Incontinence Book Seven; 1-10

Aristotle’s main goal in his seventh book of Nicomachean Ethics is to discuss the idea of incontinence. Before we can discuss incontinence, we first must understand what Aristotle’s idea of incontinence entails. In Aristotle’s definition, “ an incontinence person knows that his actions are base, but does them because of his feelings.” Essentially, Aristotle is saying that an incontinent person is someone who knows what is right and good for them, but they fail to do the good. The failure to do this good is usually the result of their appetites and pleasures.

In the text Aristotle gives the reader the important distinction between intemperance and incontinence. The main difference between these two terms is that the intemperate person has come to a decision and policy of pursuing the bodily pleasure before him, while someone who is incontinence does not make that same decision. Aristotle later goes on to say that intemperance is worse than incontinence because an intemperate person is not prone to regret, while an incontinent person regrets their actions. We next move to the distinction between spirit incontinence and appetite incontinence. Incontinence of spirit is because of the spirit’s natural “hot and hastiness”. In other words, when we act because of spirit it is that we have a belief that we are acting in the right, and we are not being motivated by pleasure in pain. In the instance of appetite incontinence, we are acting purely because of a reason or perception that something will be pleasant, and we rush off to savor the resultant gratification of that action. Aristotle considers the idea of spiritual incontinence a much more innocent form because we are acting in what we think is right, instead of looking for an instance gratification.

Not only does Aristotle make this distinction, he also makes the important distinction between different types of incontinent people. Two types of incontinent people that Aristotle mentions are those with impetuosity and those with weakness. After much debate, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that the ones whose temper is quick to flare, the impetuous, are a better type than of incontinent than the weak. Since the impetuous are lead on by feelings and do not have time to deliberate, while the weak person deliberates but then his feelings make him abandon his deliberation, Aristotle finds the impetuous are more acceptable type of incontinence. Even though he considers one type of incontinence better than the other, he still thinks that incontinence is something that is curable by deliberation, whereas an intemperate person is incurable.

In many of Aristotle’s points, I must say that I agree with his statements throughout the text. One of the better points I think he makes concerns the idea of incontinence of spirit and the incontinence of appetite. When humans act out of spirit, we are usually trying to do what we believe has some form of rightness, while on the other hand when we act out of appetite we are mostly being moved by pain or pleasure. Though they are both types of incontinence, the incontinence of spirit is a more human reaction, while appetite is more of a bestial type of incontinence.

Aristotle’s point that a person burdened with impetuosity is a more acceptable type of incontinent is quite valid. Those that are the impetuous types can learn to control their incontinence by giving thought to what they say or do before acting. In the case of the person burdened with weakness these types of people have already deliberated but then their inability to act on their deliberations and a deference to baser needs causes a much more difficult problem to overcome. It is far easier for an impetuous person to change their ways than someone who carries the burden of weakness. Since these are just my extrapolations based on the text, I am interested to see what anyone else thought of what Aristotle said about these issues. I would appreciate any comments.