THE FABLE OF INTELLIGIBLE FREEDOM.--The history of the sentiments by means of which we make a person responsible consists of the following principal phases. First, all single actions are called good or bad without any regard to their motives, but only on account of the useful or injurious consequences which result for the community. But soon the origin of these distinctions is forgotten, and it is deemed that the qualities "good" or "bad" are contained in the action itself without regard to its consequences, by the same error according to which language describes the stone as hard, the tree as green,--with which, in short, the result is regarded as the cause. Then the goodness or badness is implanted in the motive, and the action in itself is looked upon as morally ambiguous. Mankind even goes further, and applies the predicate good or bad no longer to single motives, but to the whole nature of an individual, out of whom the motive grows as the plant grows out of the earth. Thus, in turn, man is made responsible for his operations, then for his actions, then for his motives, and finally for his nature. Eventually it is discovered that even this nature cannot be responsible, inasmuch as it is an absolutely necessary consequence concreted out of the elements and influences of past and present things,--that man, therefore, cannot be made responsible for anything, neither for his nature, nor his motives, nor his actions, nor his effects. It has therewith come to be recognised that the history of moral valuations is at the same time the history of an error, the error of responsibility, which is based upon the error of the freedom of will. Schopenhauer thus decided against it: because certain actions bring ill humour ("consciousness of guilt") in their train, there must be a responsibility; for there would be _no reason_ for this ill humour if not only all human actions were not done of necessity,--which is actually the case and also the belief of this philosopher,--but man himself from the same necessity is precisely the _being_ that he is--which Schopenhauer denies. From the fact of that ill humour Schopenhauer thinks he can prove a liberty which man must somehow have had, not with regard to actions, but with regard to nature; liberty, therefore, to _be_ thus or otherwise, not to _act_ thus or otherwise. From the _esse,_ the sphere of freedom and responsibility, there results, in his opinion, the _operari,_ the sphere of strict causality, necessity, and irresponsibility. This ill humour is apparently directed to the _operari,_--in so far it is erroneous,--but in reality it is directed to the _esse,_ which is the deed of a free will, the fundamental cause of the existence of an individual, man becomes that which he _wishes_ to be, his will is anterior to his existence. Here the mistaken conclusion is drawn that from the fact of the ill humour, the justification, the reasonable _admissableness_