Al lettore che nella produzione speculativa di Anselmo si sofferma in modo particolare su De veritate, De libertate arbitrii, De casu diaboli e De concordia, la volontà si manifesta come un indiscutibile centro di interesse della riflessione anselmiana, tesa a determinare teoreticamente il valore e l'efficacia della iustitia, intesa come rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata, in ambito etico ed ontologico. La voluntas si presenta così quale protagonista del rapporto tra Dio e creatura, tra natura, storia ed eternità, perché è (...) proprio mediante gli atti volontari che la creatura può inserirsi od opporsi attivamente al rectus ordo della creazione, che a sua volta costituisce come una forma di libera oggettivazione del farsi altro da sé, rimanendo se stessa, della summa rectitudo. Attraverso questo movimento la rectitudo e la recta voluntas divina si pongono e si mostrano come l'essenza della realtà. Rivelando voluntas e rectitudo una valenza ad un tempo etica e metafisica, si potenzia il significato della volontà come responsabilità e come agente intrinsecamente libero che Anselmo le attribuisce. La voluntas, che vuole perché vuole, si sottrae al regno della necessità e si impone, in quanto artefice di libertà, come la protagonista aporetica della relazione tra la stabilità dell'ordine della realtà e la novità della storia, inchiodando Anselmo, amante della necessità razionale, alla celebrazione di una forza decisiva e ultimativa, che sembra sfuggire al pieno controllo della ratio. (shrink)

Mit dem Begriff des „natürlichen Willens“ wird in der Medizin- und Pflegeethik auf das Phänomen rekurriert, dass Patienten in Grenzsituationen auch unterhalb der Ebene reflektierter verbaler Willensbekundung Präferenzen und Erwartungen zum Ausdruck bringen können, deren normativer Status insbesondere dann strittig sein kann, wenn die „natürliche“ Willensbekundung in Konflikt mit früheren eigenen Festlegungen in einem „vorausverfügten Willen“ geraten. Der aktuellen Tendenz, dem „autonomen“ Willen dabei den Vorrang gegenüber dem „natürlichen“ Willen zuzusprechen, steht dabei eine andere Tendenz im Betreuungsrecht gegenüber, die sich (...) inzwischen verstärkt zugunsten einer Beachtlichkeit des „natürlichen Willens“ Geltung verschafft hat. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt auf, dass eine Lösung der hier auftretenden Streitfragen leichter herbeigeführt werden kann, wenn man sich auf die Differenzierungen besinnt, die eine inzwischen mehr als 2000-jährige Begriffsgeschichte des „natürlichen Willens“ entfaltet hat. Dabei wird zum einen deutlich, dass es unterschiedliche Konzeptionen des „natürlichen Willens“ gibt, die von naturalistischen Deutungen bis zu theologischen Dimensionen des Begriffs reichen. Zugleich wird es möglich, zwischen dem natürlichen und dem freien Willen nicht notwendig eine strikte Opposition zu sehen, sondern eine Komplementarität zu denken, die der menschlichen Ganzpersonalität besser gerecht wird als Reduktionismen aller Art. Insbesondere stellt sich die Frage, ob der natürliche Wille nicht als ein auf Autonomie hin gerichtetes Wollen verstanden werden kann, in dem sich eine ursprüngliche Selbstbejahung des Individuums vollzieht. (shrink)

