What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancient Christian Writers #22
The Problem of Free Choice
One of Augustine's most important works, written between 388 and 395, this dialogue has as its objective not so much to discuss free will for its own sake as to discuss the problem of evil in reference to the existence of God, who is almighty and all-good. †
306 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 395
136 people are currently reading
3161 people want to read
About the author
Augustine of Hippo
3,333 books2,026 followersEarly church father and philosopher Saint Augustine served from 396 as the bishop of Hippo in present-day Algeria and through such writings as the autobiographical
Confessions
in 397 and the voluminous
City of God
from 413 to 426 profoundly influenced Christianity, argued against Manichaeism and Donatism, and helped to establish the doctrine of original sin.
An Augustinian follows the principles and doctrines of Saint Augustine.
People also know Aurelius Augustinus in English of Regius (Annaba). From the Africa province of the Roman Empire, people generally consider this Latin theologian of the greatest thinkers of all times. He very developed the west. According to Jerome, a contemporary, Augustine renewed "the ancient Faith."
The Neo-Platonism of Plotinus afterward heavily weighed his years. After conversion and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to theology and accommodated a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed in the indispensable grace to human freedom and framed the concept of just war. When the Western Roman Empire started to disintegrate from the material earth, Augustine developed the concept of the distinct Catholic spirituality in a book of the same name. He thought the medieval worldview. Augustine closely identified with the community that worshiped the Trinity. The Catholics and the Anglican communion revere this preeminent doctor. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider his due teaching on salvation and divine grace of the theology of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox also consider him. He carries the additional title of blessed. The Orthodox call him "Blessed Augustine" or "Saint Augustine the Blessed."
Santo Agostinho
An Augustinian follows the principles and doctrines of Saint Augustine.
People also know Aurelius Augustinus in English of Regius (Annaba). From the Africa province of the Roman Empire, people generally consider this Latin theologian of the greatest thinkers of all times. He very developed the west. According to Jerome, a contemporary, Augustine renewed "the ancient Faith."
The Neo-Platonism of Plotinus afterward heavily weighed his years. After conversion and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to theology and accommodated a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed in the indispensable grace to human freedom and framed the concept of just war. When the Western Roman Empire started to disintegrate from the material earth, Augustine developed the concept of the distinct Catholic spirituality in a book of the same name. He thought the medieval worldview. Augustine closely identified with the community that worshiped the Trinity. The Catholics and the Anglican communion revere this preeminent doctor. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider his due teaching on salvation and divine grace of the theology of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox also consider him. He carries the additional title of blessed. The Orthodox call him "Blessed Augustine" or "Saint Augustine the Blessed."
Santo Agostinho
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
July 5, 2019
After wading through pages and pages of weighty arguments about the problem of evil, the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility, I think these were my favorite quotes:
Augustine: I believe you also know that many human beings are foolish.
Evodius: That's obvious enough.
and,
Augustine: So tell me this: Do we have a will?
Evodius: I don't know.
Augustine: Do you want to know?
Evodius: I don't know that either.
Augustine: Then don't ask me any more questions.
:)
Augustine: I believe you also know that many human beings are foolish.
Evodius: That's obvious enough.
and,
Augustine: So tell me this: Do we have a will?
Evodius: I don't know.
Augustine: Do you want to know?
Evodius: I don't know that either.
Augustine: Then don't ask me any more questions.
:)
August 24, 2008
This is one of Augustine's early writings, from soon after his conversion. It records a conversation between himself and Evodius regarding free will. ... Augustine had very little access to Plato, and at this point in his life, probably nothing not quoted by another source. The dialogue is in fact based upon a real conversation, and not just a literary creation (a result of the philosophical community that Augustine lived in for some time after his conversion). However, Augustine edited it and added material (most of Bk. III) before publishing it.
The main things I thought a reader ought to note when reading this short work are (1) This is still the beginning of work on the will - it was not a major issue in philosophy until Augustine, although bits and pieces may be found, e.g. in Cicero; (2) Augustine's style is quite different from what most people are used to, especially since this is a record of an actual conversation; (3) the problem of evil for Augustine is of a different nature then that promulgated in modern times; (4) the only two people who had a paradigmatically free will were Adam and Eve - everyone else has a less than free will and requires God's grace to will effectively, even when they wish to do good.
It is an interesting work but still represents the early thought of Augustine. Those without a Neoplatonic background will find some of its arguments strange. There is no good introduction to Augustine - in my experience, you have to read a great deal of him in order to understand the typical way he thinks and the concepts he relies upon implicitly. Some Plotinus is probably useful.
The main things I thought a reader ought to note when reading this short work are (1) This is still the beginning of work on the will - it was not a major issue in philosophy until Augustine, although bits and pieces may be found, e.g. in Cicero; (2) Augustine's style is quite different from what most people are used to, especially since this is a record of an actual conversation; (3) the problem of evil for Augustine is of a different nature then that promulgated in modern times; (4) the only two people who had a paradigmatically free will were Adam and Eve - everyone else has a less than free will and requires God's grace to will effectively, even when they wish to do good.
It is an interesting work but still represents the early thought of Augustine. Those without a Neoplatonic background will find some of its arguments strange. There is no good introduction to Augustine - in my experience, you have to read a great deal of him in order to understand the typical way he thinks and the concepts he relies upon implicitly. Some Plotinus is probably useful.
February 11, 2016
Unless I am missing something, I am not sure that Augustine espouses Libertarian freedom in this work the way that the editor thinks he does in the introduction; then again, I am no Augustine scholar and neither am I a philosopher. Someone please correct me?
"Augustine rejects the view known as compatibilism that determinism is compatible with human freedom and moral responsibility' and since he is convinced that human beings are in act free and responsible, he must reject determinism as well" (xiii). Certainly the editor has a bias and that is quite fine; still, however, I think he gets Augustine wrong in a sense. Certainly Augustine modified his view which the editor recognizes, his run-in with the Pelagians made him sharpen his skills and defend a more robust position which led him to his treatises like "On Nature and Grace" and "On the Predestination of the Saints." My point is essentially that this is a very early work of Augustine after his conversion, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered; certainly it is not his final position--the position that so influenced John Calvin and the Magisterial Reformers. Even still, it seems that his view in this early dialogue is still a form of compatibilism.
Much of it was pretty dense to slog through, and one who has not understanding of Ancient Platonic thought would find most of Augustine's arguments extremely weird and uncompelling. Besides the point, Augustine traces through various topics such as freedom of the will, the cause of the will, the origin of evil, the origin of the soul, and many other interesting topics he dealt with much more extensively in his latter years. To all of these questions he pretty much says "well I don't really know."
Here is one great debating tactic I should pick up
"Augustine: Do you want to know?
Evodius: I don't know that either
Augustine: Then don't ask me any more questions" (19).
Some more gems:
"Anyone who does not think that we should admonish people in this way ought to be banned from the human race" (73).
Concerning God's foreknowledge of future events, Augustine rejects that God knows anything contingently, but rather he knows it perfectly: this we can put nicely in God's free knowledge. He states that it would be "irreligious and completely insane attack on God's foreknowledge to say that something could happen otherwise than as God foreknew" (ibid). His Socratic interlocutor then raises the question of how all events do not happen by necessity if God does not know events contingently but perfectly to which Augustine responds, "I think the only reason that most people are tormented by this question is that they do not ask it piously" (ibid). There, as Augustine would come to realize is not a solution but merely an evasion of the problem.
Essentially Augustine says that nothing can happen by necessity (in the philosophical sense) in reference to a will, since a will by its very definition, Augustine reasons, is something that presupposes power. "So our will would not be a will if it were not in our power. And since it is in our power, we are free with respect to it But we are not free with respect to anything that we do not have in our power" (77). What Augustine would come to discover is that the "thing" that is not within our power if the ability to will towards good and not towards evil, or that is, the ability without God's initial first grace, to come to Christ. Indeed, in his later Retractationum written c. 427 A.D. he acknowledged that he was clearly not speaking about grace in this dialogue, but merely the philosophical will contra the Manachians; the issues with the Pelagians, he wrote, had not yet arisen, even while defending this dialogue through the lens of his latter more robust view.
Augustine on God's punitive justice speaks of proximate causes only, viz., the sin that the sinner committed by his free will, and hence God is just in punishing it even though God foreknew it perfectly, "God's foreknowledge does not force the future to happen" (78). At this point Augustine is looking for a grounding of causal events--since in this dialogue he does not want to ground them in the will of God--and he is left empty handed. "The sin is committed by the will, not coerced by God's foreknowledge...[Indeed], the will is the cause of sin, but you are asking about the cause of the will itself? Suppose that I could find this cause. Wouldn't we then have to look for the cause of this cause? What limit will there be on this search? Where will our questions and discussions end? You should not search any further than the root of the issue" (104).
Interesting also is at this time when the origin of the soul is brought up, Augustine lays out four positions, that of creationsim, traducianism, Originism, and Platonism, of which he says he simply has no clue and the Catholic Church has not yet laid out a position on the matter. Even by the end of his life, Augustine could not seem to decide between the former two.
All in all, good read of Augustine for the engagement and learning experience of this erudite Father.
"Augustine rejects the view known as compatibilism that determinism is compatible with human freedom and moral responsibility' and since he is convinced that human beings are in act free and responsible, he must reject determinism as well" (xiii). Certainly the editor has a bias and that is quite fine; still, however, I think he gets Augustine wrong in a sense. Certainly Augustine modified his view which the editor recognizes, his run-in with the Pelagians made him sharpen his skills and defend a more robust position which led him to his treatises like "On Nature and Grace" and "On the Predestination of the Saints." My point is essentially that this is a very early work of Augustine after his conversion, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered; certainly it is not his final position--the position that so influenced John Calvin and the Magisterial Reformers. Even still, it seems that his view in this early dialogue is still a form of compatibilism.
