ἐπεὶ δὲ τυγχάνομεν πρότερον εἰρηκότες ὅτι δεῖ τὸ μέσον αἱρεῖσθαι, μὴ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν μηδὲ τὴν ἔλλειψιν, τὸ δὲ μέσον ἐστὶν ὡς ὁ λόγος ὁ ὀρθὸς λέγει, τοῦτο διέλωμεν. ἐν πάσαις γὰρ ταῖς εἰρημέναις ἕξεσι, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ἔστι τις σκοπὸς πρὸς ὃν ἀποβλέπων ὁ τὸν λόγον ἔχων ἐπιτείνει καὶ ἀνίησιν, καί τις ἔστιν ὅρος τῶν μεσοτήτων, ἃς μεταξύ φαμεν εἶναι τῆς ὑπερβολῆς καὶ τῆς ἐλλείψεως, οὔσας κατὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον.
Since we said earlier that one should choose the mean, not the excess or the deficiency, and that the mean is as correct reason says, let us analyze this. In all the states we have discussed, as in other matters too, there is a target which the person who has reason keeps his eye on as he tightens or relaxes; and there is a standard that marks out the means, which we say lie between excess and deficiency, being in accordance with correct reason.
ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν εἰπεῖν οὕτως ἀληθὲς μέν, οὐθὲν δὲ σαφές· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπιμελείαις, περὶ ὅσας ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμη, τοῦτʼ ἀληθὲς μὲν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι οὔτε πλείω οὔτε ἐλάττω δεῖ πονεῖν οὐδὲ ῥᾳθυμεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μέσα καὶ ὡς ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος· τοῦτο δὲ μόνον ἔχων ἄν τις οὐδὲν ἂν εἰδείη πλέον, οἷον ποῖα δεῖ προσφέρεσθαι πρὸς τὸ σῶμα, εἴ τις εἴπειεν ὅτι ὅσα ἡ ἰατρικὴ κελεύει καὶ ὡς ὁ ταύτην ἔχων. διὸ δεῖ καὶ περὶ τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἕξεις μὴ μόνον ἀληθῶς εἶναι τοῦτʼ εἰρημένον, ἀλλὰ καὶ διωρισμένον τίς ἐστιν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος καὶ τούτου τίς ὅρος.
To put it like this is true, but not at all clear. In other pursuits too, those governed by scientific knowledge, it is true to say that one should exert oneself or take it easy neither more nor less than one should, but to the intermediate degree and as correct reason says. But someone who had only this would be none the wiser—about what treatments to apply to the body, for example, if he were told “whatever medicine prescribes, and as the person who has it prescribes.” So with the states of the soul too, it is not enough for this to have been said truly; we must also define what correct reason is, and what its standard is.
The parts of the soul that have reason
Aristotle divides the rational soul into scientific and calculative parts, each aiming at truth.
τὰς δὴ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρετὰς διελόμενοι 1139a τὰς μὲν εἶναι τοῦ ἤθους ἔφαμεν τὰς δὲ τῆς διανοίας. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἠθικῶν διεληλύθαμεν, περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν, περὶ ψυχῆς πρῶτον εἰπόντες, λέγωμεν οὕτως. πρότερον μὲν οὖν ἐλέχθη δύʼ εἶναι μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, τό τε λόγον ἔχον καὶ τὸ ἄλογον· νῦν δὲ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον διαιρετέον. καὶ ὑποκείσθω δύο τὰ λόγον ἔχοντα, ἓν μὲν ᾧ θεωροῦμεν τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ὄντων ὅσων αἱ ἀρχαὶ μὴ ἐνδέχονται ἄλλως ἔχειν, ἓν δὲ ᾧ τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα· πρὸς γὰρ τὰ τῷ γένει ἕτερα καὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μορίων ἕτερον τῷ γένει τὸ πρὸς ἑκάτερον πεφυκός, εἴπερ καθʼ ὁμοιότητά τινα καὶ οἰκειότητα ἡ γνῶσις ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς.
When we divided the excellences of the soul, 1139a we said that some are excellences of character and others of thought. We have gone through the excellences of character; let us discuss the rest as follows, first saying something about the soul. It was said before that the soul has two parts, the part that has reason and the non-rational part. Now we must divide the part that has reason in the same way. Let us take it that there are two parts that have reason: one by which we contemplate the kinds of things whose principles cannot be otherwise, and one by which we contemplate things that can. For where objects differ in kind, the parts of the soul naturally suited to each also differ in kind—if, that is, they come to know their objects through a certain likeness and kinship with them.
λεγέσθω δὲ τούτων τὸ μὲν ἐπιστημονικὸν τὸ δὲ λογιστικόν· τὸ γὰρ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ λογίζεσθαι ταὐτόν, οὐδεὶς δὲ βουλεύεται περὶ τῶν μὴ ἐνδεχομένων ἄλλως ἔχειν. ὥστε τὸ λογιστικόν ἐστιν ἕν τι μέρος τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος. ληπτέον ἄρʼ ἑκατέρου τούτων τίς ἡ βελτίστη ἕξις· αὕτη γὰρ ἀρετὴ ἑκατέρου, ἡ δʼ ἀρετὴ πρὸς τὸ ἔργον τὸ οἰκεῖον. τρία δή ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τὰ κύρια πράξεως καὶ ἀληθείας, αἴσθησις νοῦς ὄρεξις. τούτων δʼ ἡ αἴσθησις οὐδεμιᾶς ἀρχὴ πράξεως· δῆλον δὲ τῷ τὰ θηρία αἴσθησιν μὲν ἔχειν πράξεως δὲ μὴ κοινωνεῖν.
Let us call one of these the scientific part and the other the calculative part; for deliberating and calculating are the same, and no one deliberates about what cannot be otherwise. So the calculative part is one part of the part that has reason. We must grasp, then, what the best state of each of these is; for that is the excellence of each, and the excellence is relative to its proper function. There are three things in the soul that govern action and truth: perception, intellect, desire. Of these, perception is not the origin of any action; this is clear from the fact that beasts have perception but have no share in action.
ἔστι δʼ ὅπερ ἐν διανοίᾳ κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις, τοῦτʼ ἐν ὀρέξει δίωξις καὶ φυγή· ὥστʼ ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ ἕξις προαιρετική, ἡ δὲ προαίρεσις ὄρεξις βουλευτική, δεῖ διὰ ταῦτα μὲν τόν τε λόγον ἀληθῆ εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὄρεξιν ὀρθήν, εἴπερ ἡ προαίρεσις σπουδαία, καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ τὸν μὲν φάναι τὴν δὲ διώκειν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ διάνοια καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια πρακτική· τῆς δὲ θεωρητικῆς διανοίας καὶ μὴ πρακτικῆς μηδὲ ποιητικῆς τὸ εὖ καὶ κακῶς τἀληθές ἐστι καὶ ψεῦδος (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι παντὸς διανοητικοῦ ἔργον)· τοῦ δὲ πρακτικοῦ καὶ διανοητικοῦ ἀλήθεια ὁμολόγως ἔχουσα τῇ ὀρέξει τῇ ὀρθῇ. πράξεως μὲν οὖν ἀρχὴ προαίρεσις—ὅθεν ἡ κίνησις ἀλλʼ οὐχ οὗ ἕνεκα—προαιρέσεως δὲ ὄρεξις καὶ λόγος ὁ ἕνεκά τινος.
What affirmation and denial are in thought, pursuit and avoidance are in desire. So, since excellence of character is a state that issues in decisions, and decision is deliberative desire, the reasoning must be true and the desire correct if the decision is to be excellent, and the desire must pursue what the reasoning asserts. This, then, is practical thought and practical truth. For thought that is contemplative, and neither practical nor productive, doing well and badly consist in truth and falsehood (for that is the function of everything that thinks); but for what is practical and thinks, the good state is truth in agreement with correct desire. The origin of action—its source of motion, not its end—is decision; and the origin of decision is desire and reasoning directed toward some end.
διὸ οὔτʼ ἄνευ νοῦ καὶ διανοίας οὔτʼ ἄνευ ἠθικῆς ἐστὶν ἕξεως ἡ προαίρεσις· εὐπραξία γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον ἐν πράξει ἄνευ διανοίας καὶ ἤθους οὐκ ἔστιν. διάνοια δʼ αὐτὴ οὐθὲν κινεῖ, ἀλλʼ ἡ ἕνεκά του καὶ πρακτική· 1139b αὕτη γὰρ καὶ τῆς ποιητικῆς ἄρχει· ἕνεκα γάρ του ποιεῖ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, καὶ οὐ τέλος ἁπλῶς (ἀλλὰ πρός τι καὶ τινός) τὸ ποιητόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρακτόν· ἡ γὰρ εὐπραξία τέλος, ἡ δʼ ὄρεξις τούτου. διὸ ἢ ὀρεκτικὸς νοῦς ἡ προαίρεσις ἢ ὄρεξις διανοητική, καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη ἀρχὴ ἄνθρωπος.
That is why decision requires intellect and thought, and also a state of character; for acting well and its opposite cannot exist in action without thought and character. Thought by itself moves nothing; only thought that aims at something and is practical does. 1139b This kind also governs productive thought, since everyone who makes something makes it for the sake of something, and what is made is not an end without qualification (it is an end relative to something, and belongs to someone), whereas what is done is; for acting well is the end, and desire aims at that. So decision is either desiring intellect or thinking desire, and an origin of this kind is a human being.
