LECTURE 2

Doubts Concerning Continence

Chapter 2

2.   HE NOW BRINGS UP DOUBTS ABOUT ALL HE HAS SAID.

      a.   He first submits what is more doubtful. — 1310-1312

Someone can raise a doubt on how a man who judges correctly is incontinent.

      b.   He places six doubts. The first.

            i.    He objects to one part. — 1313

Certain philosophers, therefore, say this is not possible for a man with knowledge. It is strange, as Socrates thought, that something else should control and enslave a man’s knowledge. Indeed Socrates completely defended this line of reasoning, so that for him incontinence did not exist, for he maintained that no one rightly judging does anything but the best, except out of ignorance.

            ii.   He objects to the other part. — 1314

This teaching of Socrates casts doubt on much that is clearly evident. So it will be best to examine passion; and, if man sins only through ignorance, the kind of ignorance operating here. Obviously, before the onslaught of passion, an incontinent man knows he ought not to do what he actually does.

            iii. He rejects the solution of certain philosophers.

                   x.   HE PROPOSES (IT). — 1315

Some accept one saying of Socrates and reject another. They admit that nothing is more powerful than knowledge but they do not admit that man can do nothing other than what he thinks is better. For this reason they say that the incontinent man, who is overcome by lust, does not have knowledge but only opinion.

                   y.   HE REJECTS THIS SOLUTION. — 1316

But if it is opinion and not knowledge nor a strong supposition tending to the contrary but an ineffective belief held by people who are uncertain, it deserves tolerance because a man does not adhere to weak opinions in the fact of vigorous concupiscence. However, tolerance is not extended either to vice or to any other of the censurable dispositions.

      c. The second doubt.

            i.    He objects to one part. — 1317

Therefore (the incontinent man has) prudence contending against desire, and prudence is the strongest of opinions.

            ii.   He shows that this argument is not tenable for two reasons.

                   x.   THE FIRST. — 1318

This, however, is unreasonable, for a man will be prudent and incontinent at the same time. But no one will maintain that it pertains to a prudent man willingly to perform the basest acts.

                   y.   THE SECOND. — 1319

In this connection it was explained previously that a prudent man not only is concerned with ultimates, but also has the other virtues.

      d.   The third doubt. — 1320

Besides, if the continent man is so called from the fact that he has vehement evil desires, the temperate man will not be continent, nor the continent man temperate; for one who is completely temperate does not have evil desires. However, it is necessary for the continent man to have evil desires, for if his desires are good, the habit forbidding him to follow them is evil. Therefore, not every kind of continence is desirable. But if the desires are weak and not evil, then to be continent is not something worthy of respect; if they are weak and evil (to resist them) will not be remarkable either.

      e.   The fourth doubt.

            i.    He presents a difficulty about the nature of continence. — 1321

Moreover, if continence makes a man hold all opinions, then a kind of continence can be evil-in case the opinions are also false.

            ii.   He makes three objections.

                   x.   THE FIRST. — 1322

Likewise if incontinence disposes a man to abandon any and every opinion, it will follow that a kind of incontinence is desirable. Neoptolemus in Sophocles’ Philoctetes is an example of this. For he is to be praised for not retaining the opinion of which he had been persuaded by Ulysses, because lying saddened him.

                   y.   THE SECOND OBJECTION. — 1323

Further, the sophistic argument is a cause of doubt. Some men want to argue to indubitable conclusions so that they may appear wise when they attain them; and the syllogism they devise gives rise to doubt. As a result the mind (of the hearer) remains in suspense, since it does not want to admit the conclusion because it is not acceptable, but neither can it rest in the opposite conclusion because it is not able to solve the argument.

                   z.   THE THIRD OBJECTION. — 1324

It would appear from this then that imprudence joined with incontinence is a virtue. That a man performs actions contrary to what he judges is due to incontinence. But he judges that good actions are bad and ought not to be done. Therefore, he will be doing good and not bad actions.

      f.   The fifth doubt. — 1325

Furthermore, the man who from persuasion and personal choice pursues pleasures will appear better than one who acts from incontinence rather than reasoning. The persuaded man is more corrigible because he can be dissuaded. On the other hand, to the incontinent man is applicable the proverb: “When water chokes, what can we drink?” If a person performs evil actions because of conviction, he will cease from them when dissuaded; but the incontinent person will do them notwithstanding.

      g.   The sixth doubt. — 1326

In addition, if continence and incontinence are concerned with all dispositions, who will be continent without qualification? No one really has all the species of incontinence, but we do say that some are absolutely incontinent.

3.   HE SUMS UP. — 1327

Chapter 3

Such then are the doubts occurring in this matter; some of them should be solved and some allowed to remain, for the solution of a doubt is found in the truth.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1310. After the Philosopher has stated the conclusions that seem probable concerning continence and incontinence, he now brings up doubts about all that he has said [I, B, 2], not, however, in the same order in which he has presented them. In fact, he proposed the doubts in that order in which they first fall under consideration. But on any subject a man first considers the general aspect, for example, whether it is good or bad. Next, he considers the peculiar nature of the thing; third, its operation. Fourth, he compares it to other things with which it agrees; fifth, to those things from which it differs. Finally he considers its external surroundings.

1311. But in presenting the doubts he first submits what is more doubtful [2, a]. So, then, contrary to these six considerations [2, b], he places six doubts. The first doubt concerns the third probable statement about the act of the continent and the incontinent man. Next [2, c], at “Therefore... prudence,” he places the second doubt concerned with the fifth probable statement, which referred to a comparison with prudence. The third doubt r2, d], given at “Besides, if the continent etc.,” deals with the fourth probable statement, which relates to a comparison

with temperance. The fourth doubt [2, e], given at “Moreover, if continence etc.,” concerns the second probable statement, which had to do with the definition of continence and incontinence. The fifth doubt [2, f], given at “Furthermore, he who does etc.,” is concerned with the first probable statement which treated the goodness and badness of continence and incontinence. The sixth doubt [2, g], given at “In addition, if continence etc.,” regards the sixth probable statement dealing with the matter of continence and incontinence.

1312. In regard to the initial point he first proposes the doubt [2, a]. On this he remarks that someone can doubt how a man who judges correctly is incontinent in doing the contrary.