Much of it was pretty dense to slog through, and one who has not understanding of Ancient Platonic thought would find most of Augustine's arguments extremely weird and uncompelling. Besides the point, Augustine traces through various topics such as freedom of the will, the cause of the will, the origin of evil, the origin of the soul, and many other interesting topics he dealt with much more extensively in his latter years. To all of these questions he pretty much says "well I don't really know."
Here is one great debating tactic I should pick up
"Augustine: Do you want to know?
Evodius: I don't know that either
Augustine: Then don't ask me any more questions" (19).
Some more gems:
"Anyone who does not think that we should admonish people in this way ought to be banned from the human race" (73).
Concerning God's foreknowledge of future events, Augustine rejects that God knows anything contingently, but rather he knows it perfectly: this we can put nicely in God's free knowledge. He states that it would be "irreligious and completely insane attack on God's foreknowledge to say that something could happen otherwise than as God foreknew" (ibid). His Socratic interlocutor then raises the question of how all events do not happen by necessity if God does not know events contingently but perfectly to which Augustine responds, "I think the only reason that most people are tormented by this question is that they do not ask it piously" (ibid). There, as Augustine would come to realize is not a solution but merely an evasion of the problem.
Essentially Augustine says that nothing can happen by necessity (in the philosophical sense) in reference to a will, since a will by its very definition, Augustine reasons, is something that presupposes power. "So our will would not be a will if it were not in our power. And since it is in our power, we are free with respect to it But we are not free with respect to anything that we do not have in our power" (77). What Augustine would come to discover is that the "thing" that is not within our power if the ability to will towards good and not towards evil, or that is, the ability without God's initial first grace, to come to Christ. Indeed, in his later Retractationum written c. 427 A.D. he acknowledged that he was clearly not speaking about grace in this dialogue, but merely the philosophical will contra the Manachians; the issues with the Pelagians, he wrote, had not yet arisen, even while defending this dialogue through the lens of his latter more robust view.
Augustine on God's punitive justice speaks of proximate causes only, viz., the sin that the sinner committed by his free will, and hence God is just in punishing it even though God foreknew it perfectly, "God's foreknowledge does not force the future to happen" (78). At this point Augustine is looking for a grounding of causal events--since in this dialogue he does not want to ground them in the will of God--and he is left empty handed. "The sin is committed by the will, not coerced by God's foreknowledge...[Indeed], the will is the cause of sin, but you are asking about the cause of the will itself? Suppose that I could find this cause. Wouldn't we then have to look for the cause of this cause? What limit will there be on this search? Where will our questions and discussions end? You should not search any further than the root of the issue" (104).
Interesting also is at this time when the origin of the soul is brought up, Augustine lays out four positions, that of creationsim, traducianism, Originism, and Platonism, of which he says he simply has no clue and the Catholic Church has not yet laid out a position on the matter. Even by the end of his life, Augustine could not seem to decide between the former two.
All in all, good read of Augustine for the engagement and learning experience of this erudite Father.
September 2, 2020
This is an early work by Augustine (396), but it contains many seeds and motifs in his later thought. Augustine is wrestling mainly with the a part of the problem of evil: how is God not the author of evil? Along the way he explores what evil is, how the universe is ordered, and how God's foreknowledge does not cause evil. There's a fascinating proof of the existence of God from numbers, and a great section on the end on sin and redemption. In the end, the source of evil in the world is human free will, and beyond that Augustine is unwilling to go.
I got more out of this third reading than any other so far. It helps to have just read The Trinity and am more alert to Augustinian motifs. In fact, the parallels between OFW and de Trin. are many: higher and lower goods (the basic framework of "using vs. enjoying" in de Doctrina and de Trin); how Christ defeated Satan by justice not by power; the various inner "parts" of a human mind.
This is classic Augustine, and it's worth wrestling with.
I got more out of this third reading than any other so far. It helps to have just read The Trinity and am more alert to Augustinian motifs. In fact, the parallels between OFW and de Trin. are many: higher and lower goods (the basic framework of "using vs. enjoying" in de Doctrina and de Trin); how Christ defeated Satan by justice not by power; the various inner "parts" of a human mind.
This is classic Augustine, and it's worth wrestling with.
Read
October 26, 2024HATED books 1&2 omg I don’t have the words to express how ANNOYINGGGG they were. Can’t say I’m a philosophy fan unfortunately and those books were incredibly painful. Book 3 though???? Loved it. Can’t explain why there was such an extreme difference for me but there was. Maybe because there was less of the dumb guy? Sorry evodius!
January 18, 2026
Of all the great dialogues, from Plato, Cicero, or Boethius, none of them have enthralled me so deeply as Augustine’s. On Free Choice of the Will is not a popular book of his, being overshadowed by his introspective Confessions or polemical City of God, but it stands out as a thorough examination of free will, evil, and all the tension within those topics. As always, I can’t review the book holistically, as it contains three separate parts, so allow me to give each its dues.
Book I: All Sin is Lust – 4/5
A beautiful introduction which argues all sin is lust, that is, all sin is a desire to possess eternally those things which are by nature, temporary. All the vices, such as greed, carnality, or violence, all stem from the same focus on the material, perishable world. The virtues, on the other hand, reflect a focus on eternality, and goods which cannot be taken away, such as generosity, chastity, or peacefulness. I am in love with this analysis of sin, and while Augustine would later classify sin as unchaste love, and even later, as privations (which is equally good, don’t misunderstand), I rather like this primitive analysis for its intuitiveness. In the end, his student (the other speaker in this dialogue) asks two great questions: how do we know God exists, and how do we know free will is a good? I wonder if Augustine’s response will be any good (foreshadowing is a literary device where-)
Book II: God is Truth – 5/5
Breakout text; excellent in every way. Augustine begins by stating one can know for sure he exists, as in no way can this be a deception. Avid readers may pick up on the fact Augustine is using the oh-so-famous “cogito ergo sum” Descartes claims to find in his Mediations 1200 years after this book came out. I’m not accusing Descartes of ripping off Augustine (but if someone else did I’d probably agree).
From this simple axiom, Augustine builds his case that objective truth exists, and this truth is metaphysically-based, not based in the material world. He does this in a long rant on numbers which is pretty humorous out of context, but he conclusion that God is Truth, and I don't mean it metaphorically or rhetorically or poetically or theoretically or in any other fancy way. He’s Truth, straight up (this is a reference to a popular DreamWorks movie).
In tandem with constructing this argument, Augustine slowly builds on the idea of sin being a lust for the temporal, using the sense of taste to describe the pleasure derived from sin; whereas the sense of sight parallels the pleasure derived from God. What he means by this is that in order to taste something, one must consume it (if only a little). The only way to gain pleasure from eating is destroying that which gives you pleasure (the food), and along with this, it is a zero-sum game where every piece of food you eat is one your friend cannot. Compare this to sight, in which you and your friend can stand side-by-side, enjoying a beautiful work of art. You do not have to destroy the art or selfishly hoard it to be happy. God is the same way; he gives joy to all, and cannot be possessed by just one. I love this analogy, and how Augustine interweaves it into the book is genius.
In the end, Augustine is asked how our will, if it is good, can be turned from God towards temporality, to which Augustine responds by saying, “I don’t know.” To me, this is an absolute failure of a response, and it undermines so much of what Augustine has been constructing. I don’t want to get to much into the issue with this, and it would break my heart to lower the rating for what is effectively the closing remark of the book, so I shall save my criticism for the last book.
Book III: A Disappointing End – 2/5
There is no way to spin this, book 3 is a disaster which will not stop. It is by far the longest book of the three, taking up approximately 50% of On Free Choice of the Will, and yet it doesn’t even accomplish half as much as the others did. It begins with Augustine arguing why free will and God’s foreknowledge is not contradictory, and it’s… fine? Personally, I never had an issue with this, as my behavior determines God’s foreknowledge, not the other way around, so I struggle to understand why theologians like Augustine or Boethius construct such elaborate explanations, but to each his own. To me, a far more interesting question is whether God knew what I would do before he created the universe, and whether, out of the infinite catalog of potential beings, God decided to only actualize those who would behave how he wanted them to (this question is better explained in Mackie’s argument on the problem of evil).
From there, he makes an argument on why everyone would prefer to exist unhappy than to not exist at all, and I remained thoroughly unconvinced (read I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream and tell me if existence is really so great), but after that flop, he moves onto another question, that being “If our will can be corrupted, and by corrupted, I mean a imperfection can be added to it, isn’t our will already corrupted, as the potential to become imperfect is an imperfection itself?” which is honestly a great point. To rephrase, if I were to say a diamond has no flaws, but it could become flawed, isn’t that in and of itself a flaw? Augustine doesn’t answer this question and instead uses heavy wordplay to duck around it, a habit he will continue for the rest of this book.
Honestly, there is little left in book 3 that is of any interest. It was a slog to get through, but there is one last thing of note. Augustine consistently sets up the idea that free will is the self creating the effect with no cause; in the same way God creates the universe out of nothing, we create choices and decisions out of nothing. I find it a little ironic that theists often say God must exist, because something can’t come from nothing and everything must have a cause, and yet Augustine just bluntly says that every second of every day, billions of people making choices is the result of something coming from nothing. I would’ve gone back to the drawing board on that idea.