Augustine’s insights into the will and its free decision have long been a focus of controversy since his lifetime. Nonetheless, in modern scholarship, little effort has been made to clarify the actual function of the will as a psychological force in the life of mind. It has often been taken for granted that the will is an independent faculty which underlies our moral responsibility by its free choice. Accordingly, much ink has been spilled over issues such as necessity and freedom, (...) grace and free will, sin and evil will etc. This philosophical inquiry distinguishes itself from its antecedents by adopting a psychological focus on the function of the will. It attempts to explicate why uoluntas, and not other psychological activities, is the locus of moral responsibility in Augustine’s philosophical psychology. The work is thus split into two parts, each consisting of four chapters: the first part devoted to the will’s operation as a psychological dynamism, and the second to the traditional consideration of the will as a moral faculty. In the first part, the dissertation systematically investigates the psychological phenomenon of the will in its relationship to other psychological activities, from irrational affection to intellectual cognition. This phenomenological approach starts with Augustine’s unusual conception of concupiscentia carnis in his debates with Julian of Eclanum. According to Augustine’s philosophical interpretation of this biblical term, concupiscentia carnis as an uncontrollable tendency defines the essential infirmity of the will and forms the starting-point of further affective expressions of the soul. Then, the analysis advances to the role of the will in the formation of affection. It reveals the implicit approval that is entailed in the unvoluntary pre-volitional movements of the soul. This explains the superficial discrepancy between Augustine’s accounts of affection as can be found in Books IX and XIV of De ciuitate Dei. This general account of Augustine’s theory of emotion is followed by an in-depth examination of the feeling of shame so as to display the will’s actual contribution in a reflective affection. Augustine convincingly proves that shame reflects the powerlessness of the will in confrontation with concupiscentia carnis as well as the will’s effort to regain its dignity. To complete the foray into Augustine’s philosophy of the soul, his reflections on intellect and will in the process of moral decision are called into question. By reconsidering Augustine’s account of his own conversion and his reflections on our journey to the happy life, my analyses show that neither intellectualitic nor voluntaristic interpretations do justice to his understanding of moral decision. The voluntaristic interpretation overlooks the intellectual perspective of happy life and Augustine’s emphasis on the necessity of a knowledge of the good for our moral behaviour. On the other hand, the intellectualistic account unjustly ignores Augustine’s insights into the severe destructiveness of the failure of the will and the dilemma of two wills at war. To summarize, the phenomenological approach in Part I reveals the omnipresent feature of the will in mental life. The implications of this psychological feature of the will are twofold. It indicates the independence of the will as well as the limitations of the will by its actual conditions. The second part of this work investigates the moral significance of Augustine’s psychological insights into the function of the will. What bridges the gap between uoluntas as a psychological power and uoluntas as a moral faculty is Augustine’s most controversial conception of freedom. The dissertation first scrutinizes Augustine’s arguments for the independence of the will as reconstructed and assumed in the first part. By metaphysical arguments, Augustine reveals that nothing external, neither inferior nor superior being, can force the will to attain a particular disposition. For this cannot happen in a world governed by the divine order. In his analyses of the phenomenon of two contradictory wills, Augustine shows that the will is conditioned but not compelled by other internal forces. However, this merely represents the negative aspect of the will’s freedom, or libertas a coactione. At the same time, the positive aspect of Augustinian uoluntas has frequently been misinterpreted as a faculty of choice, or libertas indifferentiae. A careful reading shows that the free decision of the will is essentially a capacity to pursue one’s own happiness. In accord with this eudemonistic emphasis, the genuine freedom is the freedom to will and to accomplish the good, which alone guarantees the happy life. This original interpretation of freedom offers powerful support to Augustine’s account of moral agency. One is not only held responsible for his voluntary evildoings which he could have avoided, but also for the necessary conditions of life, i.e., ignorantia and difficultas as effects of original sin. For as argued earlier, even the presence of concupiscentia carnis as the inherent infirmity of the will contains the least assent of the will. This assent establishes the moral agency in evil willing. To account for our agency in the good will, the dissertation addresses the problem of compatibility between divine grace and freedom of will. My analysis shows that Augustine’s rigid position in the last years of his life is also philosophically defensible. An internal function of the grace upon the faculty of the will will not destroy its freedom to attain its own disposition. This philosophical analysis concludes by highlightling the close affiliation between the will and the self in Augustinian uoluntas. “I know nothing I could call my own if the will by which I’m willing or unwilling is not my own.”. By consent or dissent of the will, we identify ourselves with mental images, affective movements, practical reasoning and other psychological activities, either implicitly or explicitly. Augustine’s realistic conceptions of the will and its conditioned freedom provide a subtle and rich picture of human nature, which is still relevant to our own theoretical reflections on the self. (shrink)

Sobre o conceito de voluntas em Agostinho.

O poder político da amizade -- Amizade, recusa do servir -- Contra a servidão voluntária -- Ter medo deles -- Servidão voluntária ou o mau encontro -- Contra o Um, contra o Estado : o contradiscurso de Clastres e de La Boétie -- Fundamentos teológico-jurídicos da escravidão como servidão voluntária -- Introdução a O direito à preguiça, de Paul Lafargue -- A filosofia como modo de vida e de pensar--entrevista.