οὐκ ἔστι δὲ προαιρετὸν οὐδὲν γεγονός, οἷον οὐδεὶς προαιρεῖται Ἴλιον πεπορθηκέναι· οὐδὲ γὰρ βουλεύεται περὶ τοῦ γεγονότος ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ ἐσομένου καὶ ἐνδεχομένου, τὸ δὲ γεγονὸς οὐκ ἐνδέχεται μὴ γενέσθαι· διὸ ὀρθῶς Ἀγάθων μόνου γὰρ αὐτοῦ καὶ θεὸς στερίσκεται, ἀγένητα ποιεῖν ἅσσʼ ἂν ᾖ πεπραγμένα. ἀμφοτέρων δὴ τῶν νοητικῶν μορίων ἀλήθεια τὸ ἔργον. καθʼ ἃς οὖν μάλιστα ἕξεις ἀληθεύσει ἑκάτερον, αὗται ἀρεταὶ ἀμφοῖν.
Nothing that has already happened is an object of decision; no one decides to have sacked Troy. For no one deliberates about the past, but about what will be and can be, and what has happened cannot not have happened. So Agathon is right: “Of this alone even a god is deprived: / to make undone whatever has been done.” The function of both thinking parts, then, is truth. So the states in which each part will best attain truth are the excellences of both.
Scientific knowledge and craft
Aristotle defines scientific knowledge as demonstration about the necessary and craft as reasoned making.
ἀρξάμενοι οὖν ἄνωθεν περὶ αὐτῶν πάλιν λέγωμεν. ἔστω δὴ οἷς ἀληθεύει ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ καταφάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι, πέντε τὸν ἀριθμόν· ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ τέχνη ἐπιστήμη φρόνησις σοφία νοῦς· ὑπολήψει γὰρ καὶ δόξῃ ἐνδέχεται διαψεύδεσθαι. ἐπιστήμη μὲν οὖν τί ἐστιν, ἐντεῦθεν φανερόν, εἰ δεῖ ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν ταῖς ὁμοιότησιν. πάντες γὰρ ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ὃ ἐπιστάμεθα, μηδʼ ἐνδέχεσθαι ἄλλως ἔχειν· τὰ δʼ ἐνδεχόμενα ἄλλως, ὅταν ἔξω τοῦ θεωρεῖν γένηται, λανθάνει εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μή. ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ ἐπιστητόν. ἀίδιον ἄρα· τὰ γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὄντα ἁπλῶς πάντα ἀίδια, τὰ δʼ ἀίδια ἀγένητα καὶ ἄφθαρτα. ἔτι διδακτὴ ἅπασα ἐπιστήμη δοκεῖ εἶναι, καὶ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν μαθητόν. ἐκ προγινωσκομένων δὲ πᾶσα διδασκαλία, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀναλυτικοῖς λέγομεν· ἣ μὲν γὰρ διʼ ἐπαγωγῆς, ἣ δὲ συλλογισμῷ.
Let us, then, start again from the beginning and discuss these once more. Let us say that the things by which the soul attains truth in affirming or denying are five in number: craft, scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, wisdom, intellect; for in supposition and opinion one can be mistaken. What scientific knowledge is becomes evident from the following, if we are to speak precisely and not be led by mere resemblances. We all suppose that what we know scientifically cannot be otherwise; whereas with things that can be otherwise, once they are out of our view, we can’t tell whether they are the case or not. So what is scientifically known exists of necessity. So it is eternal; for things that exist of necessity without qualification are all eternal, and eternal things neither come into being nor pass away. Again, all scientific knowledge seems to be teachable, and what is scientifically known learnable. But all teaching starts from what is already known, as we say in the Analytics too; some teaching proceeds by induction, some by deduction.
ἡ μὲν δὴ ἐπαγωγὴ ἀρχή ἐστι καὶ τοῦ καθόλου, ὁ δὲ συλλογισμὸς ἐκ τῶν καθόλου. εἰσὶν ἄρα ἀρχαὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ συλλογισμός, ὧν οὐκ ἔστι συλλογισμός· ἐπαγωγὴ ἄρα. ἡ μὲν ἄρα ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἕξις ἀποδεικτική, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα προσδιοριζόμεθα ἐν τοῖς ἀναλυτικοῖς· ὅταν γάρ πως πιστεύῃ καὶ γνώριμοι αὐτῷ ὦσιν αἱ ἀρχαί, ἐπίσταται· εἰ γὰρ μὴ μᾶλλον τοῦ συμπεράσματος, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἕξει τὴν ἐπιστήμην. περὶ μὲν οὖν ἐπιστήμης διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.
Induction supplies starting points, including the universal, while deduction proceeds from universals. So there are principles from which deduction proceeds, and of which there is no deduction; they come, then, by induction. Scientific knowledge is a state that demonstrates, together with the further qualifications we add in the Analytics. For a person has scientific knowledge when he is convinced in a certain way and the principles are known to him; if he does not know them better than the conclusion, he will have scientific knowledge only incidentally. Let this be our account of scientific knowledge.
τοῦ δʼ ἐνδεχομένου ἄλλως ἔχειν ἔστι τι καὶ ποιητὸν καὶ πρακτόν· ἕτερον δʼ ἐστὶ ποίησις καὶ πρᾶξις (πιστεύομεν δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις)· ὥστε καὶ ἡ μετὰ λόγου ἕξις πρακτικὴ ἕτερόν ἐστι τῆς μετὰ λόγου ποιητικῆς ἕξεως. διὸ οὐδὲ περιέχεται ὑπʼ ἀλλήλων· οὔτε γὰρ ἡ πρᾶξις ποίησις οὔτε ἡ ποίησις πρᾶξίς ἐστιν. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ οἰκοδομικὴ τέχνη τίς ἐστι καὶ ὅπερ ἕξις τις μετὰ λόγου ποιητική, καὶ οὐδεμία οὔτε τέχνη ἐστὶν ἥτις οὐ μετὰ λόγου ποιητικὴ ἕξις ἐστίν, οὔτε τοιαύτη ἣ οὐ τέχνη, ταὐτὸν ἂν εἴη τέχνη καὶ ἕξις μετὰ λόγου ἀληθοῦς ποιητική.
What can be otherwise includes both what is made and what is done; making and doing are different (on this we can rely on our more popular discussions too). So the state involving reason that is concerned with doing is different from the state involving reason that is concerned with making. Hence neither includes the other: doing is not making, nor is making doing. Now building is a craft, and is precisely a certain state involving reason concerned with making; and there is no craft that is not a state involving reason concerned with making, nor any such state that is not a craft. So craft would be the same as a state involving true reason concerned with making.
ἔστι δὲ τέχνη πᾶσα περὶ γένεσιν καὶ τὸ τεχνάζειν καὶ θεωρεῖν ὅπως ἂν γένηταί τι τῶν ἐνδεχομένων καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, καὶ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν τῷ ποιοῦντι ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν τῷ ποιουμένῳ· οὔτε γὰρ τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὄντων ἢ γινομένων ἡ τέχνη ἐστίν, οὔτε τῶν κατὰ φύσιν· ἐν αὑτοῖς γὰρ ἔχουσι ταῦτα τὴν ἀρχήν. ἐπεὶ δὲ ποίησις καὶ πρᾶξις ἕτερον, ἀνάγκη τὴν τέχνην ποιήσεως ἀλλʼ οὐ πράξεως εἶναι. καὶ τρόπον τινὰ περὶ τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ἡ τύχη καὶ ἡ τέχνη, καθάπερ καὶ Ἀγάθων φησὶ τέχνη τύχην ἔστερξε καὶ τύχη τέχνην. ἡ μὲν οὖν τέχνη, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ἕξις τις μετὰ λόγου ἀληθοῦς ποιητική ἐστιν, ἡ δʼ ἀτεχνία τοὐναντίον μετὰ λόγου ψευδοῦς ποιητικὴ ἕξις,περὶ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἄλλως ἔχειν.
All craft is concerned with bringing something into being, that is, with contriving and considering how something may come to be among the things that can either be or not be, and whose origin is in the maker, not in the thing made. For there is no craft of things that are or come to be of necessity, or of things that are by nature, since these have their origin in themselves. And since making and doing are different, craft must be concerned with making, not doing. In a way, chance and craft are concerned with the same things, as Agathon too says: “Craft loves chance, and chance loves craft.” Craft, then, as we have said, is a state involving true reason concerned with making; and its opposite, lack of craft, is a state involving false reason concerned with making, in the sphere of what can be otherwise.
Practical wisdom
Aristotle defines practical wisdom as a true reasoned state concerned with action about human goods.
περὶ δὲ φρονήσεως οὕτως ἂν λάβοιμεν, θεωρήσαντες τίνας λέγομεν τοὺς φρονίμους. δοκεῖ δὴ φρονίμου εἶναι τὸ δύνασθαι καλῶς βουλεύσασθαι περὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαθὰ καὶ συμφέροντα, οὐ κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ποῖα πρὸς ὑγίειαν, πρὸς ἰσχύν, ἀλλὰ ποῖα πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν ὅλως. σημεῖον δʼ ὅτι καὶ τοὺς περί τι φρονίμους λέγομεν, ὅταν πρὸς τέλος τι σπουδαῖον εὖ λογίσωνται, ὧν μή ἐστι τέχνη. ὥστε καὶ ὅλως ἂν εἴη φρόνιμος ὁ βουλευτικός. βουλεύεται δʼ οὐθεὶς περὶ τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἄλλως ἔχειν, οὐδὲ τῶν μὴ ἐνδεχομένων αὐτῷ πρᾶξαι.
