Analyze Aristotle's understanding of the incontinent man. Be sure to tell me how his actions relate to knowledge and desire. Furthermore, do you agree with Aristotle or Socrates on the question of whether incontinent action is even possible. In other words if you had true knowledge of the good could you act counter to that knowledge?
See you tomorrow,
Dr. Layne
For Aristotle, the incontinent man abandons rational calculation and bases his actions on his feelings. In other words, he gives in to the appetitive part of the tripartite soul. The debatable question is whether a person can knowingly act incontinently. Socrates opposes this view; instead he suggests that people proceed out of belief when they act in a way that does not align with the good. Aristotle opposes Socrates’ view. He states that an intelligent man acts out of knowledge, but can still act disproportionate to the good. I think that a person can have true knowledge of the good and act counter to that knowledge. This is because we prioritize the value of actions. If we give into our pleasures, then we can be caught up in belief, and purposely avoid the good.
ReplyDeleteAristotle says, "The incontinent person knows that his actions are base, but does them because of his feelings..." The incontinent person bases his actions on his own desires without any knowledge of the good. Socrates opposes this view. He believes there is no such thing as an incontinent person because everyone is knowledgable of their actions. Even the "incontinent" person, before he acts, thinks about what he should do before he eventually does it. Aristotle, on the other hand, says intelligent people can act incontinently. They can have true knowledge of the good, though it may be wrong, and still do it due to their own desires or wants.
ReplyDeleteAristotle basically generalizes those who "choose [to do], instead of things they themselves think good, things that are pleasant but hurtful" as "incontinent people" throughout the Nicomachaen Ethics. It seems like he establishes this definition to emphasize the necessity in mastering rational decision-making, since "pleasant" pursuits, as well as ignoring one's natural rational continence, are directly in opposition to what Aristotle posits about what it means to be "human." In this position, he also shakes the foundation of Socrates' argument over decision-making, specifically stating that decisions are not always deliberate and that no one is constantly "knowledgeable" of their actions. Though this creates a necessity for some sort of objective "good" at which continent people direct their decisions, and also against which incontinent people act, Aristotle ingeniously explains this away by describing our actions as ends within themselves, rather than just as means to ends. And by explaining that man's "good" is rationality, he creates a subjective ethics with an objective good and bad: namely continence and incontinence.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's view of the incontinent man is one who doesn't make his decisions based on reason, but instead uses his feelings to determine what he will choose to do. Socrates feels as though people this is untrue because at the end of the day people will still be aware of their actions and acknowledge them even if they are based on feelings or reason. Aristotle's viewpoint on the matter is that people can also make intelligible decisions that are incontinent because even though they use reason they still use their feelings sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly in order to reach the good.
ReplyDeleteAn incontinent man uses his feelings, rather than reason, as a guide in decision-making. He may know what is good, but does not always do actions that reflect that he knows the good. This is understandable because I know that the good for me (right now) is doing well in school and graduating. In order to graduate, I know I have to pass my classes. To pass my classes, I have to do homework and study. Sometimes, however, I would much rather party than study. I know what's good, but I act in a way that is not in accordance to that good.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's incontinent man is one who allows his desire to overcome the rational parts of his soul, and in doing so relies solely on his feelings in order to make decisions. Aristotle's view of this man is that he rejects knowledge of what is good, but instead follows his own desires and acts in regards to his own happiness, with no regard as to the "goodness" of his actions. This view contradicts Socrates' argument that people do not disregard goodness when choosing certain actions, but will act out of belief when making decisions that do not lead to the Good. Aristotle further argues that an intelligent man will have knowledge of the good, but will choose to act according to his desires instead, which leads him to actions that may be harmful. I tend to agree with Aristotle. When people make decisions that lead them to hurtful actions, it often results from their reliance on feelings as opposed to rational thought. This is not to say that all actions based on feeling are bad, I think that good decisions can arise from pure emotion as well. Perhaps it is a matter of finding a balance between reason and emotion in order to make good decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe incontinent man is described as someone who does not uses reason to make decisions but rather by use of feeling. I believe that someone who knows the good could act contrary to the good. Many unhealthy actions such as smoking are known to be bad for smokers' health. Smokers still smoke just like other bad habits are still practiced regardless of the detriment to one's health.