Final Review:
The average for this book is a 3.7, dragged down by the last book. A disappointing finish, but the book left me dizzy with thoughts and ideas, and I would recommend anyone else even tangentially interested in the topic to read the book.
Book I: All Sin is Lust – 4/5
A beautiful introduction which argues all sin is lust, that is, all sin is a desire to possess eternally those things which are by nature, temporary. All the vices, such as greed, carnality, or violence, all stem from the same focus on the material, perishable world. The virtues, on the other hand, reflect a focus on eternality, and goods which cannot be taken away, such as generosity, chastity, or peacefulness. I am in love with this analysis of sin, and while Augustine would later classify sin as unchaste love, and even later, as privations (which is equally good, don’t misunderstand), I rather like this primitive analysis for its intuitiveness. In the end, his student (the other speaker in this dialogue) asks two great questions: how do we know God exists, and how do we know free will is a good? I wonder if Augustine’s response will be any good (foreshadowing is a literary device where-)
Book II: God is Truth – 5/5
Breakout text; excellent in every way. Augustine begins by stating one can know for sure he exists, as in no way can this be a deception. Avid readers may pick up on the fact Augustine is using the oh-so-famous “cogito ergo sum” Descartes claims to find in his Mediations 1200 years after this book came out. I’m not accusing Descartes of ripping off Augustine (but if someone else did I’d probably agree).
From this simple axiom, Augustine builds his case that objective truth exists, and this truth is metaphysically-based, not based in the material world. He does this in a long rant on numbers which is pretty humorous out of context, but he conclusion that God is Truth, and I don't mean it metaphorically or rhetorically or poetically or theoretically or in any other fancy way. He’s Truth, straight up (this is a reference to a popular DreamWorks movie).
In tandem with constructing this argument, Augustine slowly builds on the idea of sin being a lust for the temporal, using the sense of taste to describe the pleasure derived from sin; whereas the sense of sight parallels the pleasure derived from God. What he means by this is that in order to taste something, one must consume it (if only a little). The only way to gain pleasure from eating is destroying that which gives you pleasure (the food), and along with this, it is a zero-sum game where every piece of food you eat is one your friend cannot. Compare this to sight, in which you and your friend can stand side-by-side, enjoying a beautiful work of art. You do not have to destroy the art or selfishly hoard it to be happy. God is the same way; he gives joy to all, and cannot be possessed by just one. I love this analogy, and how Augustine interweaves it into the book is genius.
In the end, Augustine is asked how our will, if it is good, can be turned from God towards temporality, to which Augustine responds by saying, “I don’t know.” To me, this is an absolute failure of a response, and it undermines so much of what Augustine has been constructing. I don’t want to get to much into the issue with this, and it would break my heart to lower the rating for what is effectively the closing remark of the book, so I shall save my criticism for the last book.
Book III: A Disappointing End – 2/5
There is no way to spin this, book 3 is a disaster which will not stop. It is by far the longest book of the three, taking up approximately 50% of On Free Choice of the Will, and yet it doesn’t even accomplish half as much as the others did. It begins with Augustine arguing why free will and God’s foreknowledge is not contradictory, and it’s… fine? Personally, I never had an issue with this, as my behavior determines God’s foreknowledge, not the other way around, so I struggle to understand why theologians like Augustine or Boethius construct such elaborate explanations, but to each his own. To me, a far more interesting question is whether God knew what I would do before he created the universe, and whether, out of the infinite catalog of potential beings, God decided to only actualize those who would behave how he wanted them to (this question is better explained in Mackie’s argument on the problem of evil).
From there, he makes an argument on why everyone would prefer to exist unhappy than to not exist at all, and I remained thoroughly unconvinced (read I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream and tell me if existence is really so great), but after that flop, he moves onto another question, that being “If our will can be corrupted, and by corrupted, I mean a imperfection can be added to it, isn’t our will already corrupted, as the potential to become imperfect is an imperfection itself?” which is honestly a great point. To rephrase, if I were to say a diamond has no flaws, but it could become flawed, isn’t that in and of itself a flaw? Augustine doesn’t answer this question and instead uses heavy wordplay to duck around it, a habit he will continue for the rest of this book.
Honestly, there is little left in book 3 that is of any interest. It was a slog to get through, but there is one last thing of note. Augustine consistently sets up the idea that free will is the self creating the effect with no cause; in the same way God creates the universe out of nothing, we create choices and decisions out of nothing. I find it a little ironic that theists often say God must exist, because something can’t come from nothing and everything must have a cause, and yet Augustine just bluntly says that every second of every day, billions of people making choices is the result of something coming from nothing. I would’ve gone back to the drawing board on that idea.
Final Review:
The average for this book is a 3.7, dragged down by the last book. A disappointing finish, but the book left me dizzy with thoughts and ideas, and I would recommend anyone else even tangentially interested in the topic to read the book.
August 29, 2024
3.5⭐️
Taaie kost met goede inhoud. Gelukkig heb ik uit betrouwbare bron gehoord dat het normaal is om dit soort boeken niet volledig te begrijpen als je ze voor de eerste keer leest.
Genoeg stof tot nadenken/aansporing om ermee aan de slag te gaan.
Daarom hierbij even een prachtige ChatGPT samenvatting voor het geval ik het nog eens wil lezen:
Samenvattend is "Over de vrije wilskeuze" een diepgaande verkenning van de complexe interactie tussen vrije wil, zonde, straf, en goddelijke voorzienigheid. Augustinus verdedigt de vrije wil van de mens als een fundamenteel goed, maar benadrukt ook de verantwoordelijkheid die ermee gepaard gaat. Het kwaad in de wereld is een gevolg van de verkeerde uitoefening van deze vrije wil, en hoewel God het kwaad toelaat, blijft zijn voorzienigheid en rechtvaardigheid onaangetast
Taaie kost met goede inhoud. Gelukkig heb ik uit betrouwbare bron gehoord dat het normaal is om dit soort boeken niet volledig te begrijpen als je ze voor de eerste keer leest.
Genoeg stof tot nadenken/aansporing om ermee aan de slag te gaan.
Daarom hierbij even een prachtige ChatGPT samenvatting voor het geval ik het nog eens wil lezen:
Samenvattend is "Over de vrije wilskeuze" een diepgaande verkenning van de complexe interactie tussen vrije wil, zonde, straf, en goddelijke voorzienigheid. Augustinus verdedigt de vrije wil van de mens als een fundamenteel goed, maar benadrukt ook de verantwoordelijkheid die ermee gepaard gaat. Het kwaad in de wereld is een gevolg van de verkeerde uitoefening van deze vrije wil, en hoewel God het kwaad toelaat, blijft zijn voorzienigheid en rechtvaardigheid onaangetast
December 17, 2025
Not my favorite work of Augustine's from a theological standpoint, but it's a good dialogue and serves well for training the mind to track an argument. I think reading this one is a matter of knowing what you're getting into. If you're expecting a clear theological treatise on the topic, you will probably walk away disappointed. However, as a philosophical dialogue, it is a pleasant read (more so in books I-II, rather than III).
January 22, 2024
“Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?”
Im not sure what the term is for this phenomenon but we can just call it ignorance for lack of a better word but this is something that I stopped thinking a while ago but it’s always nice to be reminded of it;“ancient” or non-modern humans aren’t dumb, naïve, or fools.
This book makes that clear. It’s nearly 2000 years old yet the clarity of the logic, reason, issues at hand, the subtleties and manner of the problems that are dealt with reads like it could be written today and still be better than plenty of other (particularly philosophical) works.
Some of the core issues of the book are whether God created evil, what is evil, what is evildoing, what is the source of sin, how and why thinking about adultery (for example) is wrong to think about committing not just wrong only when the act is committed, how free will is necessary for morality, what the nature of humans is (rational animals), how can free will and foreknowledge be compatible, what is valuable and why, why humans have such an esteemed value above all else, existence as goodness, proof of existence (similar and before Decartes)
One need not be Christian to appreciate and learn from this book. (I’m agnostic)
Not to be a boomer but this book really squanders and deals with many of the (generalization) YouTube cringe atheist-esque type of people who attack on Christianity which are very basic. But on the flip side, so many ignorant Christians would do good to understand their religion from the lens of reason and philosophy too and not be blindly faithful.
The book has a clear influence on the way the world is today and that alone is reason to read it but it is very illuminating.
One star was nicked off because the last chunk of the 3rd book started to go too much into faith-based explanation as opposed to the more philosophical/reasoned based methods of the first 2 books.
Within the work, a version of the argument for free will that I accept is presented. A simply version goes like this: 1. it is the case that there are true moral claims. 2. Morality necessarily requires (a certain type of) free will. 3. Free will exists.
Im not sure what the term is for this phenomenon but we can just call it ignorance for lack of a better word but this is something that I stopped thinking a while ago but it’s always nice to be reminded of it;“ancient” or non-modern humans aren’t dumb, naïve, or fools.
This book makes that clear. It’s nearly 2000 years old yet the clarity of the logic, reason, issues at hand, the subtleties and manner of the problems that are dealt with reads like it could be written today and still be better than plenty of other (particularly philosophical) works.
Some of the core issues of the book are whether God created evil, what is evil, what is evildoing, what is the source of sin, how and why thinking about adultery (for example) is wrong to think about committing not just wrong only when the act is committed, how free will is necessary for morality, what the nature of humans is (rational animals), how can free will and foreknowledge be compatible, what is valuable and why, why humans have such an esteemed value above all else, existence as goodness, proof of existence (similar and before Decartes)
One need not be Christian to appreciate and learn from this book. (I’m agnostic)
Not to be a boomer but this book really squanders and deals with many of the (generalization) YouTube cringe atheist-esque type of people who attack on Christianity which are very basic. But on the flip side, so many ignorant Christians would do good to understand their religion from the lens of reason and philosophy too and not be blindly faithful.
