Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle
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 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. 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.
Evidently, then, incontinence is not vice (though perhaps it is so in a qualified sense); for incontinence is contrary to choice while vice is in accordance with choice; not but what they are similar in respect of the actions they lead to; as in the saying of Demodocus about the Milesians, ‘the Milesians are not without sense, but they do the things that senseless people do’, so too incontinent people are not criminal, but they will do criminal acts.
Now, since the incontinent man is apt to pursue, not on conviction, bodily pleasures that are excessive and contrary to the right rule, while the self-indulgent man is convinced because he is the sort of man to pursue them, it is on the contrary the former that is easily persuaded to change his mind, while the latter is not. For virtue and vice respectively preserve and destroy the first principle, and in actions the final cause is the first principle, as the hypotheses are in mathematics; neither in that case is it argument that teaches the first principles, nor is it so here-virtue either natural or produced by habituation is what teaches right opinion about the first principle. Such a man as this, then, is temperate; his contrary is the self-indulgent.
But there is a sort of man who is carried away as a result of passion and contrary to the right rule-a man whom passion masters so that he does not act according to the right rule, but does not master to the extent of making him ready to believe that he ought to pursue such pleasures without reserve; this is the incontinent man, who is better than the self-indulgent man, and not bad without qualification; for the best thing in him, the first principle, is preserved. And contrary to him is another kind of man, he who abides by his convictions and is not carried away, at least as a result of passion. It is evident from these considerations that the latter is a good state and the former a bad one.