ReplyDeleteAristotle believes the incontinent man is someone who performs his actions because of his feelings instead of using reason. Socrates believes there is no incontinence because our actions will interfere with what is good for us because of our own ignorance. In terms of knowledge and desire Aristotle said that they both can conflict with each other. If ones desires are good and one has knowledge of them then it is not a bad thing. It can become bad if one desires something one knows is bad and goes through with it. I agree that incontinent action is possible because people sometimes do things because of their feelings. People would usually follow their feelings if they don't have time to think about a decision, or if they thought about it and decide to follow their feelings anyway. So, incontinent action does exist just like continent action since ones feelings play a important role in decision making along with reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aristotle that people are capable of knowing the good but acting contrary to it. The incontinent man is one who acts without regard to reason and ignores the good when making decisions. Aristotle notes that the incontinent man chooses not to exercise his reason or is incapable of doing so because he is ruled by passion. Aristotle compares this breed of incontient man to a person who is drunk or mad and whose rational senses have been lost. Socrates' position is that there is no such thing as an incontinent action. If individuals truly know the good there is no way for them to act in contradiction to it.
ReplyDeleteIt is believed that the incontinent man someone how acts out on his own actions of feelings instead of using rational reasoning. Socrates and Aristotle have opposing views on the incontinent man. Socrates believes that an incontinent man cannot act out of knowledge because they are still aware of what they are doing which makes it untrue, where Aristotle believed that an incontinent man could act out of his knowledge even if he is aware or unaware of the things he is doing.
ReplyDeleteThe incontinent man, according to Aristotle, is someone whose feelings carry more weight in their decision making than reason. While Socrates would argue against it, I find this view to be the most practical. Socrates believed that any man could not act against his own own knowledge because that awareness would make it untrue. A strong example would be to look at the behavior of devout Christians. Although they have a set of laws that they strongly believe to be the Word of God and absolute truth, they still find themselves giving into their feelings and emotions while going against these rules. Aristotle would explain this by saying that the incontinent man is primarily ruled by passion. A second example would be that of cognitive dissonance. Everyday people do behaviors that they know are harmful such as eating fast food, doing recreational drugs, or smoking cigarrettes. While they know these are very harmful things, they continue to ignore the good because of the pleasure that they get out of it.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Aristotle on the subject of incontinence. One can still hear and consider facts when giving into passions or emotions such as anger, but they mishear and misinterpret based on these emotions. Despite knowing something is a "bad" decision people regularly indulge against their own interests. Cigarettes and drugs are a prime example of man "acting against his own knowledge." To some degree these incontinent decisions are unavoidable. To act against ones own knowledge is to be human. That said, it should be curbed at every corner, the temptation to give into emotion should be tempered to make way for proper reason.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates have already mentioned, the incontinent man uses his feelings, instead of reason. If one knows true knowledge then of course you would/should want to follow it, but sometimes you don't. Personally, I think that by knowing true knowledge it propels the mind to identify other ways (better/clever ways) of doing acting otherwise but justifying it through good knowledge. This is manipulation of reason and emotions to make decisions that are pleasing to oneself.
ReplyDeleteAristotle beleived that the incontinent man has the knowledge, whether it be ethical or intellectual,but cannot express that knowledge. Socrates would disagree with this idea because he believed there was no way to master knowledge, therefore, there is no such thing as incontinence. Aristotle would say, however, that the incontinent man may have the knowledge, but for some reason or circumstance cannot use it. I agree with Aristotle because,for example: lets say there is a mechanic who knows how to fix a car but cannot fix that car because he is sick or intoxicated and cannot think correctly.
ReplyDeletethe incontinent man gives into his sensual feelings of desire and emotion but still has knowledge. It is a sort of ignorance compared to addiction. Everyone has the option of staying clean, yet not everyone can because they give into their sensitivities. Ignorance is the key to this giving-in.
ReplyDeleteThis man bases his actions off his initial desires. This man uses no reason and has no control over his actions.
ReplyDeleteThe incontinent man is one who bases his decisions on his feelings rather than using the knowledge he obtains. I do believe that one has the ability to act counter to the good, even if you have knowledge of it, because sometimes our desires and emotions can take control and cause an imbalance, leading one to ignore reason.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's incontinent man is a person who makes desisions based off of their emotions rather than their reason. Socrates refutes the existence of an incontinent descision because he puts more respect and faith in man kind than Aristotle does. Socrates believes that all intelligent people are not able to ignore their reason and act souly based on desire for pleasure. I would have to disagree with Socrates, there are many people I know, including myself, that as rational people are capable of making incontinent decisions. For example, a kid i kenw in high school jumped off a roof at a party once to show off and because he thought it sounded exciting. Instead, he ended up in the hospital with a shattered leg. He was an intelligent kid who went to a good college prepatory school, but he made an extremely incontinent descision.