The book has a clear influence on the way the world is today and that alone is reason to read it but it is very illuminating.
One star was nicked off because the last chunk of the 3rd book started to go too much into faith-based explanation as opposed to the more philosophical/reasoned based methods of the first 2 books.
Within the work, a version of the argument for free will that I accept is presented. A simply version goes like this: 1. it is the case that there are true moral claims. 2. Morality necessarily requires (a certain type of) free will. 3. Free will exists.
May 4, 2018
Esse eu tive que dar uma nota boa. Consigo me projetar pra época, e pensar como um crente. Dessa maneira o livro se torna algo sensacional. Cheio de malandragens para construção do convencimento das pessoas, ele realmente explica bem a origem do pecado, porque pecamos, a essência do livre arbítrio e até prova a Existência de Deus.
Mas... como ele mesmo diz, tem que crer para entender. O eu de hoje, um descrente, não entende mesmo. E até ri de vários argumentos e das tais malandragens. A tal prova da existência de Deus começa com um malandrops pra cima do Evodio, que dá até dó.
A parte 1 do livro, que fala sobre o pecado como desejo culpável é a parte mais bacana do livro. A segunda e a prova da existência de Deus, relação com número e tal, tem seu valor. A terceira, é aquela babação que encontramos lá nas confissões. É a bíblia escrita de maneira "filosófica".
Esse vale a leitura. Para crentes, um prato cheio. Para não crentes, um estudo de onde a ilusão pode chegar.
Mas... como ele mesmo diz, tem que crer para entender. O eu de hoje, um descrente, não entende mesmo. E até ri de vários argumentos e das tais malandragens. A tal prova da existência de Deus começa com um malandrops pra cima do Evodio, que dá até dó.
A parte 1 do livro, que fala sobre o pecado como desejo culpável é a parte mais bacana do livro. A segunda e a prova da existência de Deus, relação com número e tal, tem seu valor. A terceira, é aquela babação que encontramos lá nas confissões. É a bíblia escrita de maneira "filosófica".
Esse vale a leitura. Para crentes, um prato cheio. Para não crentes, um estudo de onde a ilusão pode chegar.
September 15, 2023
This book was not terrible, but it did drag on quite a bit. A book this short took me an absurdly long time to complete simply because of how dense it is. A lot of the writing did not resonate with me and I found many of the passages completely incomprehensible. This is a text I will likely revisit in the future, but as of now I gained very little from reading it. The nice thing about this book is that I now have a slightly better understanding of Christian philosophies around evil, good, and the nature of man. I also really enjoyed how this text was mostly a conversation between two people, that is a format I haven’t really experienced before. Otherwise, I found Augustine to ramble quite a bit, but parts of it were still enjoyable and logical.
Read
October 26, 2022Love hate relationship with medieval philosophy. I've cried and laughed while reading this for different reasons.
April 4, 2024
Entiendo el contexto histórico y cultural, pero, uf, menudo chapas. De verdad, Agus, no hace falta que me repitas 15 veces el mismo argumento, ya he pillado el punto.
January 15, 2026
book 3 my beloved
April 19, 2025
St. Augustine at his best.
February 7, 2025
Book 3 was bad. First 2 were good. Still not fully convinced!
January 19, 2021
A obra é o oitavo livro de Agostinho. Escrito em Roma após seu batismo. Formato: diálogo com Evódio, bispo de Upsada, na África. Escrita entre 388-91. É composta por três livros.
Livro I: Deus é o autor do mal? Cada pessoa é autora de suas más ações. Qual a origem do mal? As paixões pecaminosas (concupiscências). Há uma lei externa que parametriza o que é o mal. Temos uma lei impressa em nossa alma a que devemos nos alinhar. A razão humana deve orientar-se e ordenar-se pela lei divina.
A razão é mais forte que os apetites desordenados e pode dominá-los. Só o livre-arbítrio pode tornar a mente cúmplice das paixões. É justo o castigo àqueles que pode sua vontade se entregam às paixões. A vontade pode ser submetida à busca da felicidade e bem-estar. Todos querem ser feliz, mas nem todos querem viver retamente, contudo a vontade de viver retamente é a vida feliz.
O ato mal é desprezar os bens eternos e buscar, em contrapartida, os bens temporais, os quais não trazem segurança.
Livro II: Deus nos deu livre arbítrio para não pecarmos e vivermos retamente. A liberdade é um dom divino para nossa plena humanidade. A razão é a melhor e mais elevada parte do homem. Acima da razão, há Deus. Todos querem usar sua razão em busca de sabedoria, mas nem todos escolhem o caminho adequado.
As coisas, como o corpo e os números, fazem parte da sabedoria divina. A verdade é uma e imutável e está acima de nossa razão. A verdade deve ser conhecida pela razão porque é a única fonte de felicidade.
A liberdade é conhecer a verdade suprema que nos dá segurança. Essa verdade é acessível a todos porque Deus existe e torna acessível pela razão o conhecimento. De Deus procedem o bem e a perfeição. A vontade livre é um bem, mesmo que possa ser usado para o mal. O mal é voltar-se, voluntariamente, aos bens mutáveis e disso segue justa punição. O impulso para o mal é resultado do livre-arbítrio.
Livro III: o livre arbítrio torna o homem responsável. A presciência de Deus não anula a liberdade porque o ato humano é feito conforme a própria vontade humana. Deus prevê a ação dentro de nossa liberdade, prevê que agiremos livremente. Prever não é obrigar ou determinar.
O pecado trouxe o mal moral por meio de Adão e subjugou o homem ao diabo, mas Jesus venceu na cruz e subjugou Satanás. O pecado não destruiu a beleza divina no homem. O ser humano se corrompe em seus atos, mas ontologicamente tem bondade dada por Deus.
O pecado é agir injustamente, mas Deus não é cúmplice de nossos pecados. Deus não determina nossos pecados. O pecado é produto da vontade humana. Deus deu ao homem livre arbítrio quando o criou, mas a debilidade herdada de Adão não nos isenta do pecado. Nascemos escravos do pecado e isso é justo.
Livro I: Deus é o autor do mal? Cada pessoa é autora de suas más ações. Qual a origem do mal? As paixões pecaminosas (concupiscências). Há uma lei externa que parametriza o que é o mal. Temos uma lei impressa em nossa alma a que devemos nos alinhar. A razão humana deve orientar-se e ordenar-se pela lei divina.
A razão é mais forte que os apetites desordenados e pode dominá-los. Só o livre-arbítrio pode tornar a mente cúmplice das paixões. É justo o castigo àqueles que pode sua vontade se entregam às paixões. A vontade pode ser submetida à busca da felicidade e bem-estar. Todos querem ser feliz, mas nem todos querem viver retamente, contudo a vontade de viver retamente é a vida feliz.
O ato mal é desprezar os bens eternos e buscar, em contrapartida, os bens temporais, os quais não trazem segurança.
Livro II: Deus nos deu livre arbítrio para não pecarmos e vivermos retamente. A liberdade é um dom divino para nossa plena humanidade. A razão é a melhor e mais elevada parte do homem. Acima da razão, há Deus. Todos querem usar sua razão em busca de sabedoria, mas nem todos escolhem o caminho adequado.
As coisas, como o corpo e os números, fazem parte da sabedoria divina. A verdade é uma e imutável e está acima de nossa razão. A verdade deve ser conhecida pela razão porque é a única fonte de felicidade.
A liberdade é conhecer a verdade suprema que nos dá segurança. Essa verdade é acessível a todos porque Deus existe e torna acessível pela razão o conhecimento. De Deus procedem o bem e a perfeição. A vontade livre é um bem, mesmo que possa ser usado para o mal. O mal é voltar-se, voluntariamente, aos bens mutáveis e disso segue justa punição. O impulso para o mal é resultado do livre-arbítrio.
Livro III: o livre arbítrio torna o homem responsável. A presciência de Deus não anula a liberdade porque o ato humano é feito conforme a própria vontade humana. Deus prevê a ação dentro de nossa liberdade, prevê que agiremos livremente. Prever não é obrigar ou determinar.
O pecado trouxe o mal moral por meio de Adão e subjugou o homem ao diabo, mas Jesus venceu na cruz e subjugou Satanás. O pecado não destruiu a beleza divina no homem. O ser humano se corrompe em seus atos, mas ontologicamente tem bondade dada por Deus.
O pecado é agir injustamente, mas Deus não é cúmplice de nossos pecados. Deus não determina nossos pecados. O pecado é produto da vontade humana. Deus deu ao homem livre arbítrio quando o criou, mas a debilidade herdada de Adão não nos isenta do pecado. Nascemos escravos do pecado e isso é justo.
July 20, 2016
If you want a broad introduction to Augustine's philosophy, this book is a good place to start.
This book is an extended dialogue between Augustine and Evodius about many areas of Augustine's philosophy and theology. It begins with Evodius' controversial question "Isn't God the cause of evil," and after about 100 pages, Augustine makes his point that the free choice of the will is the cause of evil. However, through that 100 pages he discusses much more than questions about free will and the problem of evil. He also addresses in many words the problem of divine foreknowledge and free will, the doctrine of Original Sin, anthropology (especially our fallen moral state), ontology (he categorizes kinds of beings and meditates on the "souls" of animals and of humans), epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics (mainly regarding numbers).
