Book 7 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 3 - Knowledge and Action in Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"Further, since there are two kinds of premisses, there is nothing to prevent a man's having both premisses and acting against his knowledge, provided that he is using only the universal premiss and not the particular; for it is particular acts that have to be done."
Aristotle is diving into the idea of why people might act against what they "know." He explains that when people act contrary to their knowledge, it might be because they are applying a general rule (a universal premise) in their reasoning but failing to apply it to their specific situation (a particular premise).
For example, someone might know the universal rule, like "exercise is good for health," but in a specific moment, they fail to connect this to their immediate situation—such as realizing that today is an opportunity to exercise. They might not think about this particular moment or remind themselves that "this specific workout I could do right now is beneficial." Thus, their failure to act isn't because they lack the knowledge altogether but because they aren't fully engaging with the specific, practical application of it at the moment when it matters.
The key point here is that action happens in the realm of specifics, not just general ideas. So, knowing a general principle isn't always enough to guide behavior if the specific awareness is absent or ignored.
"And there are also two kinds of universal term; one is predicable of the agent, the other of the object; e.g. 'dry food is good for every man', and 'I am a man', or 'such and such food is dry';"
Aristotle is distinguishing between two types of general statements (or universal terms) that can guide reasoning.
1. Agent-related universal: This relates to the person or subject performing the action—things that apply universally to the person. For example: "I am a man" (or, more broadly, "I am a human"). This is a general truth about the individual acting.
2. Object-related universal: This relates to the thing being acted upon—general truths about objects or situations. For example: "Dry food is good for every man" or "such-and-such food is dry." These are universal claims about the objects of action.
Aristotle is saying that these terms describe different parts of the reasoning process. One speaks to the nature of the actor (the person), and the other describes the nature of the circumstances or objects involved. Both are foundational to making decisions, but problems arise when someone doesn't connect these universals to the particular situation they're currently facing.
For example:
- Universal 1 (Agent): "I am a human."
- Universal 2 (Object): "Dry food is good for humans."
But for action to happen, these universals must combine with the particular (the specific details of the immediate situation), like: "This specific food is dry." Without this link, the reasoning remains incomplete, and the person might fail to act appropriately.
"but whether 'this food is such and such', of this the incontinent man either has not or is not exercising the knowledge."
Aristotle is pointing out a crucial element of why people act against their better judgment. He says that someone who acts incontinently (lacking self-control) might either not truly have the knowledge of a specific fact or not be actively using it in the moment of their action.
For instance, someone might know, in a general way, that certain behaviors (like overeating unhealthy food) are bad for their health. However, when faced with a particular choice—like whether this specific food is unhealthy—they either don't fully realize it at that moment ("has not the knowledge") or, even if they do know it intellectually, they're not actively applying that knowledge to their decision ("is not exercising the knowledge"). This failure to connect the universal understanding ("unhealthy food is harmful") with the specific instance ("this cake is unhealthy") leads to their lack of self-control.
"There will, then, be, firstly, an enormous difference between these manners of knowing, so that to know in one way when we act incontinently would not seem anything strange, while to know in the other way would be extraordinary."
Aristotle is emphasizing that there are different ways of "knowing," and this distinction explains why someone might act against their own better judgment. Essentially, it wouldn't be surprising for someone to act incorrectly if their knowledge is incomplete, passive, or not properly applied to their specific situation. However, it would be very strange if a person knowingly and actively used their full understanding of what is right yet still went against it.
He's pointing out that when we act "incontinently" (i.e., losing control and doing what we know is wrong), it's often because we’re not fully applying what we know—especially the particular details of the situation. There’s a difference between having the knowledge but failing to act on it appropriately and actively engaging that knowledge while deliberately choosing to ignore it. The first case makes sense in human behavior; the second feels almost incomprehensible.