Conclusion: An incontinent person does not have true knowledge of what they are doing.
Premises:
1) There are two ways of knowing (1146b33).
A)There is knowledge that you have but do not use, then there is knowledge that you have and you use (1146b33).
B) (i) By not using your knowledge it is possible to do wrong but not know that you did do wrong.
2) It is possible to have knowledge but not being able to use that knowledge.
A) Some people, like those who are drunk, mad, or asleep have a kind of knowledge but in most cases cannot use it due to their condition (1147a13).
B) Strong feelings like lust or spirited reactions also undermine the use of knowledge the same as being drunk, mad, or asleep (1147a16)
C) (i) It is easy to fall into incontinence when compelled by strong emotions like lust or when blinded by drunkenness or madness.
3) A persons action may conflict with their knowledge if they have both the universal and
particular premises but only use the universal (1147a).
A) Particular premises are achievable in action whereas universal premises are not (1147a4).
B) (i) If someone only knows the general idea of something but not the particulars then they cannot have true knowledge of what they are doing.
4) Continence requires rational calculation (1145b11).
A) The incontinent person follows their base instinct rather than rational thought (1145b13
B) (i) Knowledge requires rational thought otherwise it is only perceptual knowledge.
5) (i) The knowledge someone has when affected by incontinence is not true knowledge due to the lack of rational thought.
A)(i) Without rational though a person won’t be able to stop and think over what they are doing and won’t know if what they are doing is incontinent.
I can understand how you came to you conclusion, I do not however agree. I believe that someone who is incontinent can have true knowledge of what they are doing, but they may not know the effects. The alcoholic, for example, knows fully that they have a problem, but they do not believe it has the effects that it does. For example, an alcoholic may drink because they feel that people will see them in a negative way. The truth, as sober people know, is that people will not look at them negatively. The alcoholic understands what they are doing but not necessarily why it us bad. This is why I do not agree with you and why U believe an incontinent person does have true knowledge of that they are doing.
ReplyDeleteOverall, your outline is pretty thorough, however, I am confused by how you came to your conclusion. Although you mention most of them, Aristotle proposes four solutions to how incontinence occurs, one of which is that it is possible that a person knows what it wrong, but does not reflect upon this knowledge and continues to do wrong without thinking about it. In class, Professor Vaught gave the example of a smoker who knows the effects of smoking, but still doesn’t stop.
ReplyDelete