Our contemporary philosopher Thomas Williams, the translator, also includes a helpful introduction that describes different kinds of freedom ("free will") and identifies Augustine as a Libertarian with regard to free will. (Others have identified Augustine as a Compatibilist, a non-Libertarian; I have to research this further.) Finally, at the end of the book, Williams provides a selection from Augustine's Retractationes (Reconsiderations, as Williams appropriately translates it) in which Augustine comments on On Free Choice of the Will and picks out some of his own main points.
The difficulty of the book is that Augustine does not always stay on topic. I have heard that many of the Church Fathers have this writing style, which Dr. David Calhoun of Covenant Seminary describes as "long-winded" (hence, the 100 pages or so to answer Evodius' question). We tend to be much more direct and concise, sticking closely to a point. Thus, books like this require careful reading and re-reading. And that I will do.
This book is an extended dialogue between Augustine and Evodius about many areas of Augustine's philosophy and theology. It begins with Evodius' controversial question "Isn't God the cause of evil," and after about 100 pages, Augustine makes his point that the free choice of the will is the cause of evil. However, through that 100 pages he discusses much more than questions about free will and the problem of evil. He also addresses in many words the problem of divine foreknowledge and free will, the doctrine of Original Sin, anthropology (especially our fallen moral state), ontology (he categorizes kinds of beings and meditates on the "souls" of animals and of humans), epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics (mainly regarding numbers).
Our contemporary philosopher Thomas Williams, the translator, also includes a helpful introduction that describes different kinds of freedom ("free will") and identifies Augustine as a Libertarian with regard to free will. (Others have identified Augustine as a Compatibilist, a non-Libertarian; I have to research this further.) Finally, at the end of the book, Williams provides a selection from Augustine's Retractationes (Reconsiderations, as Williams appropriately translates it) in which Augustine comments on On Free Choice of the Will and picks out some of his own main points.
The difficulty of the book is that Augustine does not always stay on topic. I have heard that many of the Church Fathers have this writing style, which Dr. David Calhoun of Covenant Seminary describes as "long-winded" (hence, the 100 pages or so to answer Evodius' question). We tend to be much more direct and concise, sticking closely to a point. Thus, books like this require careful reading and re-reading. And that I will do.
December 21, 2024
هي محاولة ليست لإثبات أن الإرادة حرة بل لإثبات أنه لا حر حقا إلا الإرادة.
فإرادة أي شيء يجب أن تكون مقترنة بالقدرة على تحقيقها، فأنا قد أريد السفر إلى بلد معين ولكن ليس شرطا أن أقدر على السفر فعلا.
أما الإرادة بإعتبارها فعل في ذاته فهي مقترنة دوما وفي كل الأحوال بالقدرة عليها فلا يوجد إنسان على وجه الأرض عاجز عن الإرادة بل الإرادة حاضرة دوما ومقرونة بالقدرة عليها، فالكل قادر أن يريد أو بمعنى آخر أن يريد أن يريد.
تفسير أوغسطين للخطيئة الأصلية يجردها من معنى الخطيئة أصلا.
فهو يرى أنه لا يوجد إنسان إلا وكان جهولا أو ظلوما، لأنه يعلم الخير لا يجهله، ولكنه يضن ويعجز عن القيام به، وتلك سمات لكل البشر.
إذن فهي: إما خطيئة بأن تكون جهولا أو ظلوما بسبب ضعفك، أو إما تكون عقوبة على خطيئة ولكنها سميت الخطيئة مجازا كما تسمى اللغة لسانا بإعتبار أن اللسان هو السبب.
ولكن أغسطين اختار الاحتمال الثاني ألا وهو أن تلك عقوبة على خطيئة ولكن السؤال كيف نعاقب على خطيئة ارتكبها أبوانا ولم نفعلها بإرادتنا؟!
الإجابة بأن خطيئة الوالد كانت سببا في تحوله إلى فاني وأن يكون جهولا وأن يكون ضعيفا أمام شهوات الجسد.
وبالتالي فإن العقوبة نقلت بموجب الشرط الإنساني الوراثي.
وبالرغم من تلك الحالة التي ورثناها فإننا نملك الإرادة للخروج منها سواء من حالة الجهالة بطلب العلم.
أو باكتساب القدرة من الله وبالتالي التخلي عن العجز باستمداد القدرة بحرية الإرادة وبذلك ليس هناك خطيئة دائمة ولا عقاب أبدي.
ولكن حالة السقوط الأولى هي الحافز على الصعود والكمال، وهو الصعود غير الممكن إلا بحرية الإرادة مصحوبة بالتوفيق الإلهي، أو النعمة الإلهية.
فإرادة أي شيء يجب أن تكون مقترنة بالقدرة على تحقيقها، فأنا قد أريد السفر إلى بلد معين ولكن ليس شرطا أن أقدر على السفر فعلا.
أما الإرادة بإعتبارها فعل في ذاته فهي مقترنة دوما وفي كل الأحوال بالقدرة عليها فلا يوجد إنسان على وجه الأرض عاجز عن الإرادة بل الإرادة حاضرة دوما ومقرونة بالقدرة عليها، فالكل قادر أن يريد أو بمعنى آخر أن يريد أن يريد.
تفسير أوغسطين للخطيئة الأصلية يجردها من معنى الخطيئة أصلا.
فهو يرى أنه لا يوجد إنسان إلا وكان جهولا أو ظلوما، لأنه يعلم الخير لا يجهله، ولكنه يضن ويعجز عن القيام به، وتلك سمات لكل البشر.
إذن فهي: إما خطيئة بأن تكون جهولا أو ظلوما بسبب ضعفك، أو إما تكون عقوبة على خطيئة ولكنها سميت الخطيئة مجازا كما تسمى اللغة لسانا بإعتبار أن اللسان هو السبب.
ولكن أغسطين اختار الاحتمال الثاني ألا وهو أن تلك عقوبة على خطيئة ولكن السؤال كيف نعاقب على خطيئة ارتكبها أبوانا ولم نفعلها بإرادتنا؟!
الإجابة بأن خطيئة الوالد كانت سببا في تحوله إلى فاني وأن يكون جهولا وأن يكون ضعيفا أمام شهوات الجسد.
وبالتالي فإن العقوبة نقلت بموجب الشرط الإنساني الوراثي.
وبالرغم من تلك الحالة التي ورثناها فإننا نملك الإرادة للخروج منها سواء من حالة الجهالة بطلب العلم.
أو باكتساب القدرة من الله وبالتالي التخلي عن العجز باستمداد القدرة بحرية الإرادة وبذلك ليس هناك خطيئة دائمة ولا عقاب أبدي.
ولكن حالة السقوط الأولى هي الحافز على الصعود والكمال، وهو الصعود غير الممكن إلا بحرية الإرادة مصحوبة بالتوفيق الإلهي، أو النعمة الإلهية.
March 22, 2014
For the first foray into this topic in the known history of philosophy, it's fascinating. There are plenty of areas where he gets bogged down in issues and pseudo-arguments that his contemporaries might have found convincing, but don't really make much sense or contain abundant buried assumptions...which describes all philosophical writing, without exception, so far as I know.
It's also very refreshing to realize that Augustine believed so strongly in human choice that he wrote this book. From my recollections of reading the Confessions, and probably confounding him with other Christian writers, I think I used to have the idea that Augustine believed you were either lucky and were taken over by grace to become what you might call a "grace zombie," or else you were left to your own devices and stayed a "sin zombie." I think that describes many strands of moral theology that infested the hermetically sealed Christian Europe of a millennium later, but Augustine had to deal with virtuous pagans (Romans 2) every day. This book is, in its lucid parts, far more realistic and inspiring.
It's also very refreshing to realize that Augustine believed so strongly in human choice that he wrote this book. From my recollections of reading the Confessions, and probably confounding him with other Christian writers, I think I used to have the idea that Augustine believed you were either lucky and were taken over by grace to become what you might call a "grace zombie," or else you were left to your own devices and stayed a "sin zombie." I think that describes many strands of moral theology that infested the hermetically sealed Christian Europe of a millennium later, but Augustine had to deal with virtuous pagans (Romans 2) every day. This book is, in its lucid parts, far more realistic and inspiring.
October 10, 2022
I was so thrilled to discover that Augustine is a libertarian, and that his defense of sin included our power to turn to God and discover that God will help us when we do so. I don't think this makes Augustine Arminian, but he's certainly no compatibilist or Calvinist (in this book at least). Writing a paper on this one, so hopefully I come up with a more powerful critique or support for a particular argument in here.
Second read: disagreed with a lot more in terms of arguments about superior/inferior things, but agreed a lot more with things where it was important to hold distinctions between bad and blameworthy actions. I think one of his arguments that natures are necessarily good is defunct, but it might be better to press him more on what superiority means and why its easily counterexampleable.
Second read: disagreed with a lot more in terms of arguments about superior/inferior things, but agreed a lot more with things where it was important to hold distinctions between bad and blameworthy actions. I think one of his arguments that natures are necessarily good is defunct, but it might be better to press him more on what superiority means and why its easily counterexampleable.
April 15, 2020
Uma excelente obra de Santo Agostinho, e como escrita foi ainda nos anos 300 d.C., precisa ser lida de acordo com o pensamento cristão da época (e que, cá para nós, não mudou muito desde então). O brilhantismo argumentativo de Agostinho ao tentar explicar a seu amigo Evódio que nada de mau vem de Deus, que é a fonte de todo bem, é digna de louvor. Ainda assim, não creio que seu amigo tenha compreendido sua fala ou até mesmo concordado com ela sinceramente. Esta é uma obra filosófica sobre um tema até hoje discutido e pouco esclarecido. Vale a pena a leitura dessa inspiração socrática de batina.