ReplyDeleteThe incontinent man does what he knows is wrong because he follows his desires. Although he knows when he does something wrong, he knows he shouldn’t seek out the desire to do something but does it anyway. Incontinent people are incontinent to unqualified things. Aristotle believes that incontinent people need desire and desires are worse than temper because temper is followed by reason. They are unjust but they do things that they know are unjust. I think that an incontinent action is possible because everyday we are doing things that we know is wrong but are desires sometimes won’t let us walk away. If I had true knowledge of that good then I don’t think I would have just actions. Its in our nature to follow our desires.
ReplyDeleteIncontinence, for Aristotle, arises from knowing what is good, but the incontinent man does not always act that way. The incontinent man lacks self-control and does not act through reason. The incontinent man, though they may have the knowledge of how to act appropriately, does not always do so because they act through desire. I agree with Aristotle, that it is difficult to have self-control when overcome with some kind of emotion, such as desire or temper.
ReplyDeleteAristotle believes that the incontinent man does not base his actions by thought but by action. He claims that man may know what is good but will follow his feelings. Socrates disagrees and believes that the intelligent man cannot act against reason and his understanding of the good. I have to lean towards Aristotle's point of view. I believe man can know the good, but at times may "feel" that the good is something that it is not and other times may act according to their feelings in order to act in a way that is good. It is natural for man to follow thei feelings and desires, often it is hard to go against them. And also, as mand developes his understanding of what the good is, he must first act according to his feelings because it is all he knows. Once he has developed an understand of what is good, he will desire to follow the necessary actions to reach the good.
ReplyDeleteAristotle argues that when an incontinent person is preoccupied with pleasure, he does not possess knowledge. Rather he only has a personal belief. This causes the incontinent man to act on his strong appetites.
ReplyDeleteAn incontinent man is someone who makes decisions based on rational. I do believe that a person who knows what the good is could act contrary to the good. For example,when they decide they would rather fulfill the current with pleasure, which is good in that it makes a person feel good or happy at the particular time. This pleasure can have negative consequences, however, which the person is aware of but chooses to ignore in trade of the current pleasure or current good.
ReplyDeleteThe incontinent man is s someone who has invested more in the indulgence of pleasure over reason. This incontinence can lead to decisions against the good, even when one has knowledge of this betrayal, because they are focused on there desires and wants over there reason and knowledge of what is good.
ReplyDeleteIncontinence can be defined as poor conduct induced by passion/desire for instantaneous pleasure, whereas continence (which is preferable), describes reasonable and sensible calculation of actions in addition to abstaining for acting badly. A hot temper is the worst form of incontinence because with such, the individual possesses and demonstrates both inappropriate desires and defective reasoning. An incontinent person expresses both the faulty desire and the detrimental action in spite his sufficient reasoning. The incontinent man is disposed to act erroneously due to his passionate impulses in contrast to the continent man who is aware that his desires are corrupt and does not pursue them because of reason.
ReplyDeleteSocrates opposed Aristotle’s view and affirmed that incontinence is impossible, because posed that if a person knew how to act correctly then he would do so. However, Socrates’ view contradicts the concept of experience. An incontinent man is comparably worse than someone whose behavior is deliberately bad, because at least the one who acts deliberately badly reserves the right to alter his behavior, unlike the incontinent man is knowledgeable of right and wrong, but yet simply chooses the wrong to satisfy his passionate appetite.
I think that in majority of cases we are well aware of the consequences and the possible aftermath that is to follow every step and turn we make in life. Nevertheless, the real question is,” is the action worth the consequence”, do the kinds of pleasurable earnings to look forward to from our actions surpass the bad that can also come? Thus, I do believe that even though we may deny it, most of the time we know what we are doing, and we reap what we sew. Sometimes the pleasure is worth the cost, in our eyes at first glance, yet in the end, is it really? I think this is circumstantial and would need to consider several factors. (Hopefully I answered the question)
Mary Mena