The distinction between _knowledge_ and _opinion_ (the higher and the lower kinds of knowledge) does not settle the question, for opinion may be as _strong_ as knowledge.

The real point is, what is meant by _having knowledge_?
A man's knowledge may be in abeyance, as it is when he is asleep or intoxicated.

Thus, we may have in the mind two knowledges (like two separate syllogisms), one leading to continence, the other to incontinence; the first is not drawn out, like the syllogism wanting a minor; hence it may be said to be not present to the mind; so that, in a certain sense, Sokrates was right in denying that actual and present knowledge could be overborne.
Vice is a form of oblivion (III.).
The next question is, what is the object-matter of incontinence; whether there is any man incontinent simply and absolutely (without any specification of wherein), or whether all incontinent men are so in regard to this or that particular matter?
(No.

6).

The answer is, that it applies directly to the bodily appetites and pleasures, which are necessary up to a certain point (the sphere of Temperance), and then he that commits unreasonable excess above this point is called Incontinent simply.