Este trabajo explora la concepción de Marsilio de Padua sobre el poder dentro de una teoría ascendente de gobierno. Siguiendo la línea de la crítica medieval a la plenitudopotestatis , él propone, desde una orientación populista de su doctrina, una organización sociopolítica cuyo fundamento es la voluntas populi y la ley que de allí emana. Es así como en su obra El defensor de la paz puede encontrarse una sorprendente visión republicana de la política, donde la esfera religiosa queda (...) absorbida por la dimensión estatal. La salvación del mundo profano queda, por consiguiente, en sus propias manos, y la praxis intramundana se halla desprovista del auxilio que prestaban los viejos expedientes extracotidianos. Marsilius of Padua and emerging theories of government This paper explores the view maintained by Marsilius of Padua on power within an ascendant theory of government. Following the line of medieval criticism of plenitudo potestatis , he proposes, from a populist orientation of his doctrine, a socio-political organization founded upon the voluntas populi and the law that emanates from it. Thus, readers will be surprised to find a Republican view of politics in his work The Defender of Peace, where the State dimension absorbs the religious sphere. Salvation from the profane world is, therefore, in the State's own hands, and worldly practice is devoid of relief once provided by extraquotidian old records.  . (shrink)

Sind wir in unserem Denken, Entscheiden und Handeln frei? Diese Frage beschäftigt Menschen nicht erst seit der neueren Hirnforschung. Bereits die Römer kennen die Vorstellung eines willentlich handelnden Subjekts und haben daher den Begriff des Willens (voluntas) geprägt. Und auch die biblische Tradition von den Geboten Gottes, die der Mensch befolgen soll, legte einen solchen Gedanken nahe. Aus diesen Überlieferungssträngen schöpfend, verfasste der Kirchenvater Augustin seine Schrift De libero arbitrio (Über den freien Willen). Durch die weitere Theologie- und Philosophiegeschichte (...) zieht sich dann die Auseinandersetzung darüber, in welchem Mass der menschliche Wille frei bzw. unfrei ist. So bestritt etwa Luther gegen Erasmus die Willensfreiheit in Fragen des Heils. Die Beiträge des Bandes bedenken das Thema der Willensfreiheit jedoch nicht nur in theologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht, sondern beziehen auch biologische, psychologische und ethische Perspektiven mit ein, die den gegenwärtig geführten Debatten verpflichtet sind."-- Back cover. (shrink)

El artículo estudia la aportación de Enrique de Gante al estudio del dinamismo de intelecto y voluntad en el contexto del agustinismo tardomedieval. Tras analizar las quaestiones de este autor que presentan con mayor claridad la tesis de la primacía de la voluntad sobre el intelecto y la continuidad del pensamiento de Enrique de Gante con otro agustiniano como Escoto (y de ambos con la antropología moderna, principalmente en Kant), el artículo concluye afirmando la existencia de un nexo común de (...) origen anselmiano entre estos tres autores que hace posible la desvinculación de la volición del orden intelectual y, en última instancia, la transformación de la ética fundada en la recta ratio en una nueva ética de la recta voluntas. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Concept of Will in EarlyLatin Philosophy NEAL W. GILBERT AN HISTORICALDISCUSSIONOf the concept of will is best begun with an analysis of the use of voluntas in Latin philosophy, from its earliest occurrences in Lucretius and Cicero on down to Augustine and medieval times. This development can be traced without much controversy because the line of transmission and development is more or less unbroken. But the correlating (...) of Latin psychological terms with their Greek originals presents problems. Greek philosophy was indeed the source from which Latin philosophical psychology developed: Lucretius reflects Epicurean doctrine, while Cicero and Seneca were strongly influenced by Stoic philosophy when they discussed moral action. However, many modern scholars are convinced that the Greeks had no word that corresponds to our "will" at all, and so we seem to be left with no choice but to regard the will as an original creation of Latin philosophy. But this would be to overlook the fact that ancient Latin writers sometimes specifically equated voluntas with certain Greek terms, and such evidence ought not to go unexamined. Voluntas was well established in Latin usage before Roman writers began to concern themselves with philosophical problems, but it did not have a technical sense. It meant simply "good will," or "favor," or concretely, a "will, or testament. ''I Clustered around it were other derivatives of "volo," such as "benevolentia" and "malevolentia," "well-wishing" and "ill-wishing." When Roman writers began to deal with philosophical problems, there were a number of different contexts in which voluntas could play a leading role. Chief among them, naturally, was the "freedom of the will" which, then as now, intrigued the ordinary man or the moralist. However, discussions revolving around the determinist-libertarian issue often fail to clarify the concept of the will itself. Major philosophers (Chrysippus, Augustine, or Hume, for example) offer fine distinctions within moral action when considering the determinist-libertarian dispute, but lesser figures are apt to "C'est seulement lots de la creation du vocabulairephilosophiqueque voluntas a pris le sens abstrait et technique de 'volont6'." Ernout, A., and A. Meillet,Dictionnaire Etymologique de la langue latine, 4th ed. (Paris, 1959),sub "volo." [17] 18 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY neglect the detailed analysis of moral action in favor of sweeping metaphysical pronouncements. When a Latin writer wished to say that a person did something of his own accord, the locution most natural to him was "sua sponte," an ablative absolute derived from the same root as our word "spontaneous." The nominative case of "sponte" ("spons") was almost never used, so that dictionaries are perhaps somewhat misleading in suggesting that the word "spons" means "free will": it would be more correct to say that the phrase "sua sponte" means "of his own free will." Latin writers also indicate that someone did something willingly by saying that he did it "non invitus" ("not unwillingly "). Finally, they could apply the adjective "voluntarius" to such an action, or say that it was done "ex voluntate." When the latter term begins to be used as a designation for a separate faculty of the soul distinct from reason or intelligence, it begins to resemble the modern concept of will. Augustine is usually given credit for introducing the concept of will into philosophy, but even the earliest Latin treatment of the free-will problem framed the issue in terms of voluntas. Nevertheless, I think that the received view is substantially correct, although it would be more proper to say that what Augustine introduced into philosophy was not the concept of will in general but the concept of the evil will. What Augustine called the "good" will ("bona voluntas") was closely related to the "reasonable desire" of the Stoic sage, rendered into Latin by Cicero as voluntas, without any adjective. The addition of the evil will altered the outlines of moral analysis considerably, involving among other things the major shift from a Socratic or Platonic psychology and ethics (usually labeled "intellectualistic") to a Christian psychology and ethics (usually labeled "voluntaristic"). Such a characterization is likely to be drawn too sharply, and to overlook anticipations of voluntarism in Greek thought or reminiscences of Greek intellectualism in Christian thought. Hence it may be useful... (shrink)

