Book 7 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 2 - The Relationship Between Knowledge, Opinion, and Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"As for the suggestion that it is true opinion and not knowledge against which we act incontinently, that makes no difference to the argument; for some people when in a state of opinion do not hesitate, but think they know exactly."
Aristotle is responding to the idea that when someone acts "incontinently" (giving in to impulses or desires against their better judgment), it's not because they are going against actual knowledge, but merely against a "true opinion" they hold. He argues that this distinction doesn't really matter for his discussion because some people treat their opinion with as much certainty as others treat knowledge. In other words, even if someone thinks they know something (even if it's just an opinion, not knowledge), they can still act against it when their impulses override their judgment.
He’s emphasizing that the issue isn't about whether it's knowledge or opinion—it’s that people, whether acting on belief or fact, sometimes lose control and act contrary to what they rationally think is right.
"If, then, the notion is that owing to their weak conviction those who have opinion are more likely to act against their judgement than those who know, we answer that there need be no difference between knowledge and opinion in this respect; for some men are no less convinced of what they think than others of what they know; as is shown by the of Heraclitus."
In this part, Aristotle is questioning the perceived difference between acting against one's judgment based on opinion versus knowledge. He addresses the belief that people are more likely to go against their own judgment when it is based on opinion (because opinions are seen as weaker and less certain) compared to when it is based on knowledge. Aristotle challenges this assumption. He argues that there is not necessarily a dividing line between the strength of conviction tied to opinion and the strength of conviction tied to knowledge. In fact, some people may hold their opinions with just as much certainty as others hold their knowledge.
He uses the example of Heraclitus' followers (even though the phrase is partially cut off in the text). This likely refers to their famously strong and unwavering commitment to their ideas, despite those ideas being contentious or not grounded in universally accepted knowledge. The point is that merely calling something "opinion" or "knowledge" doesn't automatically determine how convinced a person is or whether they're prone to act against it.
"But (a), since we use the word 'know' in two senses (for both the man who has knowledge but is not using it and he who is using it are said to know), it will make a difference whether, when a man does what he should not, he has the knowledge but is not exercising it, or is exercising it; for the latter seems strange, but not the former."
Aristotle is pointing out a key idea about knowledge and how it is used (or not used) in decision-making. He notes that the word "know" can be understood in two ways:
1. Having knowledge but not using it: This happens when someone possesses information or understanding about what is right or wrong but isn't actively applying it in the moment. For example, a person might know that eating too much junk food is unhealthy, but they might not be actively thinking about this knowledge when they grab a bag of chips.
2. Actively using knowledge: This refers to when someone consciously applies their understanding to a situation. In the same example, a person might recall and keep reminding themselves that junk food is unhealthy.
The distinction matters because Aristotle says it’s less surprising (and more understandable) when someone acts against their better judgment in the first case—when the knowledge is present but not actively being considered. It’s as if the knowledge is "dormant" in that moment.
On the other hand, it seems strange if someone is actively thinking about the knowledge (using it consciously) and still decides to go against it. If you know and are fully aware that something is wrong, deliberately ignoring it feels irrational, almost unnatural.
In short, Aristotle's focus here is to explore this difference, as it helps to understand why people can act against what they "know" to be right.