November 28, 2023
A good book!
It took me awhile to get through, so hopefully I don't misrepresent the book in my review.
The book is written in a dialectical style, similar to philosophical literature. Two people, Augustine and Evodius, discuss the origin of evil.
Part of the book is on how to know God exists through reason.
The book is largely on understanding with reason what you believe by faith.
If you have faith that God is good, but wonder how evil can exist if God didn't make it, this book can help you logically work through that. St. Augustine explores how evil can exist, even though everything God created was made good, and that there is nothing but unchangeable God and his changeable creation.
It took me awhile to get through, so hopefully I don't misrepresent the book in my review.
The book is written in a dialectical style, similar to philosophical literature. Two people, Augustine and Evodius, discuss the origin of evil.
Part of the book is on how to know God exists through reason.
The book is largely on understanding with reason what you believe by faith.
If you have faith that God is good, but wonder how evil can exist if God didn't make it, this book can help you logically work through that. St. Augustine explores how evil can exist, even though everything God created was made good, and that there is nothing but unchangeable God and his changeable creation.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 28, 2010
His logics fails on so many ways it's actually painful. Definitely not light-reading but once you sacrifice it few hours to truly understand Augustin's reasoning, you realise that aside his rhetoric tricks he has nothing to offer. If you are not used to it, the sensation that there is something truly imcoprehensibly intelligent going on might enthrall you. If you have already encountered something alike, it could give you quite useful trainning. But if your profesor has forced you for x-time's to read another pseudo-logic treatise just to see your reaction, you'll be bored and disgusted.
February 5, 2017
Excellent book from a great thinker. Augustine will force you to think in ways you've never considered about things you thought you had figured out.
Particularly helpful are his thoughts on the origin of evil and how free will cannot be a bad thing, even when God knew man would abuse it. He also explains foreknowledge in a way that refutes fatalism and exonerates God from causing evil simply because he knew it would happen.
If you're interested in free will, evil, God's justice, and God's foreknowledge, this is a must read.
Particularly helpful are his thoughts on the origin of evil and how free will cannot be a bad thing, even when God knew man would abuse it. He also explains foreknowledge in a way that refutes fatalism and exonerates God from causing evil simply because he knew it would happen.
If you're interested in free will, evil, God's justice, and God's foreknowledge, this is a must read.
June 20, 2017
In short:
Book One: Pretty good.
Book Two: (for me) Pretty good, but I'm used to most of its questions and answers.
Book Three: Amazing start, but after some pages, it'll look more like Book One.
It's, obviously, a philosophical gem in an age when the truth isn't appreciated as it should be.
Book One: Pretty good.
Book Two: (for me) Pretty good, but I'm used to most of its questions and answers.
Book Three: Amazing start, but after some pages, it'll look more like Book One.
It's, obviously, a philosophical gem in an age when the truth isn't appreciated as it should be.
March 2, 2008
Augustine's response to the problem of evil is classic and influential, but not overly illuminating.
September 19, 2022
Contra Manichean Cosmology & Anthropology
De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis is an early Platonic dialogue by Augustine as sophist with a student named Evodius written shortly after Augustine converted around 388. There is no other work that puts on display so clearly his total dedication to Platonic rationalism and education. The very structure is a pure Platonic dialogue using sequential rationality. Here he is attempting to refute the apologetics of Manicheanism. Throughout his life, Augustine balanced between the opposite heresies of Pelagianism and Manicheanism. These two Cosmologies which generate very different Anthropologies are still alive and well today in different versions of Protestantism. The heresy of Manichean Dualistic Anthropology was resurrected in Calvin under a new name (Unconditional Election), and Pelagian understanding of the Will was reborn in Antinominalist Protestantism that is still alive in some forms of Evangelicalism. On Free choice of the Will is focused exclusively on Manicheanism, but Augustine tempers his simplistic statements about Free Will with his later anti-Pelagian works where he writes that the Grace of God proceeds the ability for the human soul to chose faith and good works, which is the doctrine of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and many later Protestant denominations. This is a purely polemic work, and Augustine clearly over-reacts in his refutation of heresy, but De Libero is still a critical work fully within the historic Orthodoxy of the Christian faith.
This dialogue is Augustine's counter-argument against Mani from the perspective of the Privatio Boni: "Everything good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God....Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will." (Book II Chapter XX) This entire book, written soon after Augustine converted, attempts to oppose Manicheanism's Dualism and its subsequent belief in Predestination. It was Augustine's reply to the Manichean apologetic claim against Christianity that God cannot be All-Good and All-Powerful. To Augustine, Privatio Boni solves the conflict between Ex Nihlio and Omnibenevolence (Theodicy) by arguing that evil perpetrated by humans has no reality, ie, no form. Thus, when we speak of the Providence and sovereignty of God, this does not include evil because it is shadow, a movement of Free will against Being itself. Sin is Defectivus Motus, a vacuum of Goodness, and not a "thing" at all. Thus it is completely accurate to simultaneously state that God did not create nor cause evil, and at the same time, is the Omnipotent Sovereign over all existence. In De dono perseverantiae, Augustine writes, "I showed that God should be praised for all things and that there are no grounds at all for their belief [the Manichees] that there exists two co-eternal natures, one good, one evil, which co-exist together." When the Pelagian heresy arose, Augustine wrote De natura et Gratia to prevent the work from justifying the opposite heresy of Pelagianism. In Retractationes he writes: "unless the will is freed by the grace of God from the bondage through which it has become a slave of sin ... mortal men cannot live rightly and piously." Augustine, swinging between the dual heresies of Manichaeism and Pelagianism, retains the Orthodox position across his works, although he naturally over-corrects when battling each of these heresies in specific works. We see this exact same Cosmological debate raging in the 30,000 denominations of Protestantism, which began in Luther's day with the Antinominalists and Calvinists. Calvinism/ Reformed Theology is a modern resurgence of Manichean Anthropology which selectively highlights Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings to make it seem like he supported Predestination, which is balanced within Protestantism against the Anti-Nominalism (Neo-Pelagianism) found within Evangelicalism which emphasizes Augustine's Anti-Manichean works.
Later, in his forceful reproach against the British Monk Pelagius, Augustine places a strong emphasis on the Sovereign Grace of God. These passages were taken out of context to prove other heresies he spent his life fighting against, namely the heresies of the Pagan Greek religion concerning the understanding of the Biblical concept of Predestination (from a corporate, Apostolic lens to a Platonic, Individualistic lens). He does "set the scene" for Western Christianity to re-interpret Election in the Torah, Nevi'im, and Pauline Epistles in terms of a Manichean Anthropology (his introduction of Original Sin into Christendom), Rationalistic Epistemology and Individualism. He was the first early church father who did not speak Greek, and his theology reflects this. Augustine made many mistakes in this linguistic vacuum. Later, his works would be cannibalized by Catholics and Protestants trying to superimpose a Pagan conceptualization of Predestination onto the Scriptures, twisting the words of Paul to fit the opinions of the original heretics the Early Church Fathers dedicated their lives (and frequently, their deaths) to erase.
Augustine is addressing the remnants of the Greek Religions Neo-pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism, the various syncretic gnostic religions such as Manicheanism, Valentinianism, Marcionism and Sethianism as well as the heresies which developed within the church, most prominently Arianism and Pelagianism. As such, De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis is a winding dialogue that explores many dead-end ideas, including Dualism. In De dono perseverantiae, Augustine writes, "I showed that God should be praised for all things and that there are no grounds at all for their belief [the Manichees] that there exists two co-eternal natures, one good, one evil, which co-exist together."
In Book I, Augustine outlines basic Hamartiological concepts about the nature of sin and answers the basic question "Where does evil come from?" Augustine clearly renounces the Pagan Platonic and Gnostic conceptions of Predestination/ Determinism, writing, "Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will." And since God gave mankind free will, it is understandable that God "may appear to be the cause of our evil deeds," as the Manichean heretics assert, but he promises to answer that question in the next book.
In Book II, Augustine answers the charge that God "should not" have given mankind Free Will, and that somehow he is morally culpable for the actions of mankind. This accusation is a non-sequitur to a modern thinker, but to a Neo-Platonist, Manichean or Pelagian, this was a legitimate question. Augustine dismantles this by expounding upon a body-spirit (internal-external) epistemological paradigm, arguing that the ability to reason is itself of divine origin and necessary for humans to understand common truths. Augustine has a strong sense of the Self, arguing that to know oneself is to know God and vice-versa.
Augustine touches on peripheral subjects to free will, including the punishment of crimes. If all people are predestined to commit murder, etc., how could one punish them? He was not a fan of Capital Punishment, but doesn't specifically condemn it:
In book II Chapter XX he explicitly articulates the Privatio Boni argument: "Everything good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God." And he solves the conflict between Ex Nihlio and Omnibenevolence (Theodicy) by arguing that evil perpetrated by humans has no reality, ie, no form. Thus, when we speak of the Providence and sovereignty of God, this does not include evil because it is shadow, a movement of Free will against Being itself. Sin is Defectivus Motus, a vacuum of Goodness, and not a "thing" at all. Thus it is completely accurate to simultaneously state that God did not create nor cause evil, and at the same time, is the Omnipotent Sovereign over all existence.