1313. Then [2, b], at “Certain philosophers,” he pursues the doubt. First he objects to one part [b, i]. Next [b, ii], at “This teaching etc.,” he objects to the other part. Last [b, iii], at “Some accept etc.,” he rejects the solution of certain philosophers. He says first that some hold that it is impossible for a man to be incontinent when he judges correctly as a result of knowledge, because the stronger is not overcome by the weaker. Since then knowledge is a very powerful principle in man, it seems that, with knowledge present, something other would command knowledge and drag it along as a slave, although reason—of which knowledge is a perfection—should rather be in control and command the sensitive part as a slave (so the objection runs). This was the argument of Socrates. So rigidly did Socrates follow his own argument that incontinence might seem impossible. Indeed, he thought that no one who judges correctly does anything except : what is best; but that all sin occurs through ignorance.

1314. Next [b, ii], at “This teaching,” he objects on the contrary that Socrates’ doctrine on this point calls into question matters that are evident. Obviously some people do what they know is wrong. If they really sin through ignorance, which happens while they are under passion’s influence, whether concupiscence or anger, an investigation of the kind of ignorance involved is highly desirable. Obviously, before passion supervenes, the incontinent man does not judge he should do what he later actually does in the heat of passion.

1315. At “Some accept”. [b, iii] he rejects the solution of ceitain philosophers. First [b, iii, x] he proposes their solution-that some accept one saying of Socrates, that “Knowledge is not influenced; but reject another, that “the only cause of sin is ignorance.” They admit nothing can conquer knowledge, as being better and more powerful. However, they do not admit that man can do nothing other than what he thinks is better. Consequently, their position is that the incontinent person overcome by sensual pleasures does not have knowledge but opinion.

IP6. Then [b, iii, y], at “But if it is opinion,” he rejects this solution by saying that such an incontinent person has either a firm or a weak opinion. If firm, then the same argument seems valid for it and for knowledge, because we do not adhere to one less than to the other—more on this later (1137). On the other hand, if the opinion against concupiscence is not firm but irresolute, i.e., remiss and weak, happening to people who are dubious, it seems this should not be imputed a fault but rather deserves tolerance. The reason is that in the face of vigorous concupiscence a man does not cling to opinions feebly held. However, tolerance is not extended to vice or to any of the other censurable dispositions. Incontinence is one of these but fault is not entirely imputed to it.

1317. Next [2, c], at “Therefore” he raises a doubt about the comparison of continence with prudence, which was the fifth probable statement. First [c, i] he objects to one part, concluding from the premises that a man can be incontinent although he has prudence directing him to virtue. If the incontinent man has an opinion contending against evil desires—and the opinion is not weak, since in this way they would not be charged as a fault—it remains then that he has a strong opinion maintaining the contrary. But prudence is the strongest of opinions. Therefore, the incontinent person in a special way has prudence contending contrary to desire.

1318. Second [c, ii], at “This, how. ever,” he shows that this argument is not tenable for two reasons. First [c, ii, x], according to these lines of thought it will follow that a man may be prudent and incontinent at the same time. This seems impossible, for no one holds that to perform the basest actions willingly is an act of prudence. It was noted previously in the sixth book (1173) that a person who voluntarily sins in the matter of prudence is more blameworthy.

1319. He presents the second reason [C, ii, y] at “In this connection.” It was explained previously (1208-1212) that the prudent man is not only cognizant that a particular is an ultimate, i.e., has a correct evaluation of individual practicables which he called ultimates in the sixth book (1214).but also has the other virtues, namely, the moral, as was likewise indicated in the sixth book (1172). Consequently it does not seem possible for any prudent person to act contrary to the virtues.

1320. After this, at “Besides, if the continent man” [2, d], he gives advice on the comparison between continence and temperance, which was the fourth probable statement. To make this clear, he must discuss three other observations he has made. The first is that a man is called continent from the fact that he has vehement evil desires and, notwithstanding these, is not led astray contrary to reason. If this is true, the temperate man will not be continent, nor the continent man temperate, for the man who is completely temperate does not have evil desires in any vehemence. So, to have vehement evil desires is inconsistent with being temperate. However, once the preceding supposition be made, it would be necessary that the temperate man have evil desires if he were continent. The second of the three is that the continent man may have not evil desires but good ones. This being the case, it would follow that whatever habit forbids the pursuit of these is evil. But such a habit is continence. Therefore, not every kind of continence is desirable. The third of the three is that the desires the continent man has might not be vehement but weak and feeble. Then, if the desires are evil, to be continent will be worthy neither of respect nor praise; if they are evil and nevertheless weak, it will not be remarkable to resist them. Yet continence is looked upon as something great and worthy of respect. Therefore something unreasonable seems to follow, whatever one of the three positions be maintained.

1321. Then [2, e], at “Moreover, if continence,” he raises a doubt about the very definition of continence, which was the second probable statement. First [e, i] he presents a difficulty about the nature of continence as stated above (1306): that the continent person is also the man who lives by reason. He says that if continence makes a man embrace every opinion, i.e., persuades him to abide by every opinion and not depart from any, it will follow that some kind of continence is evil; for an opinion can be false. And it is good to reject such a view. Hence it is evil to be governed by it, although continence should be praised as something good.

1322. Next [e, ii], at “Likewise, if,” he makes three objections to the notion of incontinence he has already given (1306), namely, that the incontinent man is inclined to abandon reason. The first [e, ii, x] is that if incontinence abandons every opinion or reason, it will follow that some kind of incontinence is good; nevertheless incontinence should always be censured as an evil thing. This is so because a conjectural reason may prompt the doing of an evil action which it is good to avoid. He gives an illustration. The poet Sophocles narrates that Neoptolemus, who fought in the Trojan war, was persuaded by Ulysses to lie to Philoctetes for a reason that seemed honorable. Afterwards, however, he did not retain the opinion, of which he had been persuaded, because lying was grievous and painful to him; and in this there is something praiseworthy.

1323. He presents the second objection [e, ii, y], at “Further, the sophistic,” stating that the sophistic argument, because misleading, i.e., concluding falsely, is itself a doubt or rather a cause of doubt. The explanation is that the sophists, in order to appear wise, want to infer indubitable conclusions. But when they succeed by argument, the syllogism they devise causes doubt; for the mind of the hearer remains in suspense, since on the one hand the mind does not wish to abide by what reason infers, because the conclusion is not acceptable, and on the other hand, it cannot proceed to the opposite because it does not have the solution of the argument within its power. Nevertheless, the mind is not to be blamed because it did not abide by the reasoning which it did not know how to resolve. Therefore, it does not seem there is incontinence in abandoning any reason whatsoever.

