Conclusion:
An incontinent man does immoral or reprehensible acts
even though he knows they are immoral or reprehensible because his instinctive
appetite overwhelms his rational knowledge at a particular time.(Bk.VII
pg.102-104)
Premises
I.
It is possible to have knowledge and not
have it at the same time( Bk.VII pg.103)
A.
Although a man may recite what he has
newly learned, it does not mean he fully understands it for that takes time.
B.
Other examples of knowledge that can’t
be put to use are that of sleeping , drunk or a man of strong feeling (Bk.VII pg.103)
II.
General knowledge and particular
knowledge can be at conflict with one another in a given situation.
A. Beliefs
about particulars are controlled by perception.
1. It
is easy for a man to draw a conclusion from his perceptual knowledge and this
belief will cause him to act incontinently. (Bk.VII pg.104).
2. For
a man can look to human nature as to why he acts incontinently (Bk.VII pg.103).
B. Appetite
will favor the particular over the general( Bk. VIIpg.104)
1. A
man’s appetite for sweet things can overcome his universal belief that he
should not have sweet things.
2. When
a man chooses to be taken over by his particular he is going against his knowledge.
III.
No human being fully knows
that something will harm them and still
does it.(implicit)
A. People
who are confident about what they believe are not much different than people
who are confident in what they know.
B. It is inferred of two ways of knowing.
1. There is a person who has knowledge and uses
it
2. There
is a person who has knowledge and does not use it.
IV.
Ways an incontinent man restore his
knowledge.
A. Similar
for a drunk man to restore his knowledge he must become sober , the incontinent
man must do the same( Bk.VII pg. 104)
1. For
if the incontinent man has any knowledge it is not because he knows, but
because he is simply saying he knows, as he speaks in the tone of a drunken man
(Bk.VII pg. 104).
B. Knowing
the difference between being wholly knowledgeable and emotionally (perceptual)
knowledgeable is important.
1.
Incontinence causes a man to act on
perceptual knowledge rather that rational knowledge.
2.
There is the case of know something and
not knowing something as for how it is possible for a man to have knowledge and
still behave as if he has no knowledge or incontinently(Bk.VII pg.104).
V. Rational knowledge is truer than perceptual knowledge (implicit).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion that I got from Shadia and from the book is that an incontinence person without qualification can be self controlled. Enduring what is necessary ie. nourshisment and the normal needs of the bodily source of pleasure.
ReplyDeleteIncontinence with qualification goes beyond reason. Indulging excessively and not rationally which is also explained as a sort of vice. He who acts in the contrary of what is good for the sake of some particular respect or to avoid pains.
A person that does bad because of what affects him vs a person that does bad because he is affected equals real knowledge vs perceptual knowledge
The incontinence person exercise the will to be weak not matter what type of knowlege is in question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know we are not supposed to say this,but very well written. However, I do disagree with premise III. I feel there are humans the "fully" know something will harm them yet still do it. We only need to look at smokers as an example. There are others as well. Drug addicts, BASE jumpers, firefighters, soldiers all know fully well what they do can possibly kill them yet they choose to do it. While some of these activities are more controlled than others, they can all lead to death.
ReplyDeleteplease excuse my typing and grammer. I am trying to write this from my phone.
DeleteI think Shadia is spot on with Premis I and Ia. You see an example of this often with children. Children sing songs they've heard repeatedly on the radio or are taught to recite poems in school. Oft times while they can correctly repeat the words, do not understand the meaning of what they are saying or singing.
ReplyDeleteLike Tommy, I disagree with premise III. Having numerous friends and family who are or have been police, firefighters, and military personnel, my reasoning is the same as his as well. Likewise, with certain sports myself and my kids engage in, rock climbing and gymnastics for example, that come with serious, known physical risks and yet we make the choice to participate.
I think that the line "Although a man may recite what he has newly learned, it does not mean he fully understands it for that takes time" has a lot to do with my feelings about this book from Aristotle. The more I read his work, the more I start to try to relate and understand him. Like Tom and AnnMarie, I disagree with the statement "No human being fully knows that something will harm them and still does it." Drug addicts and smokers know their actions can harm them but still take part in these activities.
ReplyDeleteHello Shadia. You have made a few good points about knowledge. I too believe that a person can possess knowledge but acts as if he has none. To have knowledge and not apply it is useless. Having knowledge is not where power comes from. Power comes from applied knowledge. An incontinent man has knowledge he knows what is right but chooses the latter. Knowledge is not being applied in his life in which he has no power over his excessive desires.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the other that a man will knowingly do things to himself that can cause him harm.
Aristotle suggests that weakness of the will is a case where someone knows something to be bad but does it anyway.He also went on to say that in such a case the person involved knows what he is doing is bad but only in the passive sense.He is not actively attending to that knowledge. Thus the knowledge is a phantom which has no effect on his behaviour. Aristotle further claimed that, in contrast to the self-indulgent man, the man suffering from weakness of the will is not in a state of vice thus he is not blameworthy.I tend to agree with Aristotle's reasoning behind weakness of will. We must remember that we were all born in sin and shaped in iniquity and as much as we try to avoid an activity knowing that it is sinful we continue to sin. Lets face it, its reality.
ReplyDelete