Book 7 / Chapter 7
Paragraph 2 - Self-Indulgence and Temperance
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now, since some pleasures are necessary while others are not, and are necessary up to a point while the excesses of them are not, nor the deficiencies, and this is equally true of appetites and pains, the man who pursues the excesses of things pleasant, or pursues to excess necessary objects, and does so by choice, for their own sake and not at all for the sake of any result distinct from them, is self-indulgent; for such a man is of necessity unlikely to repent, and therefore incurable, since a man who cannot repent cannot be cured."
Aristotle is explaining that not all pleasures are the same. Some pleasures are necessary for life (like eating to sustain health), while others are unnecessary (like overindulging in luxury or excessive pleasure). Even necessary pleasures have limits—they're only necessary to a certain degree. Going beyond that, either in excess or deficiency, leads to a lack of balance.
Now, Aristotle highlights the self-indulgent person: this is someone who not only seeks excessive pleasures, but does so deliberately and for the sake of the pleasure itself, not for some greater purpose or need. For instance, someone who eats far more than they need, not because they’re starving, but just for the sheer enjoyment of it. This choice to pursue excess as its own goal makes them "self-indulgent." What's worse is that such a person often won't feel regret or remorse for their behavior, which makes it incredibly hard to "correct" their way of thinking or acting. Aristotle sees this lack of repentance as a type of "incurability," because a person who doesn’t recognize their flaws cannot work toward self-improvement.
Essentially, self-indulgence isn't just about bad habits—it's a deeper issue of morality and decision-making, where the person is fixated on excess without realizing the harm in it.
"The man who is deficient in his pursuit of them is the opposite of self-indulgent; the man who is intermediate is temperate. Similarly, there is the man who avoids bodily pains not because he is defeated by them but by choice."
This part of the text discusses three types of people based on their relationship with pleasures and pains. Aristotle describes:
1. The deficient man: This is someone who doesn't pursue physical pleasures at all or pursues them far too little. This extreme avoidance makes him the opposite of the self-indulgent person, but it's not balanced behavior either—it can reflect an unhealthy lack of engagement with basic human needs or desires.
2. The temperate man: The "intermediate" person strikes a healthy balance. He enjoys necessary pleasures but doesn't chase after them excessively, nor does he avoid them completely. This reflective moderation is the ideal state, as it aligns with self-control and reason.
3. The man who avoids pain by choice: Aristotle introduces a related category here. This person doesn't back away from bodily pain because he is overwhelmed or "defeated" by it (like someone who's weak or soft would). Instead, he avoids pain deliberately, following a conscious choice, which signifies a thoughtful and measured approach rather than a lack of strength or resolve.
The contrast lies between those who are ruled by impulses and pleasures versus those who consciously engage or resist these, guided by rational choice instead of basic instinct.
"(Of those who do not choose such acts, one kind of man is led to them as a result of the pleasure involved, another because he avoids the pain arising from the appetite, so that these types differ from one another."
Aristotle is pointing out that there are two distinct reasons why someone might engage in certain actions related to pleasures and desires, even if they aren't consciously choosing or deliberating about them.
- One type of person acts because they are drawn to the pleasure itself—they are actively chasing the enjoyment or gratification that the act provides.
- The other type acts because they are avoiding the discomfort or pain that comes from denying or suppressing the urge (e.g., hunger or longing).
So even though the outward behavior might look the same, the internal motivations differ: one is pleasure-seeking, and the other is pain-avoiding. This subtle distinction helps Aristotle in classifying different moral and behavioral dispositions.
"Now any one would think worse of a man with no appetite or with weak appetite were he to do something disgraceful, than if he did it under the influence of powerful appetite, and worse of him if he struck a blow not in anger than if he did it in anger; for what would he have done if he had been strongly affected?"