1324. He gives the third objection at “It would appear” [e, ii, z]. If to abandon any reason whatever is incontinent, it follows from this argument that imprudence joined to incontinence is a virtue. Thus virtue will be composed of two vices, which is impossible; and it seems that what was said will follow, that incontinence is the reason why someone performs actions contrary to his judgment. But the judgment he makes that good actions are bad and that he ought not to do them, is the fruit of imprudence. Hence it will follow that he performs good and not evil actions, which seems to belong to virtue.

1325. Then [2, f], at “Furthermore, he who does evil,” he raises a doubt about the goodness and badritss of continence and incontinence. It seems that one who performs evil actions because he is persuaded they are good and consequently pursues and chooses pleasures as good in themselves (as the intemperate man does) is better than another who performs evil actions, not because of reasoning by which he is deceived, but because of incontinence. The man who has been persuaded seems to be more corrigible because he can easily be dissuaded from his present view. But the incontinent man does not seem to be helped by any good advice. Nay rather he seems to be indicated in the proverb that if water, whose drinking refreshes the thirsty, chokes the drinker, what can he drink? In a similar way, if a man performs evil actions as a result of conviction or deception, he will cease to do them when dissuaded, i.e., when the persuasion is withdrawn, as thirst ceases when a drink of water is taken. But in the present case the counselled incontinent man even believes some actions are right, and notwithstanding does different things. Hence the good water of advice does not help but chokes him.

1326. At “In addition, if incontinence” [2, g], he raises a doubt about the matter of continence and incontinence, which was the sixth probable statement. He affirms that if continence and incontinence concern not only concupiscence but anger, wealth, and everything of this kind, he will be unable to determine who is incontinent without qualification. Indeed, no one can be found who will have all the varieties of incontinence. But we do say that some are absolutely incontinent. Therefore, the assertion previously made (1225), that continence and incontinence concern everything does not seem to be true.

1327. Last [3], at “Such then,” he sums up in conclusion by indicating that such are the doubts occurring in the matter under discussion. We must solve some of these doubts by showing that they tend to falsehood; others we can leave inasmuch as they are quasi conclusions. When we find the truth about a doubtful point, then we have a genuine solution to a doubt.

LECTURE 3

The Solution of Doubts

Chapter 3

I.    HE STATES HIS INTENTION. — 1328-1329

First then we must try to find out whether or not some people can be knowingly incontinent; if so, in what way. Next we must determine in what kind of matter a man is continent or incontinent: whether in every form of pleasure and pain or only in some specific forms; whether the continent man and the persevering man are identical or different. Likewise, we must give our attention to whatever matters are related to this investigation.

II.  HE CARRIES OUT HIS INTENTION.

      A.  He settles the question on the existence of continence and incontinence.

            1.   HE PRESENTS... CERTAIN NOTIONS... NECESSARY FOR A SOLUTION.

                   a.   He states his intention.

                         i.    Our primary effort... directed toward... two points. — 1330-1334

In the beginning of our inquiry we ask whether the continent and the incontinent differ specifically, by reason of the matter with which they are concerned, or in the manner of dealing with the matter. We ask whether a man may be called incontinent only because he is concerned with particular matter (or also because concerned with any sort of matter); whether only from one or the other, or from both (i.e., limited manner and limited matter). Again, we ask whether or not incontinence and continence deal with all kinds of matter.

                         ii.   He determines his statements.

                               x.   FIRST, THE SECOND STATEMENT. — 1335

Incontinence in the unqualified sense is not predicated of a man in all matters but only in that limited matter in which he may be intemperate.

                               y.   SECOND.... THE FIRST STATEMENT. — 1336

                   b.   He carries... out (his intention)

Neither is a man said to be continent or incontinent only in this (for then continence would be the same as intemperance), but in conducting himself in a certain way. One (the intemperate man) is led as a result of choice, judging that he must always pursue the present pleasure. But the other (the incontinent man) does not so judge, but pursues the pleasure notwithstanding.

            2.   HE REJECTS A FALSE SOLUTION. — 1337

It makes no difference in the present argument to say that it is real opinion and not objectively verified knowledge against which people act incontinently, for there are some who have only opinion yet are not in doubt, for they think they know with certitude. If then it is said that men with opinion rather than objectively verified knowledge act contrary to conviction because they cling feebly to their views, we answer that this knowledge does not differ from opinion in this matter. There are some people who assent no less firmly to matters of opinion than others to matters of objectively verified knowledge. Heraclitus is an example of this.

            3.   HE GIVES THE TRUE SOLUTION.

                   a.   He solves the doubt by some distinctions.

                         i.    The first. — 1338

Since we say that a man knows in two ways (for he is said to know both when he uses his knowledge and when he has the habit of knowledge without using it), it makes a great deal of difference in doing what he should not: whether a man has the habit of knowledge, but is not using it; or has the habit, and is using it. His situation seems difficult in the latter case, but not if actual consideration is lacking.

                         ii.   His second distinction. — 1339-1341

Yet, since we must use two modes of propositions, there is nothing to hinder a man who knows both from operating against the knowledge he uses about the universal but not against the knowledge he has about the particular. This is so because operations concern particulars. But the universal is understood differently: in one way as it is in itself and in another as it is in a particular case. Thus “Dry foods are good for all men,” and “I am a man,” or “Such and such a food is dry.” But it is possible that a man may not know such a universal either habitually or in a particular case. There is so much difference in the modes of knowing that it should not seem unreasonable for one who acts incontinently to know in one manner, yet it would be astonishing for him to know in another.

                         iii. A third distinction.

                               x.   HE SETS FORTH A DIFFERENCE. — 1342

In addition, a mode of knowing different from those already discussed is found in man, for we see a difference in one knowing by way of habit and in a particular situation. Hence a man seems in some way to have and not to have knowledge, as is evident in one who is asleep or drunk. It is in this manner that those under the influence of the passions react. Indeed, anger, sexual desires, and certain passions of this kind clearly change the body; some even lead men to madness. Obviously then we must say that the incontinent are disposed in a similar way.

                               y.   HE REFUTES AN OBJECTION. — 1343-1344

The use of learned terms by the incontinent is not a sign that they operate by a habit of knowledge. In fact men under the influence of these passions mouth demonstrations and declaim the sayings of Empedocles; and youths beginning to learn prate doctrine but do not really know what they are talking about, for doctrine must become connatural to be known and this takes time. So then we must conclude that the incontinent in speaking this way are, as it were, pretending.

                   b.   (He solves the doubt) by the nature of practical science.

                         i.    He determines the true sense of the question.