As for practical wisdom, we may grasp it by considering whom we call practically wise. It seems to be characteristic of the practically wise person to be able to deliberate well about what is good and beneficial for himself—not in some particular respect, such as what makes for health or strength, but what makes for living well as a whole. A sign of this is that we also call people practically wise in some particular respect when they calculate well toward some worthwhile end in a matter where there is no craft. So in general the practically wise person would be the one who is good at deliberating. But no one deliberates about what cannot be otherwise, or about things he cannot do.
ὥστʼ εἴπερ ἐπιστήμη μὲν μετʼ ἀποδείξεως, ὧν δʼ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐνδέχονται ἄλλως ἔχειν, τούτων μή ἐστιν ἀπόδειξις (π̔άντα γὰρ ἐνδέχεται καὶ ἄλλως ἔχειν), 1140b καὶ οὐκ ἔστι βουλεύσασθαι περὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὄντων, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἡ φρόνησις ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲ τέχνη, ἐπιστήμη μὲν ὅτι ἐνδέχεται τὸ πρακτὸν ἄλλως ἔχειν, τέχνη δʼ ὅτι ἄλλο τὸ γένος πράξεως καὶ ποιήσεως. λείπεται ἄρα αὐτὴν εἶναι ἕξιν ἀληθῆ μετὰ λόγου πρακτικὴν περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακά. τῆς μὲν γὰρ ποιήσεως ἕτερον τὸ τέλος, τῆς δὲ πράξεως οὐκ ἂν εἴη· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτὴ ἡ εὐπραξία τέλος. διὰ τοῦτο Περικλέα καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους φρονίμους οἰόμεθα εἶναι, ὅτι τὰ αὑτοῖς ἀγαθὰ καὶ τὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δύνανται θεωρεῖν· εἶναι δὲ τοιούτους ἡγούμεθα τοὺς οἰκονομικοὺς καὶ τοὺς πολιτικούς.
So if scientific knowledge involves demonstration, and there is no demonstration of things whose principles can be otherwise (since all of them can also be otherwise), 1140b and it is not possible to deliberate about things that are of necessity, then practical wisdom would be neither scientific knowledge nor craft: not scientific knowledge, because what is done can be otherwise, and not craft, because doing and making are different in kind. It remains, then, that it is a true state involving reason, concerned with action about what is good and bad for a human being. For making has an end other than itself, but doing would not; acting well is itself the end. That is why we think Pericles and people like him are practically wise: they can see what is good for themselves and for human beings generally; and we think that people who can manage households and cities are like this.
ἔνθεν καὶ τὴν σωφροσύνην τούτῳ προσαγορεύομεν τῷ ὀνόματι, ὡς σῴζουσαν τὴν φρόνησιν. σῴζει δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην ὑπόληψιν. οὐ γὰρ ἅπασαν ὑπόληψιν διαφθείρει οὐδὲ διαστρέφει τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ λυπηρόν, οἷον ὅτι τὸ τρίγωνον δύο ὀρθὰς ἔχει ἢ οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τὰς περὶ τὸ πρακτόν. αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαὶ τῶν πρακτῶν τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα τὰ πρακτά· τῷ δὲ διεφθαρμένῳ διʼ ἡδονὴν ἢ λύπην εὐθὺς οὐ φαίνεται ἀρχή, οὐδὲ δεῖν τούτου ἕνεκεν οὐδὲ διὰ τοῦθʼ αἱρεῖσθαι πάντα καὶ πράττειν· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ κακία φθαρτικὴ ἀρχῆς. ὥστʼ ἀνάγκη τὴν φρόνησιν ἕξιν εἶναι μετὰ λόγου ἀληθῆ περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀγαθὰ πρακτικήν. ἀλλὰ μὴν τέχνης μὲν ἔστιν ἀρετή, φρονήσεως δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ ἐν μὲν τέχνῃ ὁ ἑκὼν ἁμαρτάνων αἱρετώτερος, περὶ δὲ φρόνησιν ἧττον, ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀρετάς.
This is also why we call moderation by its name, as “preserving practical wisdom.” What it preserves is a supposition of this kind. For pleasure and pain do not destroy or distort every supposition—that a triangle does or doesn’t have angles equal to two right angles, for example—but only suppositions about action. The principles of actions are what the actions are done for; but to someone corrupted by pleasure or pain, the principle does not appear straightaway, nor does it appear that he should choose and do everything for its sake and because of it; for vice destroys the principle. So practical wisdom must be a true state involving reason, concerned with action about human goods. Moreover, there is such a thing as excellence in a craft, but not in practical wisdom; and in a craft someone who errs voluntarily is preferable, but with practical wisdom he is worse, as with the excellences too.
δῆλον οὖν ὅτι ἀρετή τις ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ τέχνη. δυοῖν δʼ ὄντοιν μεροῖν τῆς ψυχῆς τῶν λόγον ἐχόντων, θατέρου ἂν εἴη ἀρετή, τοῦ δοξαστικοῦ· ἥ τε γὰρ δόξα περὶ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἄλλως ἔχειν καὶ ἡ φρόνησις. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἕξις μετὰ λόγου μόνον· σημεῖον δʼ ὅτι λήθη μὲν τῆς τοιαύτης ἕξεως ἔστι, φρονήσεως δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν.
Clearly, then, it is an excellence and not a craft. And since there are two parts of the soul that have reason, it would be the excellence of one of them, the part that forms opinions; for opinion is concerned with what can be otherwise, and so is practical wisdom. But it is not merely a state involving reason either. A sign of this is that such a state can be forgotten, but practical wisdom cannot.
Intellect and wisdom
Aristotle explains intellect as grasping first principles and wisdom as the highest knowledge, and compares practical wisdom.
ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ ἐπιστήμη περὶ τῶν καθόλου ἐστὶν ὑπόληψις καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὄντων, εἰσὶ δʼ ἀρχαὶ τῶν ἀποδεικτῶν καὶ πάσης ἐπιστήμης (μετὰ λόγου γὰρ ἡ ἐπιστήμη), τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ ἐπιστητοῦ οὔτʼ ἂν ἐπιστήμη εἴη οὔτε τέχνη οὔτε φρόνησις· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιστητὸν ἀποδεικτόν, 1141a αἳ δὲ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι περὶ τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα ἄλλως ἔχειν. οὐδὲ δὴ σοφία τούτων ἐστίν· τοῦ γὰρ σοφοῦ περὶ ἐνίων ἔχειν ἀπόδειξίν ἐστιν. εἰ δὴ οἷς ἀληθεύομεν καὶ μηδέποτε διαψευδόμεθα περὶ τὰ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενα ἢ καὶ ἐνδεχόμενα ἄλλως ἔχειν, ἐπιστήμη καὶ φρόνησίς ἐστι καὶ σοφία καὶ νοῦς, τούτων δὲ τῶν τριῶν μηδὲν ἐνδέχεται εἶναι (λέγω δὲ τρία φρόνησιν ἐπιστήμην σοφίαν), λείπεται νοῦν εἶναι τῶν ἀρχῶν.
Scientific knowledge is supposition about universals and things that are of necessity, and there are principles of what is demonstrated and of all scientific knowledge (since scientific knowledge involves reasoning). So the principle of what is scientifically known cannot be the object of scientific knowledge, or of craft, or of practical wisdom. For what is scientifically known is demonstrable, 1141a while craft and practical wisdom are concerned with what can be otherwise. Nor is wisdom of these principles, since it is characteristic of the wise person to have demonstrations about some things. So if the things by which we attain truth and are never deceived, about what cannot or even about what can be otherwise, are scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, wisdom and intellect, and it cannot be any of the three (by the three I mean practical wisdom, scientific knowledge and wisdom), it remains that intellect is of the principles.
τὴν δὲ σοφίαν ἔν τε ταῖς τέχναις τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις τὰς τέχνας ἀποδίδομεν, οἷον Φειδίαν λιθουργὸν σοφὸν καὶ Πολύκλειτον ἀνδριαντοποιόν, ἐνταῦθα μὲν οὖν οὐθὲν ἄλλο σημαίνοντες τὴν σοφίαν ἢ ὅτι ἀρετὴ τέχνης ἐστίν· εἶναι δέ τινας σοφοὺς οἰόμεθα ὅλως οὐ κατὰ μέρος οὐδʼ ἄλλο τι σοφούς, ὥσπερ Ὅμηρός φησιν ἐν τῷ Μαργίτῃ τὸν δʼ οὔτʼ ἂρ σκαπτῆρα θεοὶ θέσαν οὔτʼ ἀροτῆρα οὔτʼ ἄλλως τι σοφόν. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι ἀκριβεστάτη ἂν τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εἴη ἡ σοφία. δεῖ ἄρα τὸν σοφὸν μὴ μόνον τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν εἰδέναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀληθεύειν. ὥστʼ εἴη ἂν ἡ σοφία νοῦς καὶ ἐπιστήμη, ὥσπερ κεφαλὴν ἔχουσα ἐπιστήμη τῶν τιμιωτάτων.