Este trabalho pretende descrever a denominada questão normativa, apresentada pela Professora Christine M. Korsgaard em seu The Sources of Normativity, e, depois, apresentar a filosofia moral tomista, procurando, nela, uma possível resposta ao problema. O trabalho, primeiro, introduz o pensamento moral de Korsgaard, apresentando o problema, e o seu argumento para encontrar a fonte da normatividade. Em um segundo momento, apresenta os fundamentos da teoria moral de Tomás de Aquino, aprofundando-se, especialmente, no estudo do ato voluntário – dado seu caráter (...) central no estudo da moral – e da ordenação dos atos ao fim. Por fim, procura-se compreender a natureza da lei moral, com destaque para as noções de obrigação e de sanção. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Concept of Will in EarlyLatin Philosophy NEAL W. GILBERT AN HISTORICALDISCUSSIONOf the concept of will is best begun with an analysis of the use of voluntas in Latin philosophy, from its earliest occurrences in Lucretius and Cicero on down to Augustine and medieval times. This development can be traced without much controversy because the line of transmission and development is more or less unbroken. But the correlating (...) of Latin psychological terms with their Greek originals presents problems. Greek philosophy was indeed the source from which Latin philosophical psychology developed: Lucretius reflects Epicurean doctrine, while Cicero and Seneca were strongly influenced by Stoic philosophy when they discussed moral action. However, many modern scholars are convinced that the Greeks had no word that corresponds to our "will" at all, and so we seem to be left with no choice but to regard the will as an original creation of Latin philosophy. But this would be to overlook the fact that ancient Latin writers sometimes specifically equated voluntas with certain Greek terms, and such evidence ought not to go unexamined. Voluntas was well established in Latin usage before Roman writers began to concern themselves with philosophical problems, but it did not have a technical sense. It meant simply "good will," or "favor," or concretely, a "will, or testament. ''I Clustered around it were other derivatives of "volo," such as "benevolentia" and "malevolentia," "well-wishing" and "ill-wishing." When Roman writers began to deal with philosophical problems, there were a number of different contexts in which voluntas could play a leading role. Chief among them, naturally, was the "freedom of the will" which, then as now, intrigued the ordinary man or the moralist. However, discussions revolving around the determinist-libertarian issue often fail to clarify the concept of the will itself. Major philosophers (Chrysippus, Augustine, or Hume, for example) offer fine distinctions within moral action when considering the determinist-libertarian dispute, but lesser figures are apt to "C'est seulement lots de la creation du vocabulairephilosophiqueque voluntas a pris le sens abstrait et technique de 'volont6'." Ernout, A., and A. Meillet,Dictionnaire Etymologique de la langue latine, 4th ed. (Paris, 1959),sub "volo." [17] 18 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY neglect the detailed analysis of moral action in favor of sweeping metaphysical pronouncements. When a Latin writer wished to say that a person did something of his own accord, the locution most natural to him was "sua sponte," an ablative absolute derived from the same root as our word "spontaneous." The nominative case of "sponte" ("spons") was almost never used, so that dictionaries are perhaps somewhat misleading in suggesting that the word "spons" means "free will": it would be more correct to say that the phrase "sua sponte" means "of his own free will." Latin writers also indicate that someone did something willingly by saying that he did it "non invitus" ("not unwillingly "). Finally, they could apply the adjective "voluntarius" to such an action, or say that it was done "ex voluntate." When the latter term begins to be used as a designation for a separate faculty of the soul distinct from reason or intelligence, it begins to resemble the modern concept of will. Augustine is usually given credit for introducing the concept of will into philosophy, but even the earliest Latin treatment of the free-will problem framed the issue in terms of voluntas. Nevertheless, I think that the received view is substantially correct, although it would be more proper to say that what Augustine introduced into philosophy was not the concept of will in general but the concept of the evil will. What Augustine called the "good" will ("bona voluntas") was closely related to the "reasonable desire" of the Stoic sage, rendered into Latin by Cicero as voluntas, without any adjective. The addition of the evil will altered the outlines of moral analysis considerably, involving among other things the major shift from a Socratic or Platonic psychology and ethics (usually labeled "intellectualistic") to a Christian psychology and ethics (usually labeled "voluntaristic"). Such a characterization is likely to be drawn too sharply, and to overlook anticipations of voluntarism in Greek thought or reminiscences of Greek intellectualism in Christian thought. Hence it may be useful... (shrink)