                               x.   HE SETS FORTH THE NATURAL PROCESS OF PRACTICAL SCIENCE IN ACTION. — 1345-1346

Furthermore, someone may want to consider the reason in terms of man’s nature. There is one judgment that is universal; and another concerned with particulars that are properly the objects of sense. However, since one formal reason is present in such judgments, the mind necessarily comes to a conclusion, while in the practical order it must immediately be directed to operation. Thus, if a man must taste everything sweet, and this thing is sweet, such as wine or something of the sort, he will at the same time have to taste it when he is able, unless he be prevented from doing so.

                               y.   HE SHOWS THE OBSTACLE THAT FACES THE INCONTINENT MAN.

                                     aa.  He shows... a restraining factor in this man. — 1347-1348

Now one universal judgment may say “You must not taste,” and another that “Every sweet is pleasant.” At the same time a particular judgment may say “This is sweet.” In such a case the sweet can be taken when appetite is present. Reason indeed declares that the particular thing is to be avoided but the appetite leads to it because the appetite can move any part of the soul. Hence it happens that a man may act incontinently contrary to reason and judgment.

                                     bb. He explains the reason. — 1349-1350

But this contrariety is not on the part of the reason itself but is incidental. It is appetite and not judgment which is in opposition to right reason. Because of this, dumb animals are not said to be incontinent since they do not have universal judgment but only imagination and memory of particulars.

                                     cc.  He explains how this restraint ceases. — 1351

How this ignorance is dissipated and an incontinent man recovers correct knowledge is the same problem in the case of one inebriated or asleep. This, however, is not properly our problem but ought to be solved by physiologists.

                         ii.   He answers Socrates’ objection. — 1352-1353

But the ultimate proposition is a judgment according to sensible knowledge, and is directive of our actions; and the man who is under the influence of passion does not have this judgment at all, or has it in such a way that he cannot know actually, but speaks in these matters the way a drunken man repeats the words of Empedocles. Since the ultimate term is neither a universal nor—what amounts to the same thing—an object of scientific knowledge in the manner of a universal (in the practical order), what Socrates was looking for seems to follow. Indeed passion is not present with knowledge taken in the proper sense; and it is not this knowledge but that of the sensible which is dragged along by passion. We have discussed whether a person when he acts incontinently has knowledge or not, and how it is possible for him to have knowledge.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1328. After the Philosopher has stated certain probable propositions and raised doubts about each, he now comes to the solutions. We should note he does not present the solutions in the same order in which he previously either stated the propositions or introduced the doubts, but according as the plan of the discussion requires, i.e., as the solution of one doubt depends on another. First [I] he states his intention; and then [II], at “In the beginning etc.,” he carries out his intention. He says first that, in order to solve these doubts, we must consider at the outset whether or not some people can be incontinent knowingly; and if so, in what way they know. This doubt is solved first because its solution belongs to the question whether or not there is incontinence. We stated previously (1315) that Socrates’ contention seemed to be that there was no incontinence. But first we must consider whether each (continence and incontinence) exists.

1329. Then we must consider in what kinds of matter we ought, to say a man is continent or incontinent; whether in every form of pleasure and pain or only in some specific forms. This doubt is solved in the second place, although it was proposed in the sixth place (1325), because the beginning of an investigation of the nature of any habit is the consideration of its matter, as is obvious in the manner of procedure followed by Aristotle in the preceding discussions. Since the continent man and the persevering man differ materially, we must ask at the same time whether they differ conceptually. Likewise, we must give our attention to all other matters having a connection and agreement with this consideration.

1330. Next [II], at “In the beginning,” he begins to solve the doubts previously raised. First [II, A] he settles the question on the existence of continence and incontinence by solving the first doubt that was raised about the third probable statement. Second [Lect. 4, I], he determines the matter of continence and incontinence by solving the sixth doubt that was raised about the sixth probable statement. Then, because temperance and continence agree in matter, at the same time he here explains the difference between temperance and continence in solving the third doubt that was raised about the fourth probable statement. Likewise he shows whether the intemperate or the incontinent man is worse, in solving the fifth doubt that was raised about the first probable statement. This second part begins at “Now, we must consider etc.” (B. 1147 b 20).

1331. Third [Leci. 9: I] he explains the nature of continence and incontinence in solving the fourth doubt that was raised against the second probable statement. Likewise, with this he answers the second question that was asked about the fifth probable statement, showing that a prudent man cannot be incontinent. This third part begins at “Can a man be called etc.” (B 1151 a 29). On the first point [II, A] he does three things. First [A, 1] he presents in advance certain notions which are necessary for a solution. Then [A, 2], at “It makes no difference etc.,” he rejects a false solution. Third [A, 3], at “Since we say etc.,” he gives the true solution, In regard to the initial point he does two things. First [1, a] he states his intention, and then [1, b ] at “Neither is a man etc.,” he carries it out.

1332. He says first [1, a, i] that to determine these questions our primary effort must be directed towards the knowledge of two points. The first point is whether the continent and the incontinent differ specifically in their subject, i.e., in having limited matter with which they are concerned, as mildness differs specifically from the fact that it has to do with anger; or also in the manner, i.e., in the way of dealing with any matter, as prudence deals with all moral matter but not in the same way as (other) moral virtues.

1333. In explanation of his inquiry, he adds that we must consider whether a man may be called incontinent only because he is concerned with a particular matter, or even only because he is concerned about the whole of some matter without distinction; or whether a man may be called continent or incontinent not only from the one or the other but also from both, i.e., from a limited manner and a limited matter.

1334. Another thing that we ought to consider beforehand is whether or not continence and incontinence deal with all kinds of matter or with a limited matter.

1335. Then [1, a, ii], at “Incontinence in the unqualified sense,” he determines his statements: first [ii, x] the second statement, saying that continent and incontinent in the unqualified sense are not applied to anyone in all matters but in that limited matter in which he is temperate or intemperate, viz., in concupiscence and pleasures of touch.

1336. Second [ii, y (and “b”)], at “Neither is a man,” he determines the first statement, saying that someone is said to be continent or incontinent not alone in this, i.e., in respect of some limited matter (for thus he would be identified with the temperate or intemperate man since they deal with the same matter), but a person is said to be incontinent in conducting himself in such a manner, i.e., from the fact that he is concerned with limited matter in a certain way. The reason is that this man, viz., the intemperate, is led to commit sin by choice, in a manner judging that a pleasurable object presented to him always is to be pursued or accepted. But the incontinent man does not engage in this reasoning process; nevertheless, he pursues the pleasurable object when it is present to him.

