Book 7 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 5 - The Resolution of Ignorance and Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"The explanation of how the ignorance is dissolved and the incontinent man regains his knowledge, is the same as in the case of the man drunk or asleep and is not peculiar to this condition; we must go to the students of natural science for it."
In this part, Aristotle is explaining that when a person who is incontinent (lacking self-control) regains their awareness or knowledge, the process is similar to what happens when a person wakes up from sleep or sobers up from being drunk. Essentially, this kind of "ignorance" or loss of practical awareness—like when passion or strong emotions take over someone's judgment—is temporary. The "return" to knowledge is not unique to incontinence but follows general principles of how humans regain clarity when the obstructing condition (like being asleep, drunk, or overwhelmed by emotion) resolves. He hints that understanding this deeper, physiological or natural process is a job for those studying natural sciences or biology, not necessarily philosophy.
"Now, the last premiss both being an opinion about a perceptible object, and being what determines our actions this a man either has not when he is in the state of passion, or has it in the sense in which having knowledge did not mean knowing but only talking, as a drunken man may utter the verses of Empedocles."
Aristotle is explaining that when someone is overtaken by strong emotions or passions, they may lose access to a certain kind of practical knowledge that directly influences their actions. This loss isn't necessarily because they don't know the truth in a deeper sense, but because their state of passion disrupts the way they apply or act upon that knowledge. He compares this to how a drunken person might be able to recite something they memorized, like the verses of the poet Empedocles, without truly understanding or being in full control of what they are saying. Essentially, knowing something in theory and acting on it in practice are not always the same, especially when emotions interfere.
"And because the last term is not universal nor equally an object of scientific knowledge with the universal term, the position that Socrates sought to establish actually seems to result; for it is not in the presence of what is thought to be knowledge proper that the affection of incontinence arises (nor is it this that is 'dragged about' as a result of the state of passion), but in that of perceptual knowledge."
This part of the text is addressing the idea that when someone acts incontinently (that is, against their better judgment, driven by impulses or emotions), it does not happen because they lack universal knowledge (the broader, rational understanding of right and wrong). Instead, their behavior stems from their failure to properly apply what they perceive in a specific situation—what Aristotle calls "perceptual knowledge."
Here’s the key distinction:
- Universal knowledge refers to overarching principles, like "Excess sugar is unhealthy" or "One should act with self-control."
- Perceptual knowledge is tied to a specific situation. For example, "This specific piece of cake in front of me is sugary and unhealthy."
Aristotle is saying that incontinence doesn't come from a failure of universal reasoning—people still intellectually know the general principles of what is good or bad. Instead, the problem occurs in the realm of perceptual knowledge—the person doesn't fully grasp or internalize the specific situation they are in right now. Emotions or appetites cloud their judgment, making it harder to act in accord with their universal knowledge.
This illustrates Socrates's insight (which Aristotle is referencing): People don't act impulsively because they outright lack "knowledge" or understanding but because they fail to apply it properly in the heat of the moment. It’s a failure to bridge the gap between knowing the universal truth and recognizing how it applies to immediate choices.
"This must suffice as our answer to the question of action with and without knowledge, and how it is possible to behave incontinently with knowledge."
Aristotle is concluding his examination of how people can act against their better judgment (incontinence) while still possessing knowledge. He argues that this apparent contradiction can be explained through the distinction between different types of knowledge. When people act incontinently, it’s not because they lack universal knowledge (broad, principled truths) but because, in a state of passion or strong emotion, they fail to properly apply practical or perceptual knowledge (specific, situational awareness) to their actions.
In essence, when someone knows what’s right but doesn’t follow through, it’s not about forgetting or discarding their moral principles. Instead, their emotions or desires temporarily cloud their ability to act on what they know, similar to being drunk or asleep. Their higher knowledge is present but not actively guiding them. This, Aristotle suggests, should settle the question of how a person can act against their better judgment while still "having knowledge."