In the crafts, we attribute wisdom to those who are most exact in their craft; we call Phidias a wise sculptor in stone, for example, and Polyclitus a wise maker of statues, and here we mean nothing by wisdom except excellence in a craft. But we think some people are wise in general, not in some particular field or wise in anything else, as Homer says in the Margites: “Him the gods made neither a digger nor a plowman, / nor wise in anything else.” So it is clear that wisdom would be the most exact of the kinds of scientific knowledge. The wise person, then, must not only know what follows from the principles but also attain truth about the principles themselves. So wisdom would be intellect together with scientific knowledge: scientific knowledge of the most honorable things, with a head on it, as it were.
ἄτοπον γὰρ εἴ τις τὴν πολιτικὴν ἢ τὴν φρόνησιν σπουδαιοτάτην οἴεται εἶναι, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἄριστον τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν. εἰ δὴ ὑγιεινὸν μὲν καὶ ἀγαθὸν ἕτερον ἀνθρώποις καὶ ἰχθύσι, τὸ δὲ λευκὸν καὶ εὐθὺ ταὐτὸν ἀεί, καὶ τὸ σοφὸν ταὐτὸ πάντες ἂν εἴποιεν, φρόνιμον δὲ ἕτερον· τὰ γὰρ περὶ αὑτὸ ἕκαστα τὸ εὖ θεωροῦν φησὶν εἶναι φρόνιμον, καὶ τούτῳ ἐπιτρέψει αὐτά. διὸ καὶ τῶν θηρίων ἔνια φρόνιμά φασιν εἶναι, ὅσα περὶ τὸν αὑτῶν βίον ἔχοντα φαίνεται δύναμιν προνοητικήν.
For it is odd if anyone thinks political expertise or practical wisdom is the most excellent kind of knowledge, unless a human being is the best thing in the cosmos. Now if what is healthy or good is different for human beings and for fish, but what is white or straight is always the same, then everyone would say that what is wise is the same, but what is practically wise differs. For people call a being practically wise if it looks well after its own particular concerns, and they will entrust such matters to it. That is why they even say that some animals are practically wise—those that evidently have a capacity for foresight about their own life.
φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ πολιτικὴ ἡ αὐτή· εἰ γὰρ τὴν περὶ τὰ ὠφέλιμα τὰ αὑτοῖς ἐροῦσι σοφίαν, πολλαὶ ἔσονται σοφίαι· οὐ γὰρ μία περὶ τὸ ἁπάντων ἀγαθὸν τῶν ζῴων, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρα περὶ ἕκαστον, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἰατρικὴ μία περὶ πάντων τῶν ὄντων. εἰ δʼ ὅτι βέλτιστον ἄνθρωπος τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, οὐδὲν διαφέρει· καὶ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἄλλα πολὺ θειότερα τὴν φύσιν, 1141b οἷον φανερώτατά γε ἐξ ὧν ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκεν. ἐκ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων δῆλον ὅτι ἡ σοφία ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ νοῦς τῶν τιμιωτάτων τῇ φύσει.
It is also evident that wisdom and political expertise would not be the same. For if people are going to call knowledge of what is beneficial to themselves wisdom, there will be many wisdoms. There is not one wisdom concerned with the good of all animals, but a different one for each—unless there is also one medicine for all beings. And if the point is that a human being is the best of the animals, that makes no difference; for there are other things far more divine in nature than a human being— 1141b most evidently, the bodies of which the cosmos is composed. From what has been said, then, it is clear that wisdom is scientific knowledge together with intellect, of the things most honorable by nature.
διὸ Ἀναξαγόραν καὶ Θαλῆν καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους σοφοὺς μὲν φρονίμους δʼ οὔ φασιν εἶναι, ὅταν ἴδωσιν ἀγνοοῦντας τὰ συμφέροντα ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ περιττὰ μὲν καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ καὶ δαιμόνια εἰδέναι αὐτούς φασιν, ἄχρηστα δʼ, ὅτι οὐ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀγαθὰ ζητοῦσιν. ἡ δὲ φρόνησις περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ περὶ ὧν ἔστι βουλεύσασθαι· τοῦ γὰρ φρονίμου μάλιστα τοῦτʼ ἔργον εἶναί φαμεν, τὸ εὖ βουλεύεσθαι, βουλεύεται δʼ οὐδεὶς περὶ τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἄλλως ἔχειν, οὐδʼ ὅσων μὴ τέλος τι ἔστι, καὶ τοῦτο πρακτὸν ἀγαθόν. ὁ δʼ ἁπλῶς εὔβουλος ὁ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνθρώπῳ τῶν πρακτῶν στοχαστικὸς κατὰ τὸν λογισμόν. οὐδʼ ἐστὶν ἡ φρόνησις τῶν καθόλου μόνον, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα γνωρίζειν· πρακτικὴ γάρ, ἡ δὲ πρᾶξις περὶ τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα.
That is why people say that Anaxagoras, Thales and men like them are wise but not practically wise, when they see them ignorant of what is to their own advantage; and they say these men know things that are remarkable, wonderful, difficult and superhuman, but useless, because it is not human goods they are seeking. Practical wisdom, by contrast, is concerned with human affairs and with what can be deliberated about. For we say that this above all is the function of the practically wise person, to deliberate well; and no one deliberates about what cannot be otherwise, or about things that do not lead to some end, an end that is a good achievable in action. The person who is good at deliberating without qualification is the one who, by calculation, aims at the best of the goods achievable in action for a human being. Nor is practical wisdom concerned only with universals; it must also recognize particulars, since it is practical, and action is concerned with particulars.
διὸ καὶ ἔνιοι οὐκ εἰδότες ἑτέρων εἰδότων πρακτικώτεροι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις οἱ ἔμπειροι· εἰ γὰρ εἰδείη ὅτι τὰ κοῦφα εὔπεπτα κρέα καὶ ὑγιεινά, ποῖα δὲ κοῦφα ἀγνοοῖ, οὐ ποιήσει ὑγίειαν, ἀλλʼ ὁ εἰδὼς ὅτι τὰ ὀρνίθεια κοῦφα καὶ ὑγιεινὰ ποιήσει μᾶλλον. ἡ δὲ φρόνησις πρακτική· ὥστε δεῖ ἄμφω ἔχειν, ἢ ταύτην μᾶλλον. εἴη δʼ ἄν τις καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἀρχιτεκτονική.
That is why some people who lack knowledge are more effective in action than others who have it; and in other fields too, those with experience are. If someone knew that light meats are easily digested and healthy, but did not know which meats are light, he will not produce health; the person who knows that poultry is light and healthy is more likely to. Practical wisdom is concerned with action, so one needs both kinds of knowledge—or this kind more. But here too there would be a master form of it, one that directs the rest.
ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ πολιτικὴ καὶ ἡ φρόνησις ἡ αὐτὴ μὲν ἕξις, τὸ μέντοι εἶναι οὐ ταὐτὸν αὐταῖς. τῆς δὲ περὶ πόλιν ἣ μὲν ὡς ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ φρόνησις νομοθετική, ἣ δὲ ὡς τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα τὸ κοινὸν ἔχει ὄνομα, πολιτική· αὕτη δὲ πρακτικὴ καὶ βουλευτική· τὸ γὰρ ψήφισμα πρακτὸν ὡς τὸ ἔσχατον. διὸ πολιτεύεσθαι τούτους μόνον λέγουσιν· μόνοι γὰρ πράττουσιν οὗτοι ὥσπερ οἱ χειροτέχναι. δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ φρόνησις μάλιστʼ εἶναι ἡ περὶ αὐτὸν καὶ ἕνα· καὶ ἔχει αὕτη τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα, φρόνησις· ἐκείνων δὲ ἣ μὲν οἰκονομία ἣ δὲ νομοθεσία ἣ δὲ πολιτική, καὶ ταύτης ἣ μὲν βουλευτικὴ ἣ δὲ δικαστική.
Political expertise and practical wisdom are the same state, but what it is to be each of them is not the same. Of the practical wisdom concerned with the city, the directing, master part is legislative; the part concerned with particulars has the common name, “political.” This part deals with action and deliberation, since a decree is something to be acted on, as the last step. That is why only these people are said to “take part in politics”: they alone act, the way manual craftsmen do. Practical wisdom, too, is thought to be above all the kind concerned with oneself as an individual, and this kind has the common name, “practical wisdom.” Of the others, one is household management, another legislation, another political expertise; and of this last, one part is deliberative and the other judicial.
εἶδος μὲν οὖν τι ἂν εἴη γνώσεως τὸ αὑτῷ εἰδέναι· ἀλλʼ ἔχει διαφορὰν πολλήν· 1142a καὶ δοκεῖ ὁ τὰ περὶ αὑτὸν εἰδὼς καὶ διατρίβων φρόνιμος εἶναι, οἱ δὲ πολιτικοὶ πολυπράγμονες· διὸ Εὐριπίδης πῶς δʼ ἂν φρονοίην, ᾧ παρῆν ἀπραγμόνως ἐν τοῖσι πολλοῖς ἠριθμημένον στρατοῦ ἴσον μετασχεῖν; τοὺς γὰρ περισσοὺς καί τι πράσσοντας πλέον ζητοῦσι γὰρ τὸ αὑτοῖς ἀγαθόν, καὶ οἴονται τοῦτο δεῖν πράττειν. ἐκ ταύτης οὖν τῆς δόξης ἐλήλυθε τὸ τούτους φρονίμους εἶναι· καίτοι ἴσως οὐκ ἔστι τὸ αὑτοῦ εὖ ἄνευ οἰκονομίας οὐδʼ ἄνευ πολιτείας. ἔτι δὲ τὰ αὑτοῦ πῶς δεῖ διοικεῖν, ἄδηλον καὶ σκεπτέον. σημεῖον δʼ ἐστὶ τοῦ εἰρημένου καὶ διότι γεωμετρικοὶ μὲν νέοι καὶ μαθηματικοὶ γίνονται καὶ σοφοὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, φρόνιμος δʼ οὐ δοκεῖ γίνεσθαι.
