Dante. An essay. To which is added a translation of De Monarchia.Dante Alighieri
Philosophy
Dante. An essay. To which is added a translation of De Monarchia.
Dante Alighieri
Church and state -- Early works to 1800; Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321; Italy -- Politics and government -- 476-1268
Let us, therefore, start from the irrefragable truth that that which
is repugnant to the intention of nature, is against the will of God.
For if this were not true its contradictory would not be false;
namely, that what is repugnant to the intention of nature is not
against God's will, and if this be not false neither are the
consequences thereof false. For it is impossible in consequences which
are necessary, that the consequent should be false, unless the
antecedent were false also.
But if a thing is not "_against the will_" it must either be willed or
simply "not willed," just as "not to hate" means "to love," or "not to
love;" for "not to love" does not mean "to hate," and "not to will"
does not mean "to will not," as is self-evident. But if this is not
false, neither will this proposition be false; "God wills what He does
not will," than which a greater contradiction does not exist.
I prove that what I say is true as follows: It is manifest that God
wills the end of nature; otherwise the motions of heaven would be of
none effect, and this we may not say. If God willed that the end
should be hindered, He would will also that the hindering power should
gain its end, otherwise His will would be of none effect. And since
the end of the hindering power is the non-existence of what it
hinders, it would follow that God wills the non-existence of the end
of nature which He is said to will.
For if God did not will that the end should be hindered, in so far as
He did not will it, it would follow as a consequence to His not
willing it, that He cared nought about the hindering power, neither
whether it existed, nor whether it did not. But he who cares not for
the hindering power, cares not for the thing which can be hindered,
and consequently has no wish for it; and when a man has no wish for a
thing he wills it not. Therefore, if the end of nature can be
hindered, as it can, it follows of necessity that God wills not the
end of nature, and we reach our previous conclusion, that God wills
what He does not will. Our principle is therefore most true, seeing
that from its contradictions such absurd results follow.
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