Book 7 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 4 - Incontinence and the Influence of Passions
Explanation - Part By Part
"And further (c) the possession of knowledge in another sense than those just named is something that happens to men; for within the case of having knowledge but not using it we see a difference of state, admitting of the possibility of having knowledge in a sense and yet not having it, as in the instance of a man asleep, mad, or drunk."
Aristotle is saying here that there is another way we can "possess knowledge," but not actively use it. Sometimes, people might have knowledge in their minds but fail to apply it because their mental or physical state prevents them from doing so. He uses examples like being asleep, mad, or drunk to illustrate this. In these states, a person still "has" knowledge somewhere within them but isn't in a position to use it rationally or effectively. This highlights how knowledge isn't always immediately accessible or functional depending on one's condition.
"But now this is just the condition of men under the influence of passions; for outbursts of anger and sexual appetites and some other such passions, it is evident, actually alter our bodily condition, and in some men even produce fits of madness. It is plain, then, that incontinent people must be said to be in a similar condition to men asleep, mad, or drunk."
Aristotle is saying here that people who act incontinently (meaning they act on their impulses or desires without self-control, even when they "know better") are in a state similar to people who are asleep, mad, or drunk. Why? Because strong emotions or passions—like anger or sexual desire—can physically and mentally affect us. These passions can throw us off balance, distorting how we think and act, almost as if our reason is temporarily "shut down." Just like someone who is drunk or mad, those driven by overpowering passion lose their usual clarity of judgment and self-control.
"The fact that men use the language that flows from knowledge proves nothing; for even men under the influence of these passions utter scientific proofs and verses of Empedocles, and those who have just begun to learn a science can string together its phrases, but do not yet know it; for it has to become part of themselves, and that takes time; so that we must suppose that the use of language by men in an incontinent state means no more than its utterance by actors on the stage."
In this part, Aristotle is explaining that just because someone can say something that reflects knowledge, it doesn’t necessarily mean they truly know or fully embody that knowledge. For example, even when people are overwhelmed by strong emotions or desires (like anger or lust), they might still be able to recite intellectual facts, scientific theories, or even quote poetry. However, this kind of "knowledge" is superficial; it hasn’t become deeply ingrained in them or integrated into their behavior. It’s like someone who has memorized terms from a science class but hasn’t yet internalized the meaning or mastered how to apply them.
He compares this to actors on a stage: actors might deliver lines that sound knowledgeable or wise, but they’re merely performing—they don’t necessarily believe or understand what they’re saying. This highlights the gap between saying the right things and acting on the right knowledge. For Aristotle, true knowledge requires practice and time for it to fully become part of you, guiding your actions consistently, even when passions or emotions are intense.
"(d) Again, we may also view the cause as follows with reference to the facts of human nature. The one opinion is universal, the other is concerned with the particular facts, and here we come to something within the sphere of perception; when a single opinion results from the two, the soul must in one type of case affirm the conclusion, while in the case of opinions concerned with production it must immediately act (e.g. if 'everything sweet ought to be tasted', and 'this is sweet', in the sense of being one of the particular sweet things, the man who can act and is not prevented must at the same time actually act accordingly)."
Aristotle is explaining how human reasoning works and how it leads to action. He states that our reasoning involves two types of judgments or "opinions":
1. Universal opinions: These are broad, general principles or rules. For instance, "Everything sweet ought to be tasted." This is a universal statement that applies to any situation involving sweet things.
2. Particular opinions: These are perceptions or judgments tied to specific, concrete situations. For example, "This particular thing is sweet."
When you combine these two types of opinions—taking the universal rule and applying it to a specific case—your mind reaches a conclusion. Depending on the type of reasoning involved, this process can lead to immediate action. For instance, if you believe all sweet things should be tasted (universal) and you recognize that this specific food is sweet (particular), your mind concludes, "I should taste this now." In such cases, if nothing prevents you, you will act accordingly and taste the sweet food.
Aristotle is emphasizing that reasoning isn't just about forming principles; it's about how we apply those principles to real-world situations. This link between thought and action happens naturally as our minds combine abstract rules with practical examples.
"When, then, the universal opinion is present in us forbidding us to taste, and there is also the opinion that 'everything sweet is pleasant', and that 'this is sweet' (now this is the opinion that is active), and when appetite happens to be present in us, the one opinion bids us avoid the object, but appetite leads us towards it (for it can move each of our bodily parts); so that it turns out that a man behaves incontinently under the influence (in a sense) of a rule and an opinion, and of one not contrary in itself, but only incidentally-for the appetite is contrary, not the opinion-to the right rule."
Aristotle is explaining why people often act against what they know to be the right thing to do, even when they clearly understand the rule or principle they should follow. Here's how it works:
Imagine someone knows a "universal opinion"—a general rule—like "I shouldn’t always eat sweet things because it’s bad for my health." This principle tells them to avoid sweets. But at the same time, they also hold another opinion: "Sweet things taste good!" Now, when they're faced with a specific situation, like seeing a piece of cake, their senses and desires (appetite) kick in and activate the second opinion: "This cake is sweet and I want it."
What happens next is a tug-of-war. The rational, universal opinion tells them to avoid it, but their appetite (driven by that second opinion) pushes them toward eating the cake. The result? They act against the better judgment of their rational mind. They give in to their desire, which "moves" their body to act—like picking up the cake and eating it.
Here’s the key point: it’s not that the two opinions (universal and particular) directly contradict each other in a logical sense. The universal says, "Avoid sweets," while the appetite-driven opinion simply says, "This sweet thing is pleasant." The conflict lies in the person's appetite, which overrides their intellectual decision-making. This is how someone ends up behaving incontinently (lacking self-control): their physical desire leads them to act against the universal principle they intellectually agree with.
"It also follows that this is the reason why the lower animals are not incontinent, viz. because they have no universal judgement but only imagination and memory of particulars."
In this part, Aristotle is explaining why animals cannot be described as "incontinent" (lacking self-control) in the same way humans can. The key idea is that animals do not have the ability to form universal judgements—abstract, overarching principles like, "One should avoid overeating because it's unhealthy." Instead, animals operate based on immediate particulars (specific situations they encounter), relying on imagination and memory tied to their experiences, rather than reasoning through general ideas.
For example, a dog doesn't overeat because it reasons, "Eating too much is bad for my long-term health." It might eat or stop eating based on instinct, past experiences, or immediate perceptions ("This smells good," or "I'm full"). Because animals lack this higher level of abstract thinking, they cannot struggle with the kind of conflict between universal principles and desires that humans face. This internal conflict—where someone knows a universal rule but violates it due to appetite or emotion—is what characterizes human incontinence and sets it apart.