Knowing what is good for oneself would, then, be one kind of knowledge; but it differs a great deal from the others. 1142a The person who knows about his own affairs and spends his time on them is thought to be practically wise, while politicians are thought to be busybodies. Hence Euripides: “How could I be wise, when I might have lived free of affairs, counted as one among the many in the army, with an equal share? … For those who stand out and do something more …” For people seek their own good, and think that this is what they ought to do. It is from this opinion, then, that the idea has come that such people are the practically wise. Yet perhaps one’s own good cannot exist without household management, or without a political order. Further, how one ought to manage one’s own affairs is unclear and needs examining. A sign of what has been said is that the young become good at geometry and mathematics, and wise in such matters, but a young person does not seem to become practically wise.
αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι καὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστά ἐστιν ἡ φρόνησις, ἃ γίνεται γνώριμα ἐξ ἐμπειρίας, νέος δʼ ἔμπειρος οὐκ ἔστιν· πλῆθος γὰρ χρόνου ποιεῖ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν· ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἄν τις σκέψαιτο, διὰ τί δὴ μαθηματικὸς μὲν παῖς γένοιτʼ ἄν, σοφὸς δʼ ἢ φυσικὸς οὔ. ἢ ὅτι τὰ μὲν διʼ ἀφαιρέσεώς ἐστιν, τῶν δʼ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐξ ἐμπειρίας· καὶ τὰ μὲν οὐ πιστεύουσιν οἱ νέοι ἀλλὰ λέγουσιν, τῶν δὲ τὸ τί ἐστιν οὐκ ἄδηλον; ἔτι ἡ ἁμαρτία ἢ περὶ τὸ καθόλου ἐν τῷ βουλεύσασθαι ἢ περὶ τὸ καθʼ ἕκαστον· ἢ γὰρ ὅτι πάντα τὰ βαρύσταθμα ὕδατα φαῦλα, ἢ ὅτι τοδὶ βαρύσταθμον. ὅτι δʼ ἡ φρόνησις οὐκ ἐπιστήμη, φανερόν· τοῦ γὰρ ἐσχάτου ἐστίν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται· τὸ γὰρ πρακτὸν τοιοῦτον.
The reason is that practical wisdom is also concerned with particulars, and these become familiar through experience; but a young person is not experienced, since it takes a long stretch of time to produce experience. One might also consider this question: why can a child become a mathematician, but not wise, or a natural scientist? Is it because the objects of mathematics exist through abstraction, while the first principles of the other subjects come from experience? And the young don’t really believe the latter but merely repeat them, whereas what mathematical objects are is not unclear to them? Further, error in deliberation may concern either the universal or the particular: one may go wrong either about the claim that all heavy water is bad, or about the claim that this water is heavy. That practical wisdom is not scientific knowledge is evident; for it is concerned with the last thing, as has been said, since what is to be done is of this kind.
ἀντίκειται μὲν δὴ τῷ νῷ· ὁ μὲν γὰρ νοῦς τῶν ὅρων, ὧν οὐκ ἔστι λόγος, ἣ δὲ τοῦ ἐσχάτου, οὗ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιστήμη ἀλλʼ αἴσθησις, οὐχ ἡ τῶν ἰδίων, ἀλλʼ οἵᾳ αἰσθανόμεθα ὅτι τὸ ἐν τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς ἔσχατον τρίγωνον· στήσεται γὰρ κἀκεῖ. ἀλλʼ αὕτη μᾶλλον αἴσθησις ἢ φρόνησις, ἐκείνης δʼ ἄλλο εἶδος.
So it is opposed to intellect. For intellect is concerned with the first terms, of which there is no account, while practical wisdom is concerned with the last thing, of which there is no scientific knowledge but perception—not perception of the objects special to each sense, but the kind by which we perceive that the last figure in mathematics is a triangle; for there too one will come to a stop. But this is perception rather than practical wisdom, though a different kind of perception from the other.
Good deliberation, comprehension and judgement
Aristotle examines good deliberation, comprehension, judgment and intellect as parts of practical thought.
τὸ ζητεῖν δὲ καὶ τὸ βουλεύεσθαι διαφέρει· τὸ γὰρ βουλεύεσθαι ζητεῖν τι ἐστίν. δεῖ δὲ λαβεῖν καὶ περὶ εὐβουλίας τί ἐστι, πότερον ἐπιστήμη τις ἢ δόξα ἢ εὐστοχία ἢ ἄλλο τι γένος. ἐπιστήμη μὲν δὴ οὐκ ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ ζητοῦσι περὶ ὧν ἴσασιν, 1142b ἡ δʼ εὐβουλία βουλή τις, ὁ δὲ βουλευόμενος ζητεῖ καὶ λογίζεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ εὐστοχία· ἄνευ τε γὰρ λόγου καὶ ταχύ τι ἡ εὐστοχία, βουλεύονται δὲ πολὺν χρόνον, καὶ φασὶ πράττειν μὲν δεῖν ταχὺ τὰ βουλευθέντα, βουλεύεσθαι δὲ βραδέως. ἔτι ἡ ἀγχίνοια ἕτερον καὶ ἡ εὐβουλία· ἔστι δʼ εὐστοχία τις ἡ ἀγχίνοια. οὐδὲ δὴ δόξα ἡ εὐβουλία οὐδεμία.
Inquiring and deliberating are different; deliberating is a particular kind of inquiring. We must also grasp what good deliberation is—whether it is some kind of scientific knowledge, or opinion, or good guessing, or something of another kind. Well, it is not scientific knowledge: people do not inquire about what they know, 1142b whereas good deliberation is a kind of deliberation, and someone deliberating is inquiring and calculating. Nor, again, is it good guessing: good guessing works without reasoning, and quickly, whereas people deliberate for a long time, and they say one should carry out quickly what one has deliberated on, but deliberate slowly. Further, quickness of mind is different from good deliberation; quickness of mind is a kind of good guessing. Nor, then, is good deliberation any kind of opinion.
ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν κακῶς βουλευόμενος ἁμαρτάνει, ὁ δʼ εὖ ὀρθῶς βουλεύεται, δῆλον ὅτι ὀρθότης τις ἡ εὐβουλία ἐστίν, οὔτʼ ἐπιστήμης δὲ οὔτε δόξης· ἐπιστήμης μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὀρθότης (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἁμαρτία), δόξης δʼ ὀρθότης ἀλήθεια· ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὥρισται ἤδη πᾶν οὗ δόξα ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἄνευ λόγου ἡ εὐβουλία. διανοίας ἄρα λείπεται· αὕτη γὰρ οὔπω φάσις· καὶ γὰρ ἡ δόξα οὐ ζήτησις ἀλλὰ φάσις τις ἤδη, ὁ δὲ βουλευόμενος, ἐάν τε εὖ ἐάν τε καὶ κακῶς βουλεύηται, ζητεῖ τι καὶ λογίζεται. ἀλλʼ ὀρθότης τίς ἐστιν ἡ εὐβουλία βουλῆς· διὸ ἡ βουλὴ ζητητέα πρῶτον τί καὶ περὶ τί.
But since someone who deliberates badly goes wrong, while someone who deliberates well deliberates correctly, it is clear that good deliberation is a kind of correctness—though not of scientific knowledge, nor of opinion. Scientific knowledge has no correctness (since it has no error either), and the correctness of opinion is truth; and besides, whatever opinion is about has already been settled. Yet good deliberation does not come about without reasoning either. What remains, then, is that it is correctness of thinking; for thinking is not yet an assertion. Opinion is not inquiry but already a kind of assertion, whereas the person deliberating, whether he deliberates well or badly, is inquiring into something and calculating. But good deliberation is a kind of correctness of deliberation; so we must first inquire what deliberation is and what it is about.
ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ ὀρθότης πλεοναχῶς, δῆλον ὅτι οὐ πᾶσα· ὁ γὰρ ἀκρατὴς καὶ ὁ φαῦλος ὃ προτίθεται †ἰδεῖν† ἐκ τοῦ λογισμοῦ τεύξεται, ὥστε ὀρθῶς ἔσται βεβουλευμένος, κακὸν δὲ μέγα εἰληφώς. δοκεῖ δʼ ἀγαθόν τι τὸ εὖ βεβουλεῦσθαι· ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη ὀρθότης βουλῆς εὐβουλία, ἡ ἀγαθοῦ τευκτική. ἀλλʼ ἔστι καὶ τούτου ψευδεῖ συλλογισμῷ τυχεῖν, καὶ ὃ μὲν δεῖ ποιῆσαι τυχεῖν, διʼ οὗ δʼ οὔ, ἀλλὰ ψευδῆ τὸν μέσον ὅρον εἶναι· ὥστʼ οὐδʼ αὕτη πω εὐβουλία, καθʼ ἣν οὗ δεῖ μὲν τυγχάνει, οὐ μέντοι διʼ οὗ ἔδει. ἔτι ἔστι πολὺν χρόνον βουλευόμενον τυχεῖν, τὸν δὲ ταχύ. οὐκοῦν οὐδʼ ἐκείνη πω εὐβουλία, ἀλλʼ ὀρθότης ἡ κατὰ τὸ ὠφέλιμον, καὶ οὗ δεῖ καὶ ὣς καὶ ὅτε. ἔτι ἔστι καὶ ἁπλῶς εὖ βεβουλεῦσθαι καὶ πρός τι τέλος.