1337. Next [A, 2], at “It makes no difference,” he rejects a false solution that he has already treated (1316). He states that it does not make any difference in the present argument to say that the cognition, contrary to which some act incontinently, is real opinion but not knowledge. The fact is clear that some who act incontinently do not have a weak conviction, like people hesitating, but judge themselves to know certainly that against which they act. If then someone means that they are men with opinion rather than knowledge acting contrary to their convictions because their adherence to their judgments is ineffectual and feeble, our observation is that in the present instance knowledge does not differ from opinion. Some people are not less tenacious of even false opinions than others are of true knowledge. This can be seen in Heraclitus, who was so firmly convinced that everything is in perpetual motion and that no truth remains long in things, that at the end of his life, he was unwilling to talk lest truth should be changed in the meantime, but only wagged his finger to indicate something, as is related in the fourth book of the Metaphysics (Ch. 5, 1010 a 12-13; St. Th. Lect. 12, 683-684).

1338. At “Since we say” [A, 3] he gives the true solution. First [3, a] he solves the doubt by some distinctions, then [3, b], at “Furthermore etc,” by the nature of practical science. In regard to the first point he makes two distinctions. The first [3, a, i] is that we say a man knows in two ways: (1) by having a habit he does not use, e.g., the geometrician not studying questions of geometry; (2) by using his knowledge in actually considering its truths. It makes a big difference whether someone doing what he ought not has the habit but does not use it, or has the habit and does use it in thinking. It certainly seems hard for a man to act contrary to what he is actually considering. But it doesn’t seem hard for someone to act contrary to what he knows in an habitual way but is not actually considering.

1339. Next [3, a, ii], at “Yet, since,” he makes his second distinction. He says, since practical reason uses two modes of propositions, viz., the universal and the particular, there is no apparent obstacle in a man knowing both propositions in an habitual way but actually considering only the universal and not the particular, and operating contrary to the knowledge. This is so because operations are concerned with particulars. Hence, if a man does not consider the particular it is not astonishing that he acts contrary to it.

1340. We should note, however, that the universal can be taken in two ways. In one way as it is in itself, as in the example “Dry things are good for every man”; in another way as it is in a particular object, for instance, “This is a man,” or “That food is dry.” Therefore it is possible that a man knows, both habitually and actually, the universal considered in itself but either he does not grasp the universal considered in this particular object, i.e., the universal is not known in an habitual way, or he does not bestir himself, i.e., the universal is not actually known.

1341. Therefore what appeared impossible to Socrates according to these various modes of knowing differs so much that it does not seem unreasonable for a man, who acts incontinently, to have one kind of knowledge, viz., universal alone or even particular-if it is habitual but not actual. But it would seem unreasonable for the man who acts incontinently to have another kind of knowledge, i.e., actual, concerned with the particular.

1342. Then [3, a, iii], at “In addition,” he makes a third distinction. First [iii, x] he sets forth a difference. Next [iii, y], at “The use of learned terms etc.,” he refutes an objection. First he speaks of another mode of knowing in man, over and above the modes discussed. That someone should know by way of habit and not by way of act seems to be understood differently. Sometimes a habit is so responsive that it can go into act immediately when a man wishes. But other times the habit is so bound that it cannot go into act. Hence in one sense a man seems to have a habit and in another sense not to have it, as is evident in one sleeping, a maniac, or a drunkard. Men are disposed in this way when under the influence of the passions. We see anger, sexual desires, and certain Vassions of this kind obviously change the body externally, for example, in causing body heat. Sometimes such passions generate so much heat that they lead people to insanity. So, obviously, the incontinent are disposed somewhat like those asleep, maniacs, and drunkards, who have the habit of practical science impeded in regard to particulars.

1343. At “The use of learned terms” [iii, y] he refutes an objection. Someone could object against the statement made that the incontinent sometimes use terms dealing with knowledge and with the particular. So it seems they do not have a habit that is held in check. But Aristotle refutes this objection, saying that their use of scientific terminology is not a sign that they have an active habit; and he illustrates this by two examples.

1344. The first is that even men who areunder the influence of the passions just mentioned, e.g., inebriated and demented, mouth demonstrations in geometry, for instance, and declaim Empedocles’ sayings, which are difficult to understand because he wrote his philosophy in meter. The second example is of children who, when they begin to learn, put together words that they utter without any real understanding of what they say. To understand, it is necessary that those things that a man hears become, as it were, connatural to him in order that they may be impressed perfectly on his mind. For this a man needs time in which his intellect may be confirmed in what it has received, by much meditation. This is true also of the incontinent man, for even if he says: it is not good for me now to pursue such a pleasure, nevertheless, in his heart he does not think this way. So then we must judge the incontinent in saying these words are pretending, as it were, because they think one thing in their hearts and reveal another by their words.

1345. Next [3, b], at “Furthermore,” he solves the proposed doubt by the natural process of practical science in applying the preceding distinctions to what he proposed. First [3, b, i] he determines the true sense of the question. Second [3, b, ii], at “But the ultimate,” he answers Socrates’ objection. Regarding the initial point he does two things. First [b, i, x] he sets forth the natural process of practical science in action. Second [b, i, y], at “Now one universal,” he shows the obstacle which faces the incontinent man. He says first that if we wish to consider why the incontinent man can act contrary to his knowledge by the natural process of practical science, we must take into consideration the two judgments in this process. One is universal, for example, “Every dishonorable act must be avoided”; the other, singular, is concerned with objects which properly are known by sense, for instance, “This act is dishonorable.” But, since there is one formality underlying these judgments, a conclusion necessarily follows.

1346. However, in speculative matters the mind merely draws the conclusion, while in practical matters it goes into operation immediately. Thus, if the universal judgment is that we must taste every sweet thing but the particular judgment that this (some particular object presented) is sweet, the man able to taste immediately tastes if nothing prevents. So runs the syllogism of the temperate man who does not permit concupiscence to have mastery over reason pointing out every dishonorable act must be avoided. The same goes for the syllogism of the intemperate man. His reason does not resist the proposal of concupiscence which inclines to this: that every pleasure is to be seized.

1347. Then [b, i, y], at “Now one universal,” he explains how fault occurs in the incontinent man. First [y, aa] he shows that there is a restraining factor in this man. Next [y, bb], at “But this contrariety,” he explains the reason. Last [y, cc], at “How this ignorance etc.,” he explains how this restraint ceases. On the first point the proper consideration is this-reason in the incontinent man is not so completely overcome that he is without genuine knowledge of the universal. Put it this way. The reason proposes a universal judgment forbidding an inordinate tasting of something sweet, e.g., it says that nothing sweet should be tasted outside a certain time. But the appetite proposes that every sweet thing is pleasant, something in itself desired by concupiscence. And, since in a particular case concupiscence may bind reason, the proposal is not accepted under universal reason so as to say also that this is outside the time; but it is taken under the universal aspect of concupiscence so as to say this is sweet. So the conclusion of the operation follows. In this syllogism of the incontinent man there are four propositions, as already indicated (1346).

