1. I found it interesting that in Augustines discussion on free will with Evodius, Evodius asks the question why free will was not given to humans the way justice was, so that it would be impossible to have been used without evil. Augustine then relates this to God's excellence in a round-about way. Concluding that "whatever is found to be praiseworthy in nature, whether it is judged worthy of small praise of great, should be referred to the ineffable and most excellence praise by their maker." Thereby concluding that things given to humans by God, i.e. free will, must have been given out in the way that they most out to have been because God cannot do what He ought not to have done.
2. Much of the latter half of Augustine's discussion reminds me of almost exactly Plato's theory of the forms, however, Augustine merely changes "the good" for "the God". For instance, when Augustine states "And the happy life, that is, the disposition of a soul that clears to the unchangeable good, is the proper and principle good for a human being." Here Augustine is furthering his claim that everything that is good is beget from God, which I find almost identical to Plato's argument only varying in that Plato's good is not begotten from a supreme maker but is aligned with the supreme good.
1. I suppose my primary disagreement with how Aquinas attempts to answer this question is his lack of critical reflection on the nature of evil itself. He seems to just accept evil as this idealistic form and calls it a day with no deeper attempt to understand the central object under examination. This does not come from a naive place of ‘there is no evil’ etc, but rather from a perspective of a kind of pragmatic character ethics wherein such concepts do exist but are not as formulaic or simplistic. 2. Agian it seems rather foolish to believe that a formulaic attempt to prove a metaphysical concept as true or not. This being said there is no doubt that in some contexts believing in free will is very helpful to the point that some minds would just cease to function at all without holding it to be true. I understand the counter argument of the evolution of ideas but I reject this on the grounds that the basic pragmatic arguments are not that profound or hard to entertain.
Although the idea is less developed than Kant’s ontology, I see a similarity in the way Augustine and Kant talk about good actions. Kant says that the intention matters when doing the Good thing, and that doing a good thing by accident or for a bad—or evil—reason, then the action was not really good at all. Similarly, Augustine is saying that without a free will, humans would not be able to sin, but they would also not be able to do anything good. I wonder Kant’s familiarity with Augustine, and imagine, that even if they arrived at this point valuing good intentions separately, that this mindset stems from some intuition that accompanies Christianity.
I think the way Augustine goes about proving that free will is good is interesting, and it’s not an argument I was familiar with before reading this. He likens free will to parts of the body to explain how they can be used for both good and bad, despite being a given for a good purpose. He also compares will to principles like justice which cannot be used for bad, and instead counts free will as an intermediate good. Usually the assumption that free will is good because people can do good if they will it is enough, but Augustine challenges this and wants to confirm that free will comes from God and not some malevolent source.
How could we have free will if God is still omniscient? If the future is set in stone and able to be seen into by a being like God, then how could you argue that humans have free will. It would prove that the world is deterministic in nature. The only way for us to have free will is for God to lose his ability to be omniscient. The existence of an all knowing God is incompatible with free will. I'm not exactly sure that Augustine’s idea surrounding the problem of evil really absolves God of responsibility towards the evil in the world. If humans truly have free will then it would make sense why God would allow them to make mistakes, but God as a moral agent would still be at fault in some scenarios. For instance, if someone exerts their free will to hurt an innocent party I think God still would be at fault by being a bystander to it all.
The argument for why God gave us free will is an intresting argument. I never saw the argument that god gave us free will because without free will we cant do true good. We in that instance could only act in the way god made us but with free will we have to make the tough decisions between right or wrong making picking the right decision nobel.
I do like the argument that he also adds is that alll the good we do comes from god. It gives the idea that the closest you could to acting perfect or closest to god the more you are like him. If you are close enough like him you are living a good life.
1. I already know the answer, but it amuses me to wonder what the voices of this dialogue would have said if they were asked why it is necessary that God is good. It seems like they work very hard to defend a certain worldview not because it is necessarily true, but because it is pious and gives them comfort. I'm aware that the times made it hard to wonder such things, but I still have to point out this bias.
2. The discussion of the existence of good necessitating the existence of evil is an interesting and important one. They seem to rank goods however as a matter of fact as opposed to something that is subjective to us. I would also like to note that they seem to give no thought to whether free will exists in the way that it is generally thought to exist.
I thought the argument that God gave us free will was very interesting. This stuck out to me the most because free will is we're open to do whatever we please whether that being good or evil. But, if God was to make our actions for us we wouldn't be able to go through trial and error. We also wouldn't know right from wrong. And that's the most important feature that God gives us. Free will we make the decision if the action is morally right or wrong.
The next thing I liked was the argument that the things we do comes from God. I believe in this because without God we wouldn't know the true meaning of good is. Like when thinking about good that God does, like sacrifice for us that is something that we should be doing for people on earth. Putting people before you, and helping someone not just because it's a duty but out of your mind and body like it's second nature. When living a life of good, God notices this, and it's the life that he wants for us all to live.
I find the whole reading to be interesting and unlike anything we’ve ever read in this class. Evodius and Augustine discuss free will in relation to God. Evodius questions why God gave us free will when people use free will to sin. Augustine then asks him how he knows that God gave us free will. Evodius is able to reason why he believes God is the one gives free will because it gives people the ability to either sin or make the right choice.
I also thought it was interesting how Augustine questioned everything. When he asked Evodius why he believed God gave us free will I found it astounding it seemed as though he was questioning God’s existence. Although by the end it seemed that he just wanted Evodius to explain himself it was refreshing to someone do more explaining then telling. A part that was also interesting was Evodius’ explanation how he would convince someone God exists. By the end of the explanation it eventually ended up being up to faith. Evodius stated that belief in God mostly has to do with faith.
