Interpreting Callicles In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Incontinence is analyzed in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in which he defines the term and provides several examples. In this short response, we will be interpreting Callicles from Plato’s Gorgias in the view of his incontinence. Within Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that “The person who is prone to be overcome by pleasures is incontinent,”(Nicomachean Ethics, VII.vii.1). This means that those who are incontinent are without control and typically want many pleasures without restraint. Callicles is an example of this in a variety of ways, as exemplified within the Gorgias. He states “Well, to keep my argument from being inconsistent if I say they’re different, I say they’re the same,” (Gorgias, 495a). This quote, shows that rather than admitting his fault, he would rather lie to Socrates in order to retain his superiority.
By this, Aristotle means that those who go against their judgement are incontinent because they, against reason, choose something else over what they know is right. This example of incontinence also applies to Callicles because of his direct contradiction in what he believes. He does this while discussing with Socrates, Callicles states “I don’t know, Socrates--in a way you seem to me to be right, but the that happens to most people has happened to me: I’m not really persuaded by you,” (Gorgias, 513c). In this statement, Callicles shows that he knows that Socrates in correct, however, does not fully believe him, going against what he knows to be true. This statement shows that Callicles has something to lose within if he accepts Socrates’ argument. As we know in the Gorgias they are both having this discussion amongst their peers and if Callicles concedes his point, he will lose respect from his peers, which he fears the