In Part III, Augustine takes closer aim at the excuses that Determinists use to justify their creed. The Platonic and Gnostic Determinists Augustine is replying to insist (as do virtually all Determinists), that their philosophy does not negate moral responsibility and the agency of humankind. Augustine takes aim at this dodge, stating that no denial of real free will can result in mankind being truly responsible for their own evil. Hard Determinism (Soteriological or Cosmological) must result in God being inherently evil, which in the Christian tradition is blasphemy. Manicheans argued this thoroughly, an argument still raging between Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. He writes in Book II, Chapter IV and in chapter XVII:
Augustine dogmatically upholds the Biblical teaching of Free Will, both cosmologically and Soteriological, at the individual level. He later avoids Semi-Pelagianism by emphasizing that Free Will exists by the Grace of God. Millenia later, Luther, a student of the Augustinian school, would define sin both as original sin [sin as pretemporal entity i.e., Being] and as one's Act and inhereted guilt. However, even though he was eventually the cause of this new Anthropology in the West, Augustine clearly Predestination here in De Libero and warns about the Sociological ramifications of blaming God for the sins of the free-willed individual. The Manicheans were correct on one thing: if there is no freedom in the human Nuos, then God cannot be all-good. Cosmology is inextricably linked to Anthropology.
A few notable quotes:
"All sins are included under this one class: when someone is turned away from divine things that are truly everlasting, toward things that change and are uncertain"
"Thus is all good is removed [Free Will being a 'good'] , no vestige of reality persists; indeed, nothing remains. Every good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God. Therefore, since the movement of turning away from good, which we admit to be sin, is a defective movement [defectivus motus] and since, moreover, every defect comes from nothing, see where this movement belongs; you may be sure it does not belong to God."
"What greater security can there be than to live a life where what you do not will cannot happen to you?"
De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis is an early Platonic dialogue by Augustine as sophist with a student named Evodius written shortly after Augustine converted around 388. There is no other work that puts on display so clearly his total dedication to Platonic rationalism and education. The very structure is a pure Platonic dialogue using sequential rationality. Here he is attempting to refute the apologetics of Manicheanism. Throughout his life, Augustine balanced between the opposite heresies of Pelagianism and Manicheanism. These two Cosmologies which generate very different Anthropologies are still alive and well today in different versions of Protestantism. The heresy of Manichean Dualistic Anthropology was resurrected in Calvin under a new name (Unconditional Election), and Pelagian understanding of the Will was reborn in Antinominalist Protestantism that is still alive in some forms of Evangelicalism. On Free choice of the Will is focused exclusively on Manicheanism, but Augustine tempers his simplistic statements about Free Will with his later anti-Pelagian works where he writes that the Grace of God proceeds the ability for the human soul to chose faith and good works, which is the doctrine of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and many later Protestant denominations. This is a purely polemic work, and Augustine clearly over-reacts in his refutation of heresy, but De Libero is still a critical work fully within the historic Orthodoxy of the Christian faith.
This dialogue is Augustine's counter-argument against Mani from the perspective of the Privatio Boni: "Everything good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God....Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will." (Book II Chapter XX) This entire book, written soon after Augustine converted, attempts to oppose Manicheanism's Dualism and its subsequent belief in Predestination. It was Augustine's reply to the Manichean apologetic claim against Christianity that God cannot be All-Good and All-Powerful. To Augustine, Privatio Boni solves the conflict between Ex Nihlio and Omnibenevolence (Theodicy) by arguing that evil perpetrated by humans has no reality, ie, no form. Thus, when we speak of the Providence and sovereignty of God, this does not include evil because it is shadow, a movement of Free will against Being itself. Sin is Defectivus Motus, a vacuum of Goodness, and not a "thing" at all. Thus it is completely accurate to simultaneously state that God did not create nor cause evil, and at the same time, is the Omnipotent Sovereign over all existence. In De dono perseverantiae, Augustine writes, "I showed that God should be praised for all things and that there are no grounds at all for their belief [the Manichees] that there exists two co-eternal natures, one good, one evil, which co-exist together." When the Pelagian heresy arose, Augustine wrote De natura et Gratia to prevent the work from justifying the opposite heresy of Pelagianism. In Retractationes he writes: "unless the will is freed by the grace of God from the bondage through which it has become a slave of sin ... mortal men cannot live rightly and piously." Augustine, swinging between the dual heresies of Manichaeism and Pelagianism, retains the Orthodox position across his works, although he naturally over-corrects when battling each of these heresies in specific works. We see this exact same Cosmological debate raging in the 30,000 denominations of Protestantism, which began in Luther's day with the Antinominalists and Calvinists. Calvinism/ Reformed Theology is a modern resurgence of Manichean Anthropology which selectively highlights Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings to make it seem like he supported Predestination, which is balanced within Protestantism against the Anti-Nominalism (Neo-Pelagianism) found within Evangelicalism which emphasizes Augustine's Anti-Manichean works.
Later, in his forceful reproach against the British Monk Pelagius, Augustine places a strong emphasis on the Sovereign Grace of God. These passages were taken out of context to prove other heresies he spent his life fighting against, namely the heresies of the Pagan Greek religion concerning the understanding of the Biblical concept of Predestination (from a corporate, Apostolic lens to a Platonic, Individualistic lens). He does "set the scene" for Western Christianity to re-interpret Election in the Torah, Nevi'im, and Pauline Epistles in terms of a Manichean Anthropology (his introduction of Original Sin into Christendom), Rationalistic Epistemology and Individualism. He was the first early church father who did not speak Greek, and his theology reflects this. Augustine made many mistakes in this linguistic vacuum. Later, his works would be cannibalized by Catholics and Protestants trying to superimpose a Pagan conceptualization of Predestination onto the Scriptures, twisting the words of Paul to fit the opinions of the original heretics the Early Church Fathers dedicated their lives (and frequently, their deaths) to erase.
Augustine is addressing the remnants of the Greek Religions Neo-pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism, the various syncretic gnostic religions such as Manicheanism, Valentinianism, Marcionism and Sethianism as well as the heresies which developed within the church, most prominently Arianism and Pelagianism. As such, De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis is a winding dialogue that explores many dead-end ideas, including Dualism. In De dono perseverantiae, Augustine writes, "I showed that God should be praised for all things and that there are no grounds at all for their belief [the Manichees] that there exists two co-eternal natures, one good, one evil, which co-exist together."
In Book I, Augustine outlines basic Hamartiological concepts about the nature of sin and answers the basic question "Where does evil come from?" Augustine clearly renounces the Pagan Platonic and Gnostic conceptions of Predestination/ Determinism, writing, "Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will." And since God gave mankind free will, it is understandable that God "may appear to be the cause of our evil deeds," as the Manichean heretics assert, but he promises to answer that question in the next book.
In Book II, Augustine answers the charge that God "should not" have given mankind Free Will, and that somehow he is morally culpable for the actions of mankind. This accusation is a non-sequitur to a modern thinker, but to a Neo-Platonist, Manichean or Pelagian, this was a legitimate question. Augustine dismantles this by expounding upon a body-spirit (internal-external) epistemological paradigm, arguing that the ability to reason is itself of divine origin and necessary for humans to understand common truths. Augustine has a strong sense of the Self, arguing that to know oneself is to know God and vice-versa.
Augustine touches on peripheral subjects to free will, including the punishment of crimes. If all people are predestined to commit murder, etc., how could one punish them? He was not a fan of Capital Punishment, but doesn't specifically condemn it:
"The law which his made to govern states seems to you to make many concessions and to leave unpunished things which are avenged nonetheless by divine Providence- and rightly so. But because it does not do all things, it does not thereby follow that what it does do is to be condemned".
In book II Chapter XX he explicitly articulates the Privatio Boni argument: "Everything good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God." And he solves the conflict between Ex Nihlio and Omnibenevolence (Theodicy) by arguing that evil perpetrated by humans has no reality, ie, no form. Thus, when we speak of the Providence and sovereignty of God, this does not include evil because it is shadow, a movement of Free will against Being itself. Sin is Defectivus Motus, a vacuum of Goodness, and not a "thing" at all. Thus it is completely accurate to simultaneously state that God did not create nor cause evil, and at the same time, is the Omnipotent Sovereign over all existence.
In Part III, Augustine takes closer aim at the excuses that Determinists use to justify their creed. The Platonic and Gnostic Determinists Augustine is replying to insist (as do virtually all Determinists), that their philosophy does not negate moral responsibility and the agency of humankind. Augustine takes aim at this dodge, stating that no denial of real free will can result in mankind being truly responsible for their own evil. Hard Determinism (Soteriological or Cosmological) must result in God being inherently evil, which in the Christian tradition is blasphemy. Manicheans argued this thoroughly, an argument still raging between Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. He writes in Book II, Chapter IV and in chapter XVII:
"God's knowledge that man will sin is not the cause of sin. Hence punishment for sin is just.... God's foreknowledge of future events does not compel them to take place... either the will is the first cause of sin, or there is no first cause. If someone says that a stone sins because it falls down through its weight, I will not say he is more senseless than a stone; he is simply insane. But we accuse a spirit of sin when we prove that it has preferred to enjoy lower goods and has abandoned higher ones… No man is forced to sin, either by his nature or another's'... If you wish to attribute sin to the Creator, you will acquit the sinner of his sin. Sin cannot be rightly imputed to anyone but the sinner."