This is the German language version of the paper "Problems and interpretations of Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation", Jens Lemanski & Daniel Schubbe: Voluntas: Revista Internacional de Filosofia 10 (1):199-211 (2019).

Duas das principais controvérsias que têm ocupado aqueles que se dedicam à teoria aris- totélica do movimento animal são a controvérsia acerca da forma da cognição através da qual um animal irracional apreende um objeto como um objeto de desejo e a controvérsia acerca da função desempenhada pela cognição na explicação aristotélica dos movimentos voluntários de locomoção animal. Neste artigo, eu apresento uma teoria acerca das formas como o desejo e a cognição se articulam na teoria aristotélica segundo a qual (...) um animal irracional apreende um objeto como um objeto de desejo através da percepção incidental deste objeto e, ao contrário do que a maioria parece acreditar, esta percepção não tem sempre a mesma função na produção destes movimentos. Se o que for dito aqui estiver correto, em alguns casos esta percepção é responsável tanto pela geração do desejo quan- to pela sua orientação, mas em outros ela é responsável apenas pela sua orientação. (shrink)

This contribution aims at reconstructing the system of legal sources as it can be recognised in all its clarity in the De iure praedae. After pointing out that Grotius applied in this work the mathematical method, it is observed that the law has a clear voluntaristic character: 'voluntas universorum ad universos directa lex dicitur'. Even the 'first notion', quoted in Regula I, that is the lex aeterna, has this specific character: 'Quod Deus se velle significarit, id ius est'. Interesting (...) is also the way in which the issue of the ius naturae is developed. Actually, natural law is consistent with Regula I precisely because it is bound to God as a manifestation of his will: 'Dei voluntas non oraculis tantum et extraordinariis significationibus, sed vel maxime ex creantis intentione apparet'. Thus, the creation of the ius gentium primarium and ius gentium secundarium follows the same pattern: it is always a voluntas that splits into a cascade like a 'baroque fountain'. At the end of the same argument we find finally the ius civile: 'Quidquid respublica se velle significavit', as Regula V states. In conclusion, the system of legal sources in De iure praedae is based on premises that differ in many respects from the legal sources of De iure belli ac pacis. (shrink)

Notiones sunt Entium, aut Respectuum. Entia sunt Res aut Modi. Res sunt substantiae aut phaenomenae. Substantiae sunt vel simplices vel compositae. Substantia simplex est Monas; Monas autem est vel primitiva Deus, a quo omnia; vel derivativa. Et ha[e]c vel perceptiva tantum, vel etiam sensitiva; et haec vel sensitiva tantum vel etiam intellectiva quae et spiritus appellatur. