An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2Locke, John
Philosophy
An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2
Locke, John
Knowledge, Theory of -- Early works to 1800
Such is the difficulty of explaining and giving clear notions of
internal actions by sounds, that I must here warn my reader, that
ORDERING, DIRECTING, CHOOSING, PREFERRING, &c. which I have made use
of, will not distinctly enough express volition, unless he will reflect
on what he himself does when he wills. For example, preferring, which
seems perhaps best to express the act of volition, does it not
precisely. For though a man would prefer flying to walking, yet who can
say he ever wills it? Volition, it is plain, is an act of the mind
knowingly exerting that dominion it takes itself to have over any part
of the man, by employing it in, or withholding it from, any particular
action. And what is the will, but the faculty to do this? And is that
faculty anything more in effect than a power; the power of the mind to
determine its thought, to the producing, continuing, or stopping any
action, as far as it depends on us? For can it be denied that whatever
agent has a power to think on its own actions, and to prefer their
doing or omission either to other, has that faculty called will? WILL,
then, is nothing but such a power. LIBERTY, on the other side, is the
power a MAN has to do or forbear doing any particular action according
as its doing or forbearance has the actual preference in the mind;
which is the same thing as to say, according as he himself wills it.
16. Powers belonging to Agents.
It is plain then that the will is nothing but one power or ability, and
FREEDOM another power or ability so that, to ask, whether the will has
freedom, is to ask whether one power has another power, one ability
another ability; a question at first sight too grossly absurd to make a
dispute, or need an answer. For, who is it that sees not that powers
belong only to agents, and are attributes only of substances, and not
of powers themselves? So that this way of putting the question (viz.
whether the will be free) is in effect to ask, whether the will be a
substance, an agent, or at least to suppose it, since freedom can
properly be attributed to nothing else. If freedom can with any
propriety of speech be applied to power, it may be attributed to the
power that is in a man to produce, or forbear producing, motion in
parts of his body, by choice or preference; which is that which
denominates him free, and is freedom itself. But if any one should ask,
whether freedom were free, he would be suspected not to understand well
what he said; and he would be thought to deserve Midas’s ears, who,
knowing that rich was a denomination for the possession of riches,
should demand whether riches themselves were rich.
17. How the will instead of the man is called free.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account