1348. That the process of practical reason sometimes occurs in this way is evident from the fact that when concupiscence waxes strong, reason declares by a universal judgment that a particular desirable thing is to be avoided, as we just mentioned (1347)But concupiscence inclines to the appetible object by freely proposing and accepting it without the prohibition of reason, now rendered impotent. Concupiscence can be so vehement it can sway any part of the soul, even reason itself if reason does not make a strong effort to resist. Thus the term of the operation takes place, viz., a man may act incontinently contrary to reason and universal judgment.

1349. At “But this contrariety” [y, bb] he explains the reason for this opposition. He states that the present contrariety does not happen from reason itself, as in uncertain people, but only incidentally so far as concupiscence is opposed to correct universal reason. In fact there is no judgment in itself opposed to right reason, as some philosophers have maintained.

1350. From this he infers a corollary, that dumb animals are not called continent or incontinent, for they do not make a universal judgment which is the foundation of rational action, to which concupiscence is opposed; for brutes are moved only by imagination and memory of particulars.

1351. Next [y, cc], at “How this ignorance,” he explains how this opposition ceases. He says that the problem of dissipating an incontinent man’s ignorance about the particular and of his recovery of correct knowledge is the same as in the case of one inebriated or asleep. Their passions are dispelled when some bodily change occurs. Likewise, since the body is changed by the soul’s passions, like concupiscence and anger, this physical change must cease for a man to return to a sound mind. Hence this problem is not proper to our investigation but rather we ought to hear it discussed by physiologists, i.e., physicians (naturalibus).

1352. Then [3, b, ii], at “But the ultimate,” in accord with the premises he refutes the argument of Socrates, saying that the proposition and the ultimate, i.e., the particular, judgment is made according to sensible knowledge and is directive of actions concerned with particulars. But a man under the influence of passion either does not have this judgment or premise at all as a habit, or has a restrained habit so that he cannot know actually but speaks in these matters in the way that an inebriate repeats the verses of Empedocles. Since, then, these things are true, and since the universal, which is known by science, is not the ultimate term of practical operations, what Socrates held seems to follow. It is evident from previous statements that passion is not present with the principal knowledge that deals with the universal, since it is found only in the particular. it is not the knowledge of the universal but only the evaluation of the sensible, which is not so excellent, that is dragged along by passion.

1353. Finally, he summarizes the questions discussed: whether a person when he acts incontinently has knowledge or not, and how it is possible for him to have knowledge.

LECTURE 4

The Generic Matter of Continence and Incontinence

Chapter 4

I.    HE DECLARES HIS PROPOSITION. — 1354

Now we must consider further whether anyone is totally incontinent, or whether everyone is said to be incontinent in a particular way. If totally so, then in what kind of matter is a man thus incontinent.

II.  HE CARRIES OUT HIS PROPOSITION.

      A.  He, presents the general matter. — 1355

It is obvious that the continent and the persevering, the incontinent and the effeminate are concerned with pleasure and pain.

      B.  He investigates the specific matter of these states.

            1.   HE SHOWS HOW CONTINENCE MAY BE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS ABOUT DIFFERENT PLEASURES.

                   a.   He shows (this)... according to the difference in human pleasures among themselves.

                         i.    He explains his proposition.

                               x.   HE DISTINGUISHES HUMAN PLEASURES. — 1356-1357

But of the objects that give men pleasure some are necessary; others are desirable in themselves, although capable of excess. I call necessary certain material things concerned with food, sex, and other physical goods that we previously established as the matter of temperance and intemperance. I mention as unnecessary, but desirable in themselves, things like victory, honor, riches, and other pleasurable goods of this kind.

                               y.   HE SHOWS HOW IN THESE PLEASURES A MAN IS CALLED CONTINENT...

                                     aa.  Concerning the unnecessary. — 1358-1359

Therefore, people who go to excess in these things contrary to right reason in them, are not called incontinent simply but with the added note that they are incontinent in matters of money, gain, honor, or anger; as if there were others absolutely incontinent and the former are called incontinent by way of resemblance. Thus when we speak of “man” who was the B.1148 victor in the Olympics, the common notion of man differed little from the notion of this individual man but it was different.’ In confirmation of our contention, incontinence is censured not merely as a sin but as a kind of vice either in the full sense or the partial sense. But none of those previously discussed are viciously incontinent.

                                     bb. Concerning the necessary. — 1360

But men who behave badly in physical pleasures, with which the temperate and the intemperate are concerned, and freely pursue excessive pleasures while avoiding discomforts, like hunger and thirst, heat and cold, and so forth pertaining to touch and taste, but contrary to right choice and right reason, are called incontinent not in any limited way, as the incontinent in the matter of anger, but absolutely speaking. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that people are called effeminate in reference to these discomforts but not in reference to others.

                               z.   HE INFERS CERTAIN COROLLARIES FROM THE PREMISES.

                                     aa.  The first. — 1361

For this reason we place the incontinent and intemperate, the continent and temperate in the same classification; not that one is the other but because they are concerned with pleasures and pain in some measure, yet not in the same way. Some act from deliberate choice, others without it.

                                     bb. The second. — 1362

Consequently, we say the intemperate person is more blamable than another who sins from violent passion, because the intemperate man pursues excesses and avoids discomforts without passion, or at least only with mild passion. What would such a person do were he to experience youthful lust and the serious discomforts from lack of necessities?

                         ii.   He clarifies some statements he had made.

                               x.   HE SHOWS WHY (THERE IS NOT INCONTINENCE IN... UNNECESSARY THINGS).

                                     aa.  He points out... kinds of unnecessary pleasures. — 1363-1364

Some kinds of desires and pleasures are in the category of the noble and good. (Some pleasures are by nature desirable; others, just the reverse; and still others are in between, according to the previous division, as in the case of money, profit, victory, and honor.) But in all the intermediate kinds, people are not blamed because they are affected by a desire and love for these things but rather because their desire is excessive in some way.

                                     bb. He infers what kind of desire is aroused for these pleasures. — 1365

Hence, those who in an unreasonable manner possess or pursue any of the things that are noble and good by nature, for example, people having more zeal than they should about the acquisition of honor, or the care of their children or parents (are not blamed as evil). Certainly these operations are good, and people solicitous about them are praised. However, a kind of vicious excess can exist in these matters, for example, if someone should rebel against the gods as Niobe did, or should act towards his parents as did Satyrus called “father-lover,” who seemed to have behaved rather foolishly in this matter.

