Book 7 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 1 - The Disgrace of Incontinence: Anger vs. Appetite
Explanation - Part By Part
"That incontinence in respect of anger is less disgraceful than that in respect of the appetites is what we will now proceed to see."
Aristotle is starting by stating that losing control over one's anger (incontinence in respect of anger) is less shameful or disgraceful than losing control over one's physical desires or appetites (like cravings for pleasure or indulgence). He’s essentially setting the stage to explain why losing one's temper is not as morally problematic as giving in to base urges or desires without restraint.
"Anger seems to listen to argument to some extent, but to mishear it, as do hasty servants who run out before they have heard the whole of what one says, and then muddle the order, or as dogs bark if there is but a knock at the door, before looking to see if it is a friend; so anger by reason of the warmth and hastiness of its nature, though it hears, does not hear an order, and springs to take revenge."
Aristotle is describing how anger reacts impulsively in a way that partially acknowledges reason but doesn't fully process it. He likens anger to a servant who hears only part of a command and rushes to act before understanding the whole instruction, or to a dog that barks as soon as it hears a knock at the door, without checking whether the visitor is a threat or a friend. The core idea is that anger responds quickly and passionately, based on an incomplete understanding of a situation—it "listens" to reason only enough to know that something might require a response, but it doesn't pause long enough to determine the full context or the proper course of action. This impulsivity is tied to the heated and impatient nature of anger itself.
"For argument or imagination informs us that we have been insulted or slighted, and anger, reasoning as it were that anything like this must be fought against, boils up straightway; while appetite, if argument or perception merely says that an object is pleasant, springs to the enjoyment of it."
Aristotle is making a comparison between the way anger and appetite respond to our thoughts or perceptions. He explains that anger is triggered when we interpret that we’ve been insulted, disrespected, or slighted. This interpretation—whether formed through reasoning or imagination—makes anger react as though it’s justified to fight back or seek revenge. Essentially, anger acts quickly, like a reflex, based on this perceived insult.
On the other hand, appetite (our cravings or desires for pleasure) doesn’t need such a moral justification or reasoning. Appetite is simply drawn to something that is perceived as pleasurable or enjoyable, and it immediately moves toward fulfilling that craving with little thought or higher reasoning involved.
So, while anger boils up because it "thinks" it has a reason (even if it misunderstands the situation), appetite doesn’t even bother with reasoning—it just chases after pleasure. This distinction sets up Aristotle's later argument about why anger might be seen as slightly less disgraceful than unchecked desire.
"Therefore anger obeys the argument in a sense, but appetite does not. It is therefore more disgraceful; for the man who is incontinent in respect of anger is in a sense conquered by argument, while the other is conquered by appetite and not by argument."
Aristotle is comparing two types of loss of self-control (or incontinence): one related to anger and one related to physical desires or appetites. He argues that incontinence caused by appetites (like lust or gluttony) is more disgraceful than that caused by anger, and here’s why:
Anger, despite being impulsive and rash, still has some form of connection to reason. When a person gets angry, it’s often because they believe—whether correctly or incorrectly—that some offense or injustice has occurred. In that sense, anger "listens" to reason but reacts too quickly and irrationally, like someone getting half the story and storming off before fully understanding the situation.
In contrast, appetites like hunger, lust, or the craving for pleasure don't "listen" to reason at all. They bypass rationality altogether and act purely on base urges. When someone is overcome by appetite, it means they are entirely ruled by their desires, which Aristotle sees as a more shameful failure than mismanaging one's response to an offense. Being ruled entirely by raw cravings makes a person seem more out of control than someone who is at least attempting (even if poorly) to respond morally to a perceived slight.