Since correctness has more than one sense, it is clear that good deliberation is not every kind of it. For the uncontrolled person and the bad person will attain by calculation what he sets himself to do, and so he will have deliberated correctly, yet will have got hold of a great evil. But having deliberated well is thought to be something good; for good deliberation is the kind of correctness of deliberation that attains a good. Yet it is possible to attain even this by a false syllogism—to hit on what one ought to do, but not by the right means, the middle term being false. So this is not yet good deliberation either, the kind by which one attains what one should, but not by the means one should. Further, one person may reach the result after deliberating for a long time, another quickly. So that is not yet good deliberation either; rather, good deliberation is correctness with respect to what is beneficial—about what one should, in the way one should, and when. Further, one can have deliberated well either without qualification or in relation to some particular end.
ἣ μὲν δὴ ἁπλῶς ἡ πρὸς τὸ τέλος τὸ ἁπλῶς κατορθοῦσα, τὶς δὲ ἡ πρός τι τέλος. εἰ δὴ τῶν φρονίμων τὸ εὖ βεβουλεῦσθαι, ἡ εὐβουλία εἴη ἂν ὀρθότης ἡ κατὰ τὸ συμφέρον πρὸς τὸ τέλος, οὗ ἡ φρόνησις ἀληθὴς ὑπόληψίς ἐστιν.
Good deliberation without qualification is the kind that succeeds in relation to the end without qualification; a particular kind is one that succeeds in relation to some particular end. If, then, having deliberated well is characteristic of the practically wise, good deliberation would be correctness with respect to what is advantageous in relation to the end, of which practical wisdom is the true grasp.
ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ σύνεσις καὶ ἡ εὐσυνεσία, 1143a καθʼ ἃς λέγομεν συνετοὺς καὶ εὐσυνέτους, οὔθʼ ὅλως τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπιστήμῃ ἢ δόξῃ (πάντες γὰρ ἂν ἦσαν συνετοί) οὔτε τις μία τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐπιστημῶν, οἷον ἡ ἰατρικὴ περὶ ὑγιεινῶν, ἡ γεωμετρία περὶ μεγέθη· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ τῶν ἀεὶ ὄντων καὶ ἀκινήτων ἡ σύνεσίς ἐστιν οὔτε περὶ τῶν γιγνομένων ὁτουοῦν, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις καὶ βουλεύσαιτο. διὸ περὶ τὰ αὐτὰ μὲν τῇ φρονήσει ἐστίν, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ σύνεσις καὶ φρόνησις. ἡ μὲν γὰρ φρόνησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστιν· τί γὰρ δεῖ πράττειν ἢ μή, τὸ τέλος αὐτῆς ἐστίν· ἡ δὲ σύνεσις κριτικὴ μόνον. ταὐτὸ γὰρ σύνεσις καὶ εὐσυνεσία καὶ συνετοὶ καὶ εὐσύνετοι.
Comprehension, too, and good comprehension, 1143a in virtue of which we call people comprehending and good at comprehending, are neither the same as scientific knowledge or opinion in general (otherwise everyone would be comprehending), nor any one of the particular sciences, as medicine is about what is healthy, or geometry about magnitudes. For comprehension is neither about things that always exist and are unchanging, nor about just anything that comes to be, but about things one might be puzzled about and deliberate on. So it is concerned with the same things as practical wisdom, but comprehension and practical wisdom are not the same. Practical wisdom gives commands, since its end is what one should or should not do; comprehension only judges. (Comprehension is the same as good comprehension, and people who comprehend the same as those who comprehend well.)
ἔστι δʼ οὔτε τὸ ἔχειν τὴν φρόνησιν οὔτε τὸ λαμβάνειν ἡ σύνεσις· ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ τὸ μανθάνειν λέγεται συνιέναι, ὅταν χρῆται τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ, οὕτως ἐν τῷ χρῆσθαι τῇ δόξῃ ἐπὶ τὸ κρίνειν περὶ τούτων περὶ ὧν ἡ φρόνησίς ἐστιν, ἄλλου λέγοντος, καὶ κρίνειν καλῶς· τὸ γὰρ εὖ τῷ καλῶς τὸ αὐτό. καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἐλήλυθε τοὔνομα ἡ σύνεσις, καθʼ ἣν εὐσύνετοι, ἐκ τῆς ἐν τῷ μανθάνειν· λέγομεν γὰρ τὸ μανθάνειν συνιέναι πολλάκις.
Comprehension is neither having practical wisdom nor acquiring it. Rather, just as learning is called comprehending when one uses scientific knowledge, so comprehending lies in using opinion to judge, when someone else is speaking, about the things practical wisdom is concerned with—and to judge them finely, since “well” is the same as “finely.” And this is where the name “comprehension,” in virtue of which people are good at comprehending, came from: from comprehension in learning. For we often call learning “comprehending.”
ἡ δὲ καλουμένη γνώμη, καθʼ ἣν συγγνώμονας καὶ ἔχειν φαμὲν γνώμην, ἡ τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς ἐστὶ κρίσις ὀρθή. σημεῖον δέ· τὸν γὰρ ἐπιεικῆ μάλιστά φαμεν εἶναι συγγνωμονικόν, καὶ ἐπιεικὲς τὸ ἔχειν περὶ ἔνια συγγνώμην. ἡ δὲ συγγνώμη γνώμη ἐστὶ κριτικὴ τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς ὀρθή· ὀρθὴ δʼ ἡ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς.
What is called judgement, in virtue of which we say people are sympathetic and “have judgement,” is the correct discernment of what is decent. A sign of this: we say the decent person is above all sympathetic, and that it is decent to be sympathetic about certain things. And sympathy is judgement that correctly discerns what is decent; and correct judgement is judgement of what is true.
εἰσὶ δὲ πᾶσαι αἱ ἕξεις εὐλόγως εἰς ταὐτὸ τείνουσαι· λέγομεν γὰρ γνώμην καὶ σύνεσιν καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ νοῦν ἐπὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐπιφέροντες γνώμην ἔχειν καὶ νοῦν ἤδη καὶ φρονίμους καὶ συνετούς. πᾶσαι γὰρ αἱ δυνάμεις αὗται τῶν ἐσχάτων εἰσὶ καὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον· καὶ ἐν μὲν τῷ κριτικὸς εἶναι περὶ ὧν ὁ φρόνιμος, συνετὸς καὶ εὐγνώμων ἢ συγγνώμων· τὰ γὰρ ἐπιεικῆ κοινὰ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἁπάντων ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ πρὸς ἄλλον. ἔστι δὲ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἅπαντα τὰ πρακτά· καὶ γὰρ τὸν φρόνιμον δεῖ γινώσκειν αὐτά, καὶ ἡ σύνεσις καὶ ἡ γνώμη περὶ τὰ πρακτά, ταῦτα δʼ ἔσχατα.
All these states tend, reasonably enough, toward the same thing. For when we speak of judgement, comprehension, practical wisdom and intellect, we attribute them to the same people, saying that they have judgement and, by now, intellect, and are practically wise and comprehending. For all these capacities are concerned with ultimate things, that is, with particulars. It is in being able to judge about the things the practically wise person is concerned with that someone is comprehending and of good judgement, or sympathetic; for what is decent is common to all good people in their dealings with others. And all things to be done are particulars and ultimate things: the practically wise person must know them, and comprehension and judgement are concerned with things to be done, and these are ultimate.
καὶ ὁ νοῦς τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐπʼ ἀμφότερα· καὶ γὰρ τῶν πρώτων ὅρων καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων 1143b νοῦς ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ λόγος, καὶ ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὰς ἀποδείξεις τῶν ἀκινήτων ὅρων καὶ πρώτων, ὁ δʼ ἐν ταῖς πρακτικαῖς τοῦ ἐσχάτου καὶ ἐνδεχομένου καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας προτάσεως· ἀρχαὶ γὰρ τοῦ οὗ ἕνεκα αὗται· ἐκ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα γὰρ τὰ καθόλου· τούτων οὖν ἔχειν δεῖ αἴσθησιν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ νοῦς. διὸ καὶ φυσικὰ δοκεῖ εἶναι ταῦτα, καὶ φύσει σοφὸς μὲν οὐδείς, γνώμην δʼ ἔχειν καὶ σύνεσιν καὶ νοῦν. σημεῖον δʼ ὅτι καὶ ταῖς ἡλικίαις οἰόμεθα ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ ἥδε ἡ ἡλικία νοῦν ἔχει καὶ γνώμην, ὡς τῆς φύσεως αἰτίας οὔσης. διὸ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος νοῦς· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ αἱ ἀποδείξεις καὶ περὶ τούτων.
