Book 7 / Chapter 4
Paragraph 2 - The Distinction Between Necessary and Non-Necessary Pleasures
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now of the things that produce pleasure some are necessary, while others are worthy of choice in themselves but admit of excess, the bodily causes of pleasure being necessary (by such I mean both those concerned with food and those concerned with sexual intercourse, i.e. the bodily matters with which we defined self-indulgence and temperance as being concerned), while the others are not necessary but worthy of choice in themselves (e.g. victory, honour, wealth, and good and pleasant things of this sort)."
Aristotle is making a distinction between two types of pleasures. Some pleasures are necessary for life and survival, such as those related to basic bodily needs like eating and reproduction. These are the kinds of pleasures tied to physical existence, and they are the focus when discussing virtues like self-control (temperance) or the lack of it (self-indulgence).
On the other hand, there are pleasures that are not necessary for survival but are still considered desirable or "worthy of choice" because of the value they hold in themselves. Examples of these include achievements like victory, being honored by others, gaining wealth, or experiencing generally "good and pleasant" things that enhance one's life. These pleasures are seen as good in their own right but can become problematic if pursued to excess, losing their harmony with what's reasonable or virtuous. Essentially, he's showing that not all pleasures are equal and that their nature determines how they relate to our moral character.
"This being so, (a) those who go to excess with reference to the latter, contrary to the right rule which is in themselves, are not called incontinent simply, but incontinent with the qualification 'in respect of money, gain, honour, or anger',-not simply incontinent, on the ground that they are different from incontinent people and are called incontinent by reason of a resemblance."
Aristotle is distinguishing between different kinds of "incontinence" (i.e., lack of self-control). He explains that people who go overboard with things like money, ambition, honor, or anger are not just called "incontinent" in a general sense. Instead, they are described as incontinent in relation to a specific area—for example, "incontinent with regard to money" or "incontinent with regard to anger." This is because their lack of self-control is focused on a particular aspect of life and is not the same as the broader, fundamental incontinence that deals with physical pleasures and is tied to moral character. So, their behavior is only somewhat similar to what Aristotle considers true incontinence.
"(Compare the case of Anthropos (Man), who won a contest at the Olympic games; in his case the general definition of man differed little from the definition peculiar to him, but yet it was different.)"
This part is an analogy Aristotle uses to clarify the distinction between general and specific cases. He refers to Anthropos, a man who won a contest in the Olympic games. The general definition of "man" includes all human beings, but there is a slight distinction when applied to a specific individual like this victorious athlete. While Anthropos is still "a man" in the broader sense, his specific identity as "the man who won at the Olympics" sets him apart in a unique way.
Aristotle uses this comparison to explore how we categorize traits, such as "incontinence." Just as the definition of "man" can vary slightly when applied to a particular person, the concept of being "incontinent" changes depending on whether it's considered in the general sense or in specific contexts (e.g., incontinence regarding money, anger, or other non-bodily pleasures). The key point is that general and specific definitions are related but not entirely identical.
"This is shown by the fact that incontinence either without qualification or in respect of some particular bodily pleasure is blamed not only as a fault but as a kind of vice, while none of the people who are incontinent in these other respects is so blamed."
Here, Aristotle is pointing out a key distinction in how society judges various types of lack of self-control, or "incontinence." He argues that being incontinent, or unable to control oneself, when it comes to bodily pleasures (like overindulgence in food, drink, or sex) is not just seen as a personal flaw but as a deeper moral failing—a vice. This is because these types of pleasures are closely tied to our physical nature and basic instincts, which carry a sense of immediacy and necessity.
In contrast, losing control in other areas, such as with money, ambition, or anger, while still a problem, doesn't carry the same moral weight. People might recognize it as poor behavior, but it's not condemned as a vice in the same way. This difference in judgment reflects the deeper, culturally ingrained sense that bodily pleasures are more fundamental and therefore require greater self-discipline to manage responsibly.