The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
(_h_) “But we differ wholly about the fifth point. He who conceives
liberty aright, conceives both a ‘liberty in the subject’, to will or
not to will, and a ‘liberty to the object’ to will this or that, and a
‘liberty from impediments’. T. H., by a new way of his own, cuts off the
‘liberty of the subject’, as if a stone were free to ascend or descend
because it hath no outward impediment; and the ‘liberty towards the
object’, as if the needle touched with the loadstone were free to point
either towards the north or towards the south, because there is not a
barricado in its way.” How does it appear, that he who conceives liberty
aright, conceives a liberty in the subject to will or not to will;
unless he mean liberty to do if he will, or not to do if he will not,
which was never denied? Or how does it follow, that a stone is as free
to ascend as descend, unless he prove there is no outward impediment to
its ascent; which cannot be proved, for the contrary is true? Or how
proveth he, that there is no outward impediment to keep that point of
the loadstone, which placeth itself towards the north, from turning to
the south? His ignorance of the causes external is not a sufficient
argument that there are none. And whereas he saith, that according to my
definition of liberty, “a hawk were at liberty to fly when her wings are
plucked, but not when they are tied”; I answer that she is not at
liberty to fly when her wings are tied; but to say, when her wings are
plucked that she wanted the liberty to fly, were to speak improperly and
absurdly; for in that case, men that speak English use to say she cannot
fly. And for his reprehension of my attributing liberty to brute beasts
and rivers; I would be glad to know whether it be improper language, to
say a bird or beast may be set at liberty from the cage wherein they
were imprisoned or to say that a river, which was stopped, hath
recovered its free course; and how it follows, that a beast or river
recovering this freedom must needs therefore “be capable of sin and
punishment”?