Intellect, too, is concerned with ultimate things, in both directions. For both the first terms and the ultimate things 1143b are grasped by intellect and not by reasoning. In demonstrations, intellect grasps the unchanging first terms; in practical matters, it grasps the ultimate thing, the one that can be otherwise, and the second premise. For these are the starting points of that for the sake of which we act, since universals are reached from particulars. Of these, then, one must have perception, and this perception is intellect. That is why these states are thought to be natural, and why, while no one is thought to be wise by nature, people are thought to have judgement, comprehension and intellect by nature. A sign of this is that we think they go with the stages of life, and that a particular age has intellect and judgement, as though nature were the cause. That is why intellect is both beginning and end; for demonstrations start from these things and are about them.
ὥστε δεῖ προσέχειν τῶν ἐμπείρων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἢ φρονίμων ταῖς ἀναποδείκτοις φάσεσι καὶ δόξαις οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἀποδείξεων· διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἔχειν ἐκ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ὄμμα ὁρῶσιν ὀρθῶς. τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ φρόνησις καὶ ἡ σοφία, καὶ περὶ τί ἑκατέρα τυγχάνει οὖσα, καὶ ὅτι ἄλλου τῆς ψυχῆς μορίου ἀρετὴ ἑκατέρα, εἴρηται.
So one should pay attention to the undemonstrated sayings and opinions of experienced and older people, or of the practically wise, no less than to demonstrations; for because experience has given them an eye, they see correctly. We have said, then, what practical wisdom and wisdom are, what each of them is concerned with, and that each is the excellence of a different part of the soul.
What wisdom and practical wisdom are for
Aristotle asks what use wisdom and practical wisdom are, and ties practical wisdom to excellence of character.
διαπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις περὶ αὐτῶν τί χρήσιμοί εἰσιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ σοφία οὐδὲν θεωρήσει ἐξ ὧν ἔσται εὐδαίμων ἄνθρωπος (οὐδεμιᾶς γάρ ἐστι γενέσεως), ἡ δὲ φρόνησις τοῦτο μὲν ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τίνος ἕνεκα δεῖ αὐτῆς; εἴπερ ἡ μὲν φρόνησίς ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὰ δίκαια καὶ καλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ ἀνθρώπῳ, ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶν ἃ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐστὶν ἀνδρὸς πράττειν, οὐδὲν δὲ πρακτικώτεροι τῷ εἰδέναι αὐτά ἐσμεν, εἴπερ ἕξεις αἱ ἀρεταί εἰσιν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰ ὑγιεινὰ οὐδὲ τὰ εὐεκτικά, ὅσα μὴ τῷ ποιεῖν ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀπὸ τῆς ἕξεως εἶναι λέγεται· οὐθὲν γὰρ πρακτικώτεροι τῷ ἔχειν τὴν ἰατρικὴν καὶ γυμναστικήν ἐσμεν.
But someone might raise a puzzle about what use they are. Wisdom will contemplate none of the things from which a human being becomes happy, since it is not concerned with any coming-to-be. Practical wisdom does have this concern, but what do we need it for? Practical wisdom is what is concerned with things just and fine and good for a human being, and these are what a good man does; but we are no more able to do them for knowing them, if the excellences are states—just as we are not with things that are healthy or fit, in the sense of things said to be so not because they produce health but because they result from the state. We are no more able to act for having the craft of medicine or of physical training.
εἰ δὲ μὴ τούτων χάριν φρόνιμον ῥητέον ἀλλὰ τοῦ γίνεσθαι, τοῖς οὖσι σπουδαίοις οὐθὲν ἂν εἴη χρήσιμος· ἔτι δʼ οὐδὲ τοῖς μὴ ἔχουσιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ διοίσει αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἢ ἄλλοις ἔχουσι πείθεσθαι, ἱκανῶς τʼ ἔχοι ἂν ἡμῖν ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ὑγίειαν· βουλόμενοι γὰρ ὑγιαίνειν ὅμως οὐ μανθάνομεν ἰατρικήν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἄτοπον ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν, εἰ χείρων τῆς σοφίας οὖσα κυριωτέρα αὐτῆς ἔσται· ἡ γὰρ ποιοῦσα ἄρχει καὶ ἐπιτάττει περὶ ἕκαστον. περὶ δὴ τούτων λεκτέον· νῦν μὲν γὰρ ἠπόρηται περὶ αὐτῶν μόνον. 1144a πρῶτον μὲν οὖν λέγωμεν ὅτι καθʼ αὑτὰς ἀναγκαῖον αἱρετὰς αὐτὰς εἶναι, ἀρετάς γʼ οὔσας ἑκατέραν ἑκατέρου τοῦ μορίου, καὶ εἰ μὴ ποιοῦσι μηδὲν μηδετέρα αὐτῶν.
If instead we are to call a person practically wise not for the sake of this but for the sake of becoming good, practical wisdom would be of no use to those who are already excellent. Nor, further, to those who do not have it; for it will make no difference whether they have it themselves or obey others who do, and it would be enough for us to do as we do with health: we want to be healthy, and yet we don’t learn medicine. Besides, it would seem odd if practical wisdom, though inferior to wisdom, were to have more authority than it; for what produces something rules and gives orders about it. We must discuss these questions; so far we have only raised puzzles about them. 1144a First, then, let us say that they must be choiceworthy in themselves, since each is the excellence of one of the two parts, even if neither of them produces anything.
ἔπειτα καὶ ποιοῦσι μέν, οὐχ ὡς ἡ ἰατρικὴ δὲ ὑγίειαν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἡ ὑγίεια, οὕτως ἡ σοφία εὐδαιμονίαν· μέρος γὰρ οὖσα τῆς ὅλης ἀρετῆς τῷ ἔχεσθαι ποιεῖ καὶ †τῷ ἐνεργεῖν εὐδαίμονα.† ἔτι τὸ ἔργον ἀποτελεῖται κατὰ τὴν φρόνησιν καὶ τὴν ἠθικὴν ἀρετήν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀρετὴ τὸν σκοπὸν ποιεῖ ὀρθόν, ἡ δὲ φρόνησις τὰ πρὸς τοῦτον. τοῦ δὲ τετάρτου μορίου τῆς ψυχῆς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ τοιαύτη, τοῦ θρεπτικοῦ· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῷ πράττειν ἢ μὴ πράττειν. περὶ δὲ τοῦ μηθὲν εἶναι πρακτικωτέρους διὰ τὴν φρόνησιν τῶν καλῶν καὶ δικαίων, μικρὸν ἄνωθεν ἀρκτέον, λαβόντας ἀρχὴν ταύτην.
Next, they do produce something—not as medicine produces health, but as health does: this is how wisdom produces happiness. For since it is a part of excellence as a whole, by being possessed and by being active it makes a person happy. Further, the function is completed in accordance with practical wisdom and excellence of character: excellence makes the goal correct, and practical wisdom makes correct what leads to it. The fourth part of the soul, the nutritive, has no excellence of this kind, since it is not up to it to act or not act. As for the claim that practical wisdom makes us no more able to do fine and just things, we must start a little further back, taking this as our starting point.
ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τὰ δίκαια λέγομεν πράττοντάς τινας οὔπω δικαίους εἶναι, οἷον τοὺς τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων τεταγμένα ποιοῦντας ἢ ἄκοντας ἢ διʼ ἄγνοιαν ἢ διʼ ἕτερόν τι καὶ μὴ διʼ αὐτά (καίτοι πράττουσί γε ἃ δεῖ καὶ ὅσα χρὴ τὸν σπουδαῖον), οὕτως, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἔστι τὸ πῶς ἔχοντα πράττειν ἕκαστα ὥστʼ εἶναι ἀγαθόν, λέγω δʼ οἷον διὰ προαίρεσιν καὶ αὐτῶν ἕνεκα τῶν πραττομένων. τὴν μὲν οὖν προαίρεσιν ὀρθὴν ποιεῖ ἡ ἀρετή, τὸ δʼ ὅσα ἐκείνης ἕνεκα πέφυκε πράττεσθαι οὐκ ἔστι τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀλλʼ ἑτέρας δυνάμεως. λεκτέον δʼ ἐπιστήσασι σαφέστερον περὶ αὐτῶν. ἔστι δὴ δύναμις ἣν καλοῦσι δεινότητα· αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ τοιαύτη ὥστε τὰ πρὸς τὸν ὑποτεθέντα σκοπὸν συντείνοντα δύνασθαι ταῦτα πράττειν καὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτοῦ.
Just as we say that some people who do just things are not yet just—for example, those who do what the laws prescribe either unwillingly, or through ignorance, or for some other reason and not for the sake of the acts themselves (even though they do what they should, and all that the excellent person ought to do)—so, it seems, there is a certain condition one must be in when doing each thing in order to be good: I mean, doing it from decision and for the sake of the things done themselves. Excellence makes the decision correct; but doing whatever is naturally done for the sake of that decision belongs not to excellence but to another capacity. We must pause on these matters and speak about them more clearly. There is a capacity people call cleverness. It is the ability to do the things that contribute to a goal one has set, and to attain it.
