The 4th-century Greek philosopher, Themistius, is more accurate than Plato in in teaching that the human mind is usually correct at discerning general principles, but not very good at applying it to particular circumstances. For example, no one would deny that murder is evil, yet people still conspire to kill others. Unfaithful spouses will condemn adultery in the abstract yet justify themselves while they are privately committing it. Our “ignorance” is found in our ability to forget the rules when they apply to particular cases (especially to our own lives!). Augustine treats this issues on his exposition of Psalm 57:1. 

Yet Themistius’ teaching does not always hold true. Sometimes people do, in fact, know exactly what they are doing. They know something is wrong in general and particular cases and yet do it anyway. It reminds me of the old expression: “I see the better course of action and approve it, but I follow the worse course of action” (Medea of Ovid). Therefore, Aristotle seems to make a very important distinction between incontinence and intemperance (Ethic. Lib. 7 cap. 3). Incontinence is when someone’s strong emotions and desires get the best of them. These strong feels blind them to the evil they are doing. Once their passion subsides, they immediately regret what they did. Impermanence is when we know something is wrong but persist in the evil which we made. 

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List.