How we cite our quotes: (Book.Chapter.Bekker #s); all Bekker line numbers are approximate, since they are keyed to the original Greek.
Quote #7
For in both children and beasts, the natural characteristics are present, but they are manifestly harmful in the absence of intellect. Yet this much does seem to be seen—that just as a strong body moving without eyesight will end up stumbling with considerable force because it is without sight, so it is also in this case [of having the natural virtues in the absence of intellect]. (6.13.1144b9-13)
Virtues (or characteristics) are necessary for our happiness, but they can't fully blossom in us without intellect. But what is intellect in this case? It's the ability to comprehend or to grasp what is taught, surely.
Because without this ability, we can't grasp the expectations that our community has for our behavior. Aristotle also tells us that we can't truly make choices without the ability to deliberate and make choices. So while the virtues might, after a good education and proper habituation, ensure that our desires are correct, we can't even grasp what's at issue without intellect.
Quote #8
But stating the arguments that proceed from science is not a sign of anything, for even people in the grip of these passions state demonstrations and verses of Empedocles, and those who are first learning will put together arguments but not yet understand them. For one must grow naturally into the knowledge, and that requires time. (7.3.1147a18-22)
Aristotle tells us that knowledge in itself doesn't constitute wisdom…or even prudence. In both cases, we have to contemplate "science" long enough to "have" it, to be in actual, useful possession of it. Otherwise, we're really no better than parrots. Drunk parrots, at that.
Quote #9
For it is not when science in the authoritative sense seems to be present that the experience of the lack of self-restraint occurs, nor is it this science that is dragged around on account of passion, but rather that [knowledge] which is bound up with perception. (7.3.1147b16-18)
Aristotle divides the world into two types of people: the knowers and the non-knowers.
Non-knowers are those who lack knowledge, either through a lack of intellect or education, or from some temporary condition (i.e. drunkenness). It ought to be impossible for a knower to fall into error (i.e. lacking self-restraint).
But humans can know certain things (universal knowledge) and still lack the knowledge of "defining boundaries," or the limits of things. When that happens, we only have partial knowledge and may not be able to see consequences of our actions. So while we may know that indulgence in fifteen doughnuts every day isn't great for us, we may still be shocked at a diagnosis of diabetes.