Book 7 / Chapter 7
Paragraph 3 - The Nature of Continence and Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"The case is similar with regard to continence and incontinence. For if a man is defeated by violent and excessive pleasures or pains, there is nothing wonderful in that; indeed we are ready to pardon him if he has resisted."
Here, Aristotle is addressing the concepts of continence (self-control) and incontinence (lack of self-control). He starts by saying that if someone gives in to overwhelming or extreme pleasures or pains—those that are intense and difficult to endure—it isn't shocking or unexpected. After all, these strong forces can overpower even a determined person. In such cases, people are often willing to forgive the person, especially if they made an effort to resist before giving in. Essentially, succumbing to something extraordinarily difficult is seen as a more understandable human failing.
"As Theodectes' Philoctetes does when bitten by the snake, or Carcinus' Cercyon in the Alope, and as people who try to restrain their laughter burst out into a guffaw, as happened to Xenophantus."
Aristotle refers to examples from plays and stories likely familiar to his audience at the time. Here, he brings up Theodectes' Philoctetes being bitten by a snake, Carcinus' Cercyon in Alope, and even an example of people laughing uncontrollably despite trying to hold it in, such as Xenophantus. These references illustrate moments where individuals lose control due to powerful external or internal forces.
The underlying point is that it’s natural and understandable for humans to reach a breaking point when confronted with overwhelming pain or pleasure—like a snakebite or the urge to laugh—but it’s less acceptable if someone gives in to minor or manageable challenges, especially if most others can successfully resist under the same circumstances. This highlights the difference between understandable human limits and true weakness of character.
"But it is surprising if a man is defeated by and cannot resist pleasures or pains which most men can hold out against, when this is not due to heredity or disease."
Aristotle is pointing out that it is particularly surprising and troubling when someone succumbs to pleasures or pains that the majority of people are able to endure. To him, this lack of self-control or strength is notable because it cannot be explained by unavoidable factors like genetics, upbringing, or illness. In other words, if there isn’t a deeper, external reason for this weakness and it's merely due to a personal failing, it becomes unexpected and raises questions about the individual's character or discipline. The emphasis here is on the avoidable nature of this kind of weakness—which makes it stand out as a flaw in moral strength.
"Like the softness that is hereditary with the kings of the Scythians, or that which distinguishes the female sex from the male."
Aristotle is making a distinction between types of "softness" or lack of resilience. He acknowledges certain forms of "softness" as inherent or natural due to factors like heredity or biology. For example, he references the historical idea that some groups, such as the kings of the Scythians, were thought to inherit a kind of softness or weakness. Similarly, he refers to the stereotypical belief of his time that women were inherently "softer" or less resilient than men.
This is reflective of the cultural and societal views of Aristotle’s era, where such distinctions between sexes or hereditary traits were often generalized. Of course, modern understanding would reject such essentialist or stereotypical views about gender and inherited traits, emphasizing individual variation instead.