Augustine dogmatically upholds the Biblical teaching of Free Will, both cosmologically and Soteriological, at the individual level. He later avoids Semi-Pelagianism by emphasizing that Free Will exists by the Grace of God. Millenia later, Luther, a student of the Augustinian school, would define sin both as original sin [sin as pretemporal entity i.e., Being] and as one's Act and inhereted guilt. However, even though he was eventually the cause of this new Anthropology in the West, Augustine clearly Predestination here in De Libero and warns about the Sociological ramifications of blaming God for the sins of the free-willed individual. The Manicheans were correct on one thing: if there is no freedom in the human Nuos, then God cannot be all-good. Cosmology is inextricably linked to Anthropology.
A few notable quotes:
"All sins are included under this one class: when someone is turned away from divine things that are truly everlasting, toward things that change and are uncertain"
"Thus is all good is removed [Free Will being a 'good'] , no vestige of reality persists; indeed, nothing remains. Every good is from God. There is nothing of any kind that is not from God. Therefore, since the movement of turning away from good, which we admit to be sin, is a defective movement [defectivus motus] and since, moreover, every defect comes from nothing, see where this movement belongs; you may be sure it does not belong to God."
"What greater security can there be than to live a life where what you do not will cannot happen to you?"
December 9, 2018
Sobre el libre albedrío, de Agustín, es un libro escrito en forma de dialogo. El autor expone sus argumentos sobre la existencia de Dios, la independencia del alma y por supuesto el libre albedrío. Agustín está convencido de que Dios es la verdad absoluta de la que proviene todos los bienes, así que establece un orden jerárquico de las capacidades cognitivas que conforman la identidad humana, para crear una serie de argumentos que comprueban que el camino de dios es el único camino para llegar a la felicidad, basándose en la teoría de ideas de Platón; el el libro uno, las formas se convierten en pecado, y las ideas en lo proveniente de Dios. El bien y el mal provienen solo de la voluntad que no elige ni por necesidad ni determinación, sino por una fuerza del alma, lo temporal (el pecado) en lugar de lo eterno. La voluntad para Agustín es uno de los más grandes bienes por que sin este los humanos no podríamos hacer el bien, asimismo la voluntad es la prueba de la justicia de dios.
Agustín se pregunta:
¿Como es manifiesto que Dios existe?
¿Todo lo bueno proviene de Dios?
¿Deberíamos considerar el libre albedrío como algo bueno?
Respondiendo a la primera pregunta Agustín formula el cogito ergo más de un milenio antes que Descartes, dice "No podrías estar seguro de que existes a menos de que existieras, y el entendimiento es superior a la existencia y el ser solos.". Habla de un sentido interno auto concebible que es servicial a la razón, que no es el raciocinio mismo, y nos permite distinguir y confiar en nuestros sentidos. Gracias a la razón podemos ver a Dios como un ser eterno y inmutable. Para Agustín, todo el conocimiento viene de los sentidos a través del filtro del entendimiento de la razón. Hay una verdad (sentido común) en todos que viene de la verdad universal que ES Dios.
"...Pero cuando la voluntad le da la espalda a lo inalterable y al bien común hacia su propio bien privado, o hacia lo externo o inferior, comete pecado. Se gira hacia su propio bien privado cuando quiere estar bajo su propio control; Se gira hacia lo externo cuando se interesa en todas las otras cosas menos en si misma; Se gira hacia las cosas inferiores cuando se deleita en el placer físico... Entonces los bienes que son buscados por los pecadores no son malos en si, y menos lo es el libre arbitrio en si, el cual debe ser contado en los bienes intermedios. Lo que es malo es el giro de la voluntad fuera del bien inalterable y hacia lo contingente, y como este giro no es forzado, sino de libre elección, es justamente castigado."
El tercer libro intenta encontrar el origen del pecado. Agustín refuta los argumentos en contra del cristianismo como por ejemplo:
¿Si Dios es omnisciente, el pecado sucede por necesidad?
El que argumente esto también deberá admitir que la felicidad que le da Dios también sucede necesariamente. Dios predice que tendré libre arbitrio; Además, cualquiera puede predecir que alguien más va a pecar, pero esto no hace su pecado necesario. Así como la memoria no obliga al pasado a haber sucedido, el conocimiento del futuro de Dios no obliga al futuro a suceder.
Otro argumento que hace Agustín, es que incluso si existen almas sufriendo, esto es mejor que si no hubiesen existido, porque toda alma es superior a lo material, que ya lo último es un bien en si, por lo que un alma será un bien más grande.
Sobre los suicidas, Agustín dice "El deseo de muerte de una voluntad no es un deseo de no ser, sino un deseo de paz" por esto el que quiere suicidarse se agarra de los placeres ilícitos y especialmente al orgullo propio que lo hizo caer en primer lugar.
Finalmente Agustín plantea que el universo está en balance perfecto y concluye que el creador de todas las cosas de ninguna forma puede ser culpado por nuestros pecados, y la avaricia es la causa de todo mal.
Agustín se pregunta:
¿Como es manifiesto que Dios existe?
¿Todo lo bueno proviene de Dios?
¿Deberíamos considerar el libre albedrío como algo bueno?
Respondiendo a la primera pregunta Agustín formula el cogito ergo más de un milenio antes que Descartes, dice "No podrías estar seguro de que existes a menos de que existieras, y el entendimiento es superior a la existencia y el ser solos.". Habla de un sentido interno auto concebible que es servicial a la razón, que no es el raciocinio mismo, y nos permite distinguir y confiar en nuestros sentidos. Gracias a la razón podemos ver a Dios como un ser eterno y inmutable. Para Agustín, todo el conocimiento viene de los sentidos a través del filtro del entendimiento de la razón. Hay una verdad (sentido común) en todos que viene de la verdad universal que ES Dios.
"...Pero cuando la voluntad le da la espalda a lo inalterable y al bien común hacia su propio bien privado, o hacia lo externo o inferior, comete pecado. Se gira hacia su propio bien privado cuando quiere estar bajo su propio control; Se gira hacia lo externo cuando se interesa en todas las otras cosas menos en si misma; Se gira hacia las cosas inferiores cuando se deleita en el placer físico... Entonces los bienes que son buscados por los pecadores no son malos en si, y menos lo es el libre arbitrio en si, el cual debe ser contado en los bienes intermedios. Lo que es malo es el giro de la voluntad fuera del bien inalterable y hacia lo contingente, y como este giro no es forzado, sino de libre elección, es justamente castigado."
El tercer libro intenta encontrar el origen del pecado. Agustín refuta los argumentos en contra del cristianismo como por ejemplo:
¿Si Dios es omnisciente, el pecado sucede por necesidad?
El que argumente esto también deberá admitir que la felicidad que le da Dios también sucede necesariamente. Dios predice que tendré libre arbitrio; Además, cualquiera puede predecir que alguien más va a pecar, pero esto no hace su pecado necesario. Así como la memoria no obliga al pasado a haber sucedido, el conocimiento del futuro de Dios no obliga al futuro a suceder.
Otro argumento que hace Agustín, es que incluso si existen almas sufriendo, esto es mejor que si no hubiesen existido, porque toda alma es superior a lo material, que ya lo último es un bien en si, por lo que un alma será un bien más grande.
Sobre los suicidas, Agustín dice "El deseo de muerte de una voluntad no es un deseo de no ser, sino un deseo de paz" por esto el que quiere suicidarse se agarra de los placeres ilícitos y especialmente al orgullo propio que lo hizo caer en primer lugar.
Finalmente Agustín plantea que el universo está en balance perfecto y concluye que el creador de todas las cosas de ninguna forma puede ser culpado por nuestros pecados, y la avaricia es la causa de todo mal.
May 10, 2018
The other works of Augustine is too often put in the shadow of his two most well known works. This shorter work by no means deserve this and I sure am glad I found it and took the chance in reading it.
I was very intrigued by the introduction of Thomas Williams, and once I began the actual reading I was very much fascinated.
The book is a dive into the concept of free will in the form of a dialogue between Augustine and Evodius. This format is golden, since the question we want to ask and dig deeper into is given by the dynamic between the two. Even when they finish a part of argument they recap and track back to the next issue at hand.
The content it self is fascinating. Many of the things the one usually wonders about is answered and often in a mostly philosophical manner. Only sometime Augustine draws support from the scripture, but it all seems to be in par with both the Bible and logic.
There is so much information and a well of good arguments here that it is hard to go into detailed analysis. This makes it dense and hard to speed through because every sentence contains nuggets and further the argument. I would suspect that a bulk of the content is refined or restated in later times, but it feels that most of it holds great on its own still. Often, if one has not read a work like this, one is asking and struggling unnecessary with all the same stuff this book eloquently discuss. It is good to know that much is thought up.
This book gives me renewed respect for Augustine as a philosopher and theologian.
I was very intrigued by the introduction of Thomas Williams, and once I began the actual reading I was very much fascinated.
The book is a dive into the concept of free will in the form of a dialogue between Augustine and Evodius. This format is golden, since the question we want to ask and dig deeper into is given by the dynamic between the two. Even when they finish a part of argument they recap and track back to the next issue at hand.
The content it self is fascinating. Many of the things the one usually wonders about is answered and often in a mostly philosophical manner. Only sometime Augustine draws support from the scripture, but it all seems to be in par with both the Bible and logic.
There is so much information and a well of good arguments here that it is hard to go into detailed analysis. This makes it dense and hard to speed through because every sentence contains nuggets and further the argument. I would suspect that a bulk of the content is refined or restated in later times, but it feels that most of it holds great on its own still. Often, if one has not read a work like this, one is asking and struggling unnecessary with all the same stuff this book eloquently discuss. It is good to know that much is thought up.
This book gives me renewed respect for Augustine as a philosopher and theologian.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews