Book 7 / Chapter 8
Paragraph 1 - Self-Indulgence vs. Incontinence
Explanation - Part By Part
"The self-indulgent man, as was said, is not apt to repent; for he stands by his choice; but incontinent man is likely to repent."
This part explains a key difference between a self-indulgent person and an incontinent person. A self-indulgent person doesn’t feel regret or remorse for their actions because they consciously and willingly choose their path, fully embracing their desires and the decisions tied to them. In contrast, an incontinent person often experiences regret because, even though they know what the right choice is, they fail to act on it due to being overpowered by their emotions or desires. Thus, the incontinent person is more likely to reflect on their actions and feel sorry for not doing what they knew was right.
"This is why the position is not as it was expressed in the formulation of the problem, but the selfindulgent man is incurable and the incontinent man curable; for wickedness is like a disease such as dropsy or consumption, while incontinence is like epilepsy; the former is a permanent, the latter an intermittent badness."
Aristotle is comparing two types of flawed behavior: self-indulgence (wickedness) and incontinence (lack of self-control). He argues that self-indulgence is "incurable," meaning it’s deeply ingrained in a person’s character, like a chronic illness such as dropsy or tuberculosis (illnesses he mentions to represent long-term, ongoing conditions). In contrast, incontinence is "curable" because it’s more like epilepsy—a condition that comes and goes. This means that while a self-indulgent person has fully embraced their bad choices and does not see them as wrong, an incontinent person struggles with their actions, indicating that change or improvement is possible.
"And generally incontinence and vice are different in kind; vice is unconscious of itself, incontinence is not (of incontinent men themselves, those who become temporarily beside themselves are better than those who have the rational principle but do not abide by it, since the latter are defeated by a weaker passion, and do not act without previous deliberation like the others); for the incontinent man is like the people who get drunk quickly and on little wine, i.e. on less than most people."
Aristotle is drawing a distinction between two types of moral weaknesses: incontinence (the inability to control oneself despite knowing better) and vice (a deeper moral corruption). He explains that these two states are fundamentally different.
- Vice is unconscious of itself: A person who is "vicious" does not realize or believe they are doing wrong. Their bad behavior comes from a deeply ingrained character flaw or habit, and they don't feel regret for their actions because they see their choices as right or justified.
- Incontinence, on the other hand, is self-aware: An incontinent person knows that what they're doing is wrong but gives in to their desires or impulses anyway. This self-awareness means they are capable of recognizing their failure and likely to feel regret afterward.
Aristotle then makes a distinction within incontinent people:
1. Those who act without thinking, overtaken by strong impulses, are actually better off. They temporarily lose control ("become temporarily beside themselves"), but they are more impulsive than deeply flawed.
2. Conversely, those who deliberate and still fail—meaning they consciously choose to give in to their desires despite knowing it's wrong—are in a worse position. They are defeated by weaker emotions or passions, which makes their moral failure more embarrassing because it stems from a lack of discipline rather than overwhelming force.
Lastly, Aristotle compares this to getting drunk quickly on very little wine: the incontinent person who succumbs easily shows that their "moral strength" is fragile. Even a small temptation or impulse is enough to overwhelm their reason or self-control.