Aristotle is making an interesting moral observation here. He's saying that we tend to judge a person's actions more harshly if they commit a disgraceful or harmful act without being strongly influenced by a powerful appetite or emotion, like anger or desire. If someone strikes another person out of rage, we might excuse it somewhat because their powerful emotion overwhelmed them—it shows a certain loss of control. But if someone strikes another person calmly, without anger, it reflects worse on their character because it suggests their actions are deliberate and not driven by overwhelming passion. Aristotle is posing a kind of rhetorical question here: if someone acts poorly even when their emotional impulses are weak or absent, just imagine what they might do if they were strongly affected by those impulses! In other words, this kind of deliberate action shows deeper moral flaws.
This ties into his broader discussion of self-control and weakness: being able to resist strong emotions or appetites makes us virtuous, but a lack of strong impulses doesn’t automatically make someone virtuous—what really matters is how they act, and why.
"This is why the self-indulgent man is worse than the incontinent.) of the states named, then, the latter is rather a kind of softness; the former is self-indulgence."
Aristotle is making a distinction here between two types of flawed behavior: the self-indulgent person and the incontinent person. The self-indulgent person consciously and willingly chooses to pursue excessive pleasures, fully embracing them without regret or shame. This makes self-indulgence a deeper moral failing because it reflects a deliberate and consistent preference for excess, showing no willingness to change or improve.
On the other hand, the incontinent person seems to lack self-control and might give in to temptation or impulses, but their failure isn't as deliberate. They might act against their better judgment or feel remorse afterward. Aristotle considers this less blameworthy compared to self-indulgence, which stems from a more fixed and intentional state of moral failure.
"While to the incontinent man is opposed the continent, to the soft is opposed the man of endurance; for endurance consists in resisting, while continence consists in conquering, and resisting and conquering are different, as not being beaten is different from winning; this is why continence is also more worthy of choice than endurance."
Aristotle is drawing a distinction between two pairs of opposites—on one side, incontinent vs. continent, and on the other, soft vs. enduring. Here's what he means:
- Incontinent vs. Continent: The incontinent person gives in to their desires or pleasures even when they know they shouldn't, while the continent person is able to conquer those desires. They actively win the internal struggle, doing what is right despite being tempted to act otherwise.
- Soft vs. Enduring: A soft person gives up when faced with pain or discomfort—they can't even manage to resist challenging circumstances. The enduring person, on the other hand, is capable of holding their ground and resisting pain or hardship to maintain their integrity.
The key difference lies in resisting versus conquering:
- Resisting (endurance) is about withstanding the challenge without being overwhelmed.
- Conquering (continence) is about actively overcoming desire and temptation, fully winning the internal battle.
Aristotle notes that conquering (continence) is better or "more worthy of choice" because it represents a more complete mastery of oneself—not just holding out but actively defeating temptation.
"Now the man who is defective in respect of resistance to the things which most men both resist and resist successfully is soft and effeminate; for effeminacy too is a kind of softness; such a man trails his cloak to avoid the pain of lifting it, and plays the invalid without thinking himself wretched, though the man he imitates is a wretched man."
Aristotle is describing a person he considers "soft" or "effeminate" in character. This is not about physical strength or gender but rather a moral and psychological tendency to give in to difficulties or discomforts that most people would endure or overcome. According to Aristotle, a "soft" person avoids even small efforts or pains out of weakness or indulgence, and this avoidance reflects a lack of inner strength.
He gives a specific example to illustrate this idea: a man who drags his cloak behind him because he finds the effort of lifting it too inconvenient. This kind of behavior shows an exaggerated avoidance of minor discomfort. Additionally, such a person might "play the invalid"—pretending to be helpless or overly fragile—without realizing that acting in such a way mirrors the behavior of someone who is truly miserable. In other words, they voluntarily mimic the condition of someone who actually suffers, yet they themselves are not truly suffering. This, to Aristotle, reveals a flawed and undesirable approach to life.
The underlying idea Aristotle is expressing here is that softness comes from a lack of resilience or self-control, especially over the minor inconveniences or pains of life. He sees this as a moral failing because it shows a lack of effort to grow stronger, both in character and in behavior.