ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANSWER TO NO. XXVIII.

(_a_) “This short section might pass, but for two things; one is, that

he confounds a voluntary act with a free act.” I do indeed take all

voluntary acts to be free, and all free acts to be voluntary; but withal

that all acts, whether free or voluntary, if they be acts, were

necessary before they were acts. But where is the error? ‘A free act’,

saith he, ‘is only that which proceeds from the free election of the

rational will, after deliberation; but every act that proceeds from the

sensitive appetite of man or beast, without deliberation or election, is

truly voluntary.’ So that my error lies in this, that I distinguish not

between a rational will and a sensitive appetite in the same man. As if

the appetite and will in man or beast were not the same thing, or that

sensual men and beasts did not deliberate, and choose one thing before

another, in the same manner that wise men do. Nor can it be said of

wills, that one is rational, the other sensitive; but of men. And if it

be granted that deliberation is always (as it is not) rational, there

were no cause to call men rational more than beasts. For it is manifest

by continual experience, that beasts do deliberate.

(_b_) “The other thing observable is his conclusion, that ‘it is all one

to say, a man is free, and to say, he hath not made an end of

deliberating’: which confession of his overturns his whole structure of

absolute necessity.” Why so? ‘Because’, saith he, ‘if every agent be

necessitated to act what he doth act by extrinsical causes, then he is

no more free before he deliberates, or whilst he deliberates, than he is

after’. But this is a false consequence; he should have inferred

thus:--“then he is no less necessitated before he deliberates than he is

after”; which is true, and yet nevertheless he is more free. But taking

necessity to be inconsistent with liberty, which is the question between

us: instead of _necessitated_ he puts in _not free_. And therefore to

say ‘a man is free till he hath made an end of deliberating’, is no

contradiction to absolute and antecedent necessity. And whereas he adds

presently after, that I ascribe the necessitation of a man in free acts

to his own deliberation, and in indeliberate acts to his last thoughts:

he mistakes the matter. For I ascribe all necessity to the universal

series or order of causes, depending on the first cause eternal: which

the Bishop understandeth, as if I had said in his phrase, to a special

influence of extrinsical causes; that is, understandeth it not at all.

(_c_) “Again, ‘liberty,’ saith he, ‘is an absence of extrinsical

impediments’: but deliberation doth produce no new extrinsical

impediment; therefore either he is free after deliberation, or he was

not free before.” I cannot perceive in these words any more force of

inference, than of so many other words whatsoever put together at

adventure. But be his meaning what he will, I say not that deliberation

produceth any impediments: for there are no impediments but to the

action, whilst we are endeavouring to do it, which is not till we have

done deliberating. But during the deliberation there arise thoughts in

him that deliberateth, concerning the consequence of the action whereof

he deliberateth, which cause the action following; which are not

impediments to that action which was not done, but the causes of that

which was done. That which followeth in this Number is not intelligible,

by reason of the insignificance of these words, “understanding

directeth; will electeth; hypothetical necessity”; which are but jargon,

and his “divided sense” and “compounded sense”, nonsense. And this also,

“liberty respecteth not future acts only, but present acts also”, is

unintelligible. For how can a man have liberty to do or not to do that

which is at the same instant already done. For where he addeth,

“otherwise God did not freely create the world”, it proves nothing;

because he had the liberty to create it, before it was created. Besides,

it is a profaning of the name of God, to make instances of his

incomprehensible working in a question as this is, merely natural.

The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11) · 第 79 / 101 题