                                     cc.  He... infers... there is neither vice nor total incontinence... — 1366

So then there is no vice in these pleasures because, as was said, each of them is naturally desirable in itself; only their excesses are evil and to be avoided. Likewise there is no incontinence in them, for incontinence not only is a thing to be avoided but is something censurable.

                               y.   HE SHOWS WHY ONLY LIMITED INCONTINENCE IS PREDICATED. — 1367

But people speak according as there is a resemblance to passion, putting limits on incontinence about each thing, for example, a bad doctor or a poor actor whom they would (not) term a bad person without qualification. The same goes for the things called bad in this way, because badness is predicated of any of them only in an analogous sense. So in regard to conti- 10 nence we must judge that only to be incontinence and continence (unqualifiedly) which concerns the same matters as temperance and intemperance. But we predicate incontinence of anger because of a resemblance, and for this reason we qualify, adding that a man is incontinent in anger as we say he is incontinent in honor and gain.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1354. After the Philosopher has shown that a man can perform evil actions contrary to the knowledge he possesses (by this we can know whether continence and incontinence exist), he here determines the matter of continence and incontinence. First he shows the matter of each; then [Lect. 7, I], at “Continence and incontinence etc.” (B. 1150 a 9), he compares them with other habits dealing with the same matter. To clarify the first point he employs a twofold procedure. First [I] he declares his proposition. Second [II], at “It is obvious etc.,” he carries out his proposition. The reasoning employed is this: in proposing the sixth doubt, it was already stated that if continence and incontinence were concerned with all matters, no one would be incontinent in an unqualified sense. So, in an effort to solve this doubt, he presents two questions for consideration. The first is: can anyone be incontinent without qualification or is everyone said to be incontinent in a particular way? The second question is, if a man is totally incontinent, in what kind of matter is he so incontinent?

1355. Then [II], at “It is obvious,” he carries out his proposition. First [II, A] he presents the general matter, saying it is evident that the continent and the incontinent and the persevering and the effeminate are said to be concerned with pleasure and pain.

1356. Next [II, B], at “But of the objects,” he investigates the specific matter of these states. First [B, 1] he shows how continence may he used in different ways about different pleasures. Second [Lect. VI; B, 2], at “Now we will consider,” he compares the kinds of incontinence in different pleasures with one another (B. 1149 a 24). On the initial point he does two things. First [1, a] he shows how a man may be called continent or incontinent in different ways according to the difference in human pleasures among themselves; then according to the difference of human pleasures with regard to what is bestial [Lect. 5; 1, b] at “Of natural pleasures etc.” (B. 1148 b 15). In support of the first statement he uses a double process. First [a, i] he explains his proposition. Second [a, ii], at “Some kinds etc.,” he clarifies some statements he had made. The first point demands three clarifications. First [i, x] he distinguishes human pleasures. Next [i, y], at “Therefore, people etc.,” he shows how in these pleasures a man is called continent or incontinent in different ways. Last [i, z], at “For this reason,” he infers certain corollaries from the premises.

1357. He says first of all that, of those objects giving us pleasure, some are necessary for human life; others are unnecessary but, considered in themselves, desirable for men, however much they are capable of excess and defect. He designates as necessary certain bodily requirements such as those pertaining to food, drink, sex, and material things of this kind, which we previously established as the matter of temperance and intemperance (267, 595, 599, 603). But things desirable in themselves, which he mentions as unnecessary, are victory, honor, riches, and other goods and pleasures of the same kind.

1358. At “Therefore, people” [i, y], he shows in what way a man may be called continent or incontinent in regard to these things: first [i, y, aa] concerning the unnecessary, and second [i, y, bb], at “But men who etc.,” concerning the necessary. His first remark is that people who go to excess in their pursuit of those unnecessary things in them that are contrary to right reason are not called simply incontinent but with a limitation, for example, incontinent in the matter of money, gain, honor, or anger, as if there were others absolutely incontinent. The former are called incontinent by way of likeness that the addition indicates; thus, when we say “man” the victor in the Olympics, the common notion of man differs little from the proper notion which this addition signifies, although it is different in some way.

1359. As an indication that a man may not be called incontinent without qualification in these matters, he remarks that incontinence is censured not only as a sin that someone can commit even in pursuing what is good though in an inordinate manner; but incontinence is censured as a kind of vice by which we tend to some evil. There is vice either in the complete sense, e.g., when the reason and the appetitive faculty aim at evil (this is the real vice that is contrary to virtue) or in an incomplete sense, e.g., when the appetitive faculty, but not the reason, tends to evil ‘ which occurs in incontinence (proper). But none of the incontinent previously mentioned are censured as wicked but only as sinners because they strive for good, but beyond what is proper. Hence none of them is incontinent without qualification.

1360. Then [y, bb], at “But men who,” he shows how someone is called incontinent in regard to necessary things. He observes that men who behave badly in the matter of physical pleasures, with which temperance and intemperance deal, not in such a way that by deliberate choice they pursue excessive pleasures and avoid discomforts, e.g., hunger and thirst and suchlike pertaining to taste and touch—but so that they pursue these things contrary to the right reason in themselves; men of this ‘kind, I say, are called incontinent not with some limitation like the incontinent in regard to anger but without qualification. He also offers confirmation of this by the fact that people are called effeminate-closely related to the incontinent-in reference to such discomforts, for instance, because they cannot undergo hunger or thirst or anything of this type, but not in reference to other things, for example, because they cannot bear poverty and suchlike.

1361. Next [i, z], at “For this reason,” he infers certain corollaries from the premises. The first [z, aa] is that incontinent and intemperate, continent and temperate are placed in the same classification, not in the sense that one of them is the other, but because in some measure they deal with the same things, viz., bodily pleasures and pains, yet not in the same way, for the temperate and intemperate act with deliberate choice while the continent and incontinent act without it.

1362. The second [z, bb], which follows from the first, he sets forth at “Consequently.” He says that, from the discussions, obviously the intemperate man is the greater sinner and to be censured because he sins more in pursuing superfluous pleasures and avoiding slight discomforts when he does not feel passion at all or feels it only gently, i.e., mildly. For this reason he is worse than a man like the incontinent fellow, who sins in these matters from violent passion. What would a man do who sins without passion, if he were to experience the vehement desires of youth and the serious discomforts arising from the lack of necessities?

1363. At “Some kinds” [a, ii] he clarifies what he had said, assigning reaasons why there is no incontinence without qualification in the case of unnecessary things. First [ii, x] he shows why such must be the case. Then [ii, y], at “But people speak etc.,” he shows why only limited incontinence is predicated of such people. On the initial

point he makes three observations. First [ii, x, aa] he points out what kinds of unnecessary pleasures there are. Next [ii, x, bb], at “Hence, those who etc.,” he infers what kind of desire is aroused for these pleasures. Third [ii, x, cc], at “So then there is etc.,” he further infers that there is neither vice nor total incontinence in regard to them. He shows first that some species of desires and pleasures concern things that are good and praiseworthy in themselves.

1364. There are three kinds of pleasures. Some, to which nature inclines, are desirable by nature. Others are just the reverse, for example, those contrary to the natural inclination. Still others are midway between, witness the case of money and gain, victory and honor. Hence, in those of the middle kind, people are not blamed because they are affected by a desire and love for these things but because they desire them in an excessive manner.

1365. Next [ii, x, bb], at “Hence, those who,” he infers from the premises what kind of desire people have for these last types of pleasures. He remarks that those who, contrary to reason, possess or pursue any of the things that are noble and good by nature are not blamed as evil, for instance, people who are more zealous than they should be about honor or about the care of their children or parents. Certainly these operations are good, and men who are properly diligent about them are praised; nevertheless a kind of vicious excess can exist in such matters. Thus if a woman should rebel against God because of excessive love of her children, for example, in the event of their death, as we read of a woman named Niobe; or if a man should do something foolish out of immoderate love of a parent, as a certain Satyrus called philopater or “father-lover” seemed to act very foolishly because of the love he had for his father.’

1366. Then [ii, x, cc], at “So then there is,” he infers that there is no vice in these pleasures because each of them considered in itself is naturally desirable while only excesses in them are evil and to, be avoided. Likewise there is no complete incontinence in these pleasures, because incontinence not only is a thing to be avoided as a sin but is something censurable as being disgraceful. Therefore it is with bodily pleasures, which are disgraceful and servile as was said in book the third (612), that continence is properly concerned. Nor are pleasures of this kind to be desired by men except on account of necessity.

1367. At “But people speak” [ii, y] he shows why partial incontinence should be predicated of unnecessary pleasures. He say this happens because of some likeness in passion: as someone has an immoderate passion for bodily pleasures, so too for money and other objects previously mentioned. There is a parallel case when we say a man is a bad doctor or a poor mimic, i.e., actor, who nevertheless is not called simply bad. So then in the things that are called bad in this way, we do not predicate badness of any of them in an unqualified sense but according to a proportionate likeness, because as a bad doctor is compared to what a doctor ought to be so a bad man is compared to what a man ought to be. Likewise in the genus of continence we call that continence and incontinence without qualification which is concerned with the same matters as temperance and intemperance. But with respect to anger we predicate incontinence by similitude, and hence say a man is incontinent in the matter of anger, as we say he is incontinent in the matter of honor or gain.

LECTURE 5

Kinds of Pleasure

Chapter 5

b.   He explains that a man is said to be continent or incontinent... according as his passions and pleasures are human or brutish.

      i.    which (kinds) are human and which, brutish.

            x.   HE DISTINGUISHES PLEASURES. — 1368-1371

Of natural pleasures, some are delightful to every taste, others to different classes of men and animals. But of the pleasures that are not natural, some become delightful because of sickness or privations, others because of customs or vicious natures. And to each of these pleasures there will be a corresponding habit.

            y. HE CLARIFIES HIS STATEMENT BY EXAMPLES.

                   aa. First. — 1372

I call bestial the pleasure of the man who is said to have slit pregnant women so he could devour the fetuses; of anyone who delights in the brutish practices ascribed to certain savages near the Black Sea: some of whom eat raw meat, others human flesh, and still others, one another’s children at their feasts; or Phalaris, according to what is related of him. Men delighting in such pleasures are like beasts.

                   bb.      Second. — 1373

But some people become bestial because of particular ailments, for example, insanity. Laboring under this affliction one man sacrificed his mother and ate her, another murdered his fellow slave and ate his liver. These persons are pathological.

                   cc. Last. — 1374

Others become bestial because of habit, for instance, certain men who take pleasure in plucking out their hair, biting their nails, eating coal and earth, and having sexual intercourse with males. People act in these ways from the condition of their bodily temperament, or from usage to which they have become accustomed since childhood.

      ii.   ...how continence and incontinence are attributed in a different sense.

            x.   BY A REASON TAKEN FROM THE DISPOSITION OF THOSE WHO ENJOY THE PLEASURES. — 1375-1376

No one would accuse of (unqualified) incontinence those in whom nature is the cause of these pleasures, as is the case with women who do not govern their emotions but are governed by them. The same, too, may be said of people who are morbid because of bad habits.

            y.   BY A REASON TAKEN FROM THE NATURE OF THE PLEASURES.

                   aa. He states his proposition.

                         a’  He proposes two things. (First). — 1377

To experience desires for these pleasures exceeds the limits of human vice, as brutishness was said to do.

                         b’  The second. — 1378

If anyone has the desires and overcomes them or is overcome by them, he is not called continent or incontinent simply but in virtue of a resemblance. It was in this way that we spoke about one having the passion of anger, viz., that he must be called incontinent in part.

                   bb.      He explains it.

                         a’  In regard to vice.

                               a.   (CONCERNED WITH) VICES OPPOSED TO ALL VIRTUES. — 1379

Every excess of vice, for example, folly, timidity, intemperance, and harshness is either brutish or caused by sickness.

                               b.   HE... EXEMPLIFIES TIMIDITY. — 1380

Someone who is so inclined by nature that he fears everything, even the squeak of a mouse, has the timidity of a dumb beast; and the individual who was afraid of a ferret had a pathological condition.

                               c.   EXAMPLES OF FOLLY. — 1381

Certain silly people are irrational by nature and, living according to the senses, become brutish like the barbarous tribes of distant regions. Others are irrational because of sickness like epilepsy or insanity, and are silly by reason of disease.

                         b’  In regard to... incontinence.

                               a.   IN WHAT WAY. — 1382

Sometimes a man may experience these passions but not be overcome, for instance, if Phalaris had kept a boy, desiring to use him for food or unseemly sexual pleasure. At other times a man may not only experience the passions but be overcome by them.

                               b.   NO COMPLETE... INCONTINENCE. — 1383-1384