ἂν μὲν οὖν ὁ σκοπὸς ᾖ καλός, ἐπαινετή ἐστιν, ἐὰν δὲ φαῦλος, πανουργία· διὸ καὶ τοὺς φρονίμους δεινοὺς καὶ πανούργους φαμὲν εἶναι. ἔστι δʼ ἡ φρόνησις οὐχ ἡ δύναμις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης. ἡ δʼ ἕξις τῷ ὄμματι τούτῳ γίνεται τῆς ψυχῆς οὐκ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς, ὡς εἴρηταί τε καὶ ἔστι δῆλον· οἱ γὰρ συλλογισμοὶ τῶν πρακτῶν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντές εἰσιν, ἐπειδὴ τοιόνδε τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸ ἄριστον, ὁτιδήποτε ὄν (ἔστω γὰρ λόγου χάριν τὸ τυχόν)· τοῦτο δʼ εἰ μὴ τῷ ἀγαθῷ, οὐ φαίνεται· διαστρέφει γὰρ ἡ μοχθηρία καὶ διαψεύδεσθαι ποιεῖ περὶ τὰς πρακτικὰς ἀρχάς. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἀδύνατον φρόνιμον εἶναι μὴ ὄντα ἀγαθόν.
If the goal is fine, cleverness is praiseworthy; if it is bad, it is unscrupulousness. That is why we call both the practically wise and the unscrupulous clever. Practical wisdom is not this capacity, but it does not exist without it. And this eye of the soul does not acquire its state without excellence, as has been said and is clear. For practical syllogisms have a starting point: “since the end, the best thing, is such-and-such”—whatever it may be (let it be anything at all, for the sake of argument). And this is not apparent except to the good person; for vice distorts us and makes us deceived about the starting points of action. So it is evident that one cannot be practically wise without being good.
σκεπτέον δὴ πάλιν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀρετὴ παραπλησίως ἔχει ὡς ἡ φρόνησις πρὸς τὴν δεινότητα —οὐ ταὐτὸ μέν, ὅμοιον δέ—οὕτω καὶ ἡ φυσικὴ ἀρετὴ πρὸς τὴν κυρίαν. πᾶσι γὰρ δοκεῖ ἕκαστα τῶν ἠθῶν ὑπάρχειν φύσει πως· καὶ γὰρ δίκαιοι καὶ σωφρονικοὶ καὶ ἀνδρεῖοι καὶ τἆλλα ἔχομεν εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετῆς· ἀλλʼ ὅμως ζητοῦμεν ἕτερόν τι τὸ κυρίως ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἄλλον τρόπον ὑπάρχειν. καὶ γὰρ παισὶ καὶ θηρίοις αἱ φυσικαὶ ὑπάρχουσιν ἕξεις, ἀλλʼ ἄνευ νοῦ βλαβεραὶ φαίνονται οὖσαι. πλὴν τοσοῦτον ἔοικεν ὁρᾶσθαι, ὅτι ὥσπερ σώματι ἰσχυρῷ ἄνευ ὄψεως κινουμένῳ συμβαίνει σφάλλεσθαι ἰσχυρῶς διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ὄψιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα· ἐὰν δὲ λάβῃ νοῦν, ἐν τῷ πράττειν διαφέρει· ἡ δʼ ἕξις ὁμοία οὖσα τότʼ ἔσται κυρίως ἀρετή.
We must, then, examine excellence again too. For excellence stands in a closely similar relation: as practical wisdom is to cleverness—not the same, but similar—so natural excellence is to excellence in the full sense. Everyone thinks each type of character belongs to us somehow by nature; we are just, moderate, brave and so on, right from birth. But still we look for something else, what is good in the full sense, and for such qualities to belong to us in another way. For children and animals also have the natural states, but without intellect they are evidently harmful. This much, at least, seems observable: just as a strong body moving about without sight stumbles heavily because it has no sight, so it is here too. But if someone acquires intellect, it makes a difference in his actions; and his state, while similar, will then be excellence in the full sense.
ὥστε καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ δοξαστικοῦ δύο ἐστὶν εἴδη, δεινότης καὶ φρόνησις, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ δύο ἐστί, τὸ μὲν ἀρετὴ φυσικὴ τὸ δʼ ἡ κυρία, καὶ τούτων ἡ κυρία οὐ γίνεται ἄνευ φρονήσεως. διόπερ τινές φασι πάσας τὰς ἀρετὰς φρονήσεις εἶναι, καὶ Σωκράτης τῇ μὲν ὀρθῶς ἐζήτει τῇ δʼ ἡμάρτανεν· ὅτι μὲν γὰρ φρονήσεις ᾤετο εἶναι πάσας τὰς ἀρετάς, ἡμάρτανεν, ὅτι δʼ οὐκ ἄνευ φρονήσεως, καλῶς ἔλεγεν. σημεῖον δέ· καὶ γὰρ νῦν πάντες, ὅταν ὁρίζωνται τὴν ἀρετήν, προστιθέασι, τὴν ἕξιν εἰπόντες καὶ πρὸς ἅ ἐστι, τὴν κατὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον· ὀρθὸς δʼ ὁ κατὰ τὴν φρόνησιν. ἐοίκασι δὴ μαντεύεσθαί πως ἅπαντες ὅτι ἡ τοιαύτη ἕξις ἀρετή ἐστιν, ἡ κατὰ τὴν φρόνησιν. δεῖ δὲ μικρὸν μεταβῆναι.
So just as in the part that forms opinions there are two kinds, cleverness and practical wisdom, so in the part concerned with character there are two, natural excellence and excellence in the full sense; and of these, excellence in the full sense does not come about without practical wisdom. That is why some say all the excellences are forms of practical wisdom, and why Socrates was partly right in his inquiry and partly wrong: he was wrong in thinking that all the excellences are forms of practical wisdom, but right in saying that they do not exist without it. A sign of this: even now, when people define excellence, everyone, after naming the state and what it concerns, adds “in accordance with correct reason”; and reason is correct when it accords with practical wisdom. So everyone seems somehow to divine that excellence is this sort of state, the one in accordance with practical wisdom. But we must go a little further.
ἔστι γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἡ κατὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον, ἀλλʼ ἡ μετὰ τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου ἕξις ἀρετή ἐστιν· ὀρθὸς δὲ λόγος περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἡ φρόνησίς ἐστιν. Σωκράτης μὲν οὖν λόγους τὰς ἀρετὰς ᾤετο εἶναι (ἐπιστήμας γὰρ εἶναι πάσας), ἡμεῖς δὲ μετὰ λόγου. δῆλον οὖν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τε ἀγαθὸν εἶναι κυρίως ἄνευ φρονήσεως, οὐδὲ φρόνιμον ἄνευ τῆς ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ λόγος ταύτῃ λύοιτʼ ἄν, ᾧ διαλεχθείη τις ἂν ὅτι χωρίζονται ἀλλήλων αἱ ἀρεταί· οὐ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς εὐφυέστατος πρὸς ἁπάσας, ὥστε τὴν μὲν ἤδη τὴν δʼ οὔπω εἰληφὼς ἔσται· τοῦτο γὰρ κατὰ μὲν τὰς φυσικὰς ἀρετὰς ἐνδέχεται, 1145a καθʼ ἃς δὲ ἁπλῶς λέγεται ἀγαθός, οὐκ ἐνδέχεται· ἅμα γὰρ τῇ φρονήσει μιᾷ ὑπαρχούσῃ πᾶσαι ὑπάρξουσιν.
Excellence is not merely the state in accordance with correct reason, but the state that involves correct reason; and correct reason about such matters is practical wisdom. So Socrates thought the excellences were forms of reason (for he thought they were all forms of scientific knowledge), whereas we think they involve reason. It is clear, then, from what has been said, that it is not possible to be good in the full sense without practical wisdom, nor practically wise without excellence of character. And in this way we could also answer the argument by which someone might contend that the excellences exist separately from one another, on the grounds that the same person is not best endowed by nature for all of them, so that he will already have acquired one but not yet another. That is possible with the natural excellences, 1145a but not with those in virtue of which someone is called good without qualification; for when practical wisdom, which is one, is present, all of them will be present.
δῆλον δέ, κἂν εἰ μὴ πρακτικὴ ἦν, ὅτι ἔδει ἂν αὐτῆς διὰ τὸ τοῦ μορίου ἀρετὴν εἶναι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται ἡ προαίρεσις ὀρθὴ ἄνευ φρονήσεως οὐδʼ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς· ἣ μὲν γὰρ τὸ τέλος ἣ δὲ τὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος ποιεῖ πράττειν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κυρία γʼ ἐστὶ τῆς σοφίας οὐδὲ τοῦ βελτίονος μορίου, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τῆς ὑγιείας ἡ ἰατρική· οὐ γὰρ χρῆται αὐτῇ, ἀλλʼ ὁρᾷ ὅπως γένηται· ἐκείνης οὖν ἕνεκα ἐπιτάττει, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐκείνῃ. ἔτι ὅμοιον κἂν εἴ τις τὴν πολιτικὴν φαίη ἄρχειν τῶν θεῶν, ὅτι ἐπιτάττει περὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ πόλει.
It is clear, too, that even if practical wisdom were not concerned with action, we would need it because it is the excellence of that part of the soul; and that decision will not be correct without practical wisdom, nor without excellence. For the one makes us achieve the end, the other the things that lead to the end. Yet it does not have authority over wisdom, or over the better part, any more than medicine has authority over health. It does not use health, but sees to it that health comes about; so it gives orders for the sake of health, not to it. Further, saying that it did would be like saying that political expertise rules the gods, because it gives orders about everything in the city.