63. Is the
presentation of the divided will in the Confessions
consistent with Augustine’s account in On
the Free Choice of the Will?
1. Intro
a.
Set-up:
i. Context
b.
Thesis:
i. The
presentations in the texts are consistent but have different emphases. Confessions
is personal account of the difficulty in reorienting the will, and FCW is a theoretical discussion of the
relation between free will, sin, and evil.
c.
Map:
i. Confessions
ii. FCW
2.
Confessions
a. Augustine
is doing two things here:
i. refuting
the Manichean view that there can be multiple wills in a person, and multiple
wills = multiple minds or natures.
ii. forcing
us to acknowledge a non-rational component of human volition.
b. The
struggle between the old (carnal) and new (spiritual) will:
i. The
old will has Augustine tied up in chains.
The chain: [distorted will-->lust-->habit-->necessity]
1. Distorted
will: a will burdened by original sin (e.g. infant’s jealousy & ‘screams of
revenge’)
2. Lust:
distorted will grows into lust (or some vice, e.g. Augustine as teenager)
3. Habit:
Becomes a habit (Augustine as a young man)
a.
We are responsible for developing our habits
[cf. Aristotle]
4. Necessity:
despite intellectual certainty, he is now in the grip of necessity, cannot do
otherwise
a.
Knows and sincerely wants to change, but cannot.
b.
Unable to act on one’s own, requires the grace
of God
ii. The
old will doesn’t will wholly because of its distortion, and without willing
wholly the will does not command.
iii. The
new will is given by God converting Augustine (the “take and read” scene); can
overcome the old will.
iv. BUT
there is still only one will. “Two
wills” talk just depicts a struggle within his own will. The division is just interior conflict.
“When I was deliberating about serving the Lord my God, […] it was I who willed
to do it, I who was unwilling. It
was I. I did not wholly will, I
was not wholly unwilling.
Therefore I strove with myself and was distracted by myself […] [which]
showed me not the presence of some second mind, but the punishment of my own
mind.” (8.10.22)
3.
FCW
a.
Book I: free will is what makes someone
responsible for an action
b.
Book II: it’s good that humans have free will
c.
Book III: there are difficulties in willing (and
thus acting) freely
d.
Book I-II: The will (agent causation) is
basic.
i. If
we look for the cause of the will we then face a regress of looking for the
cause of the cause of the will.
ii. This
is part of the imago dei (like God, we have freedom of will). Free will exists so that we can do the
good.
iii. Free
will is a great gift, and we owe God a great debt for it.
iv. Nothing
can control the will but itself.
v. Nothing
is so much within our power as the will itself. I will by the will. (the will is reflexive)
e.
Human free will is the source of the world’s
evil. (So God is not.)
[From
2009. I have no idea what’s going
on.]
I Will in
On Free Choice of the Will
Ø
Will is free: can achieve anything just by
willing it
§
Nothing can control the will, but itself.
§
Nothing is so much w/in our power as the will
itself. I will by the will.
Ø
Division
§
“if we will and the will remains absent, then we
are not really willing at all” (BK III.3)
Ø
Explains
why conflict (distortion due to fall)
§
Cannot
achieve what it desires if ignorant or not powerful enough
-
Fallen
will is either (or both) ignorant or corrupted by its own habituation toward
lower goods
Reason for why we need
grace (not free in the PAP sense; we are necessitated –yet no causal necessity)
No comments:
Post a Comment