these points—deciding what to refute and what to accept—we move closer to uncovering the truth. Essentially, the process of solving a problem or answering a difficult question is about sorting through the arguments and finding out what holds up under scrutiny.
"(1) We must consider first, then, whether incontinent people act knowingly or not, and in what sense knowingly;"
Aristotle wants to figure out if people who are incontinent—those who give in to their impulses even when they know they shouldn’t—are doing so knowingly. And if they do act knowingly, what exactly does that mean? Do they fully understand what they’re doing and still fail to resist? Or is there some gap in their understanding? This question is key to understanding their behavior because it dives into the conflict between reason and emotions or desires that drive their actions.
"then (2) with what sorts of object the incontinent and the continent man may be said to be concerned (i.e. whether with any and every pleasure and pain or with certain determinate kinds), and whether the continent man and the man of endurance are the same or different; and similarly with regard to the other matters germane to this inquiry."
Aristotle is diving into the question of what kinds of things specifically the "continent" (self-controlled) and "incontinent" (lacking self-control) people are dealing with. Are they struggling with all types of pleasures and pains, or just certain specific ones? For example, are they equally affected by food, money, fame, or physical comfort? Or is their struggle tied to a particular category, like sensual pleasures (e.g., eating or intimacy)?
He’s also asking whether a "continent person" (one who resists temptation) is the same as a "man of endurance" (someone who can persevere through difficult situations, like pain or hardship), or if these are two distinct types of people. By sorting out these distinctions and clarifying their objects of concern, Aristotle hopes to make his investigation into self-control and moral responsibility clearer.
"The starting-point of our investigation is (a) the question whether the continent man and the incontinent are differentiated by their objects or by their attitude, i.e. whether the incontinent man is incontinent simply by being concerned with such and such objects, or, instead, by his attitude, or, instead of that, by both these things;"
Aristotle begins this investigation by asking a crucial question: What is it that distinguishes a "continent" person (someone who has self-control) from an "incontinent" person (someone who lacks it)? Is the difference about the things they are focused on (their "objects"), or is it about their attitude—the way they approach or respond to those things? Or maybe it's a combination of both?
In other words, Aristotle is probing whether incontinence (a lack of self-control) arises purely because of the specific desires or temptations someone faces (e.g., certain pleasures), or if it’s more about the way the person reacts to these temptations (their internal struggle and choices). This question shapes the foundation for understanding the nature of self-mastery and weakness.
"(b) the second question is whether incontinence and continence are concerned with any and every object or not."
Aristotle is asking whether incontinence (a lack of self-control) and continence (self-control) apply to every situation or type of experience, or if they are limited to specific kinds of objects or desires. In other words, do these traits show up in response to any and all pleasures and pains—or are they tied to certain, more specific things like physical pleasures, emotional temptations, or intellectual struggles? By addressing this, Aristotle aims to better define the nature of self-control and its absence.
"The man who is incontinent in the unqualified sense is neither concerned with any and every object, but with precisely those with which the self-indulgent man is concerned, nor is he characterized by being simply related to these (for then his state would be the same as self-indulgence), but by being related to them in a certain way."
Aristotle is making a distinction between the "incontinent" person (someone who lacks self-control) and the "self-indulgent" person (someone who actively chooses to pursue excessive pleasure). The incontinent person does not lack self-control in every aspect of life—their struggle is specifically tied to certain desires, particularly the kinds of desires that self-indulgent people also focus on, like pleasures of the body (e.g., food, drink, sex). However, the incontinent person is not identical to the self-indulgent one because their relationship to these pleasures differs.
Here’s the key difference: the self-indulgent person knowingly and deliberately chooses to chase after pleasure, believing it is the right thing to do. In contrast, the incontinent person knows that they shouldn’t act on their desires but gives in to them anyway, despite their better judgment. This distinction is essential—one acts with intent, while the other acts against their own reasoning.
"For the one is led on in accordance with his own choice, thinking that he ought always to pursue the present pleasure; while the other does not think so, but yet pursues it."
This part contrasts two types of people who engage with pleasures but differ fundamentally in how and why they do so. One person, the self-indulgent individual, consciously chooses to chase after immediate pleasures because they genuinely believe it is the right thing to do—they've rationalized that satisfying their desires in the moment is a good or proper course of action. Their pursuit is deliberate, stemming from a belief system or choice.
On the other hand, the incontinent person also pursues these immediate pleasures but doesn't believe they should. They know better—they understand that indulging in the moment's temptation might not be the right or rational thing to do—but they still give in. This reveals a conflict between their knowledge or reason and their actions. The self-indulgent person acts according to their principles, even if flawed, while the incontinent person acts against their better judgment, driven instead by weakness or lack of self-control.
In short: one acts out of conviction, while the other acts out of inner turmoil or inconsistency.