1. I found it interesting that in Augustines discussion on free will with Evodius, Evodius asks the question why free will was not given to humans the way justice was, so that it would be impossible to have been used without evil. Augustine then relates this to God's excellence in a round-about way. Concluding that "whatever is found to be praiseworthy in nature, whether it is judged worthy of small praise of great, should be referred to the ineffable and most excellence praise by their maker." Thereby concluding that things given to humans by God, i.e. free will, must have been given out in the way that they most out to have been because God cannot do what He ought not to have done.
ReplyDelete2. Much of the latter half of Augustine's discussion reminds me of almost exactly Plato's theory of the forms, however, Augustine merely changes "the good" for "the God". For instance, when Augustine states "And the happy life, that is, the disposition of a soul that clears to the unchangeable good, is the proper and principle good for a human being." Here Augustine is furthering his claim that everything that is good is beget from God, which I find almost identical to Plato's argument only varying in that Plato's good is not begotten from a supreme maker but is aligned with the supreme good.
1. I suppose my primary disagreement with how Aquinas attempts to answer this question is his lack of critical reflection on the nature of evil itself. He seems to just accept evil as this idealistic form and calls it a day with no deeper attempt to understand the central object under examination. This does not come from a naive place of ‘there is no evil’ etc, but rather from a perspective of a kind of pragmatic character ethics wherein such concepts do exist but are not as formulaic or simplistic.
ReplyDelete2. Agian it seems rather foolish to believe that a formulaic attempt to prove a metaphysical concept as true or not. This being said there is no doubt that in some contexts believing in free will is very helpful to the point that some minds would just cease to function at all without holding it to be true. I understand the counter argument of the evolution of ideas but I reject this on the grounds that the basic pragmatic arguments are not that profound or hard to entertain.
Although the idea is less developed than Kant’s ontology, I see a similarity in the way Augustine and Kant talk about good actions. Kant says that the intention matters when doing the Good thing, and that doing a good thing by accident or for a bad—or evil—reason, then the action was not really good at all. Similarly, Augustine is saying that without a free will, humans would not be able to sin, but they would also not be able to do anything good. I wonder Kant’s familiarity with Augustine, and imagine, that even if they arrived at this point valuing good intentions separately, that this mindset stems from some intuition that accompanies Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI think the way Augustine goes about proving that free will is good is interesting, and it’s not an argument I was familiar with before reading this. He likens free will to parts of the body to explain how they can be used for both good and bad, despite being a given for a good purpose. He also compares will to principles like justice which cannot be used for bad, and instead counts free will as an intermediate good. Usually the assumption that free will is good because people can do good if they will it is enough, but Augustine challenges this and wants to confirm that free will comes from God and not some malevolent source.
Correction: I meant to refer to Kant's Deontology
DeleteHow could we have free will if God is still omniscient? If the future is set in stone and able to be seen into by a being like God, then how could you argue that humans have free will. It would prove that the world is deterministic in nature. The only way for us to have free will is for God to lose his ability to be omniscient. The existence of an all knowing God is incompatible with free will.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure that Augustine’s idea surrounding the problem of evil really absolves God of responsibility towards the evil in the world. If humans truly have free will then it would make sense why God would allow them to make mistakes, but God as a moral agent would still be at fault in some scenarios. For instance, if someone exerts their free will to hurt an innocent party I think God still would be at fault by being a bystander to it all.
The argument for why God gave us free will is an intresting argument. I never saw the argument that god gave us free will because without free will we cant do true good. We in that instance could only act in the way god made us but with free will we have to make the tough decisions between right or wrong making picking the right decision nobel.
ReplyDeleteI do like the argument that he also adds is that alll the good we do comes from god. It gives the idea that the closest you could to acting perfect or closest to god the more you are like him. If you are close enough like him you are living a good life.
1. I already know the answer, but it amuses me to wonder what the voices of this dialogue would have said if they were asked why it is necessary that God is good. It seems like they work very hard to defend a certain worldview not because it is necessarily true, but because it is pious and gives them comfort. I'm aware that the times made it hard to wonder such things, but I still have to point out this bias.
ReplyDelete2. The discussion of the existence of good necessitating the existence of evil is an interesting and important one. They seem to rank goods however as a matter of fact as opposed to something that is subjective to us. I would also like to note that they seem to give no thought to whether free will exists in the way that it is generally thought to exist.
I thought the argument that God gave us free will was very interesting. This stuck out to me the most because free will is we're open to do whatever we please whether that being good or evil. But, if God was to make our actions for us we wouldn't be able to go through trial and error. We also wouldn't know right from wrong. And that's the most important feature that God gives us. Free will we make the decision if the action is morally right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe next thing I liked was the argument that the things we do comes from God. I believe in this because without God we wouldn't know the true meaning of good is. Like when thinking about good that God does, like sacrifice for us that is something that we should be doing for people on earth. Putting people before you, and helping someone not just because it's a duty but out of your mind and body like it's second nature. When living a life of good, God notices this, and it's the life that he wants for us all to live.
I find the whole reading to be interesting and unlike anything we’ve ever read in this class. Evodius and Augustine discuss free will in relation to God. Evodius questions why God gave us free will when people use free will to sin. Augustine then asks him how he knows that God gave us free will. Evodius is able to reason why he believes God is the one gives free will because it gives people the ability to either sin or make the right choice.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting how Augustine questioned everything. When he asked Evodius why he believed God gave us free will I found it astounding it seemed as though he was questioning God’s existence. Although by the end it seemed that he just wanted Evodius to explain himself it was refreshing to someone do more explaining then telling. A part that was also interesting was Evodius’ explanation how he would convince someone God exists. By the end of the explanation it eventually ended up being up to faith. Evodius stated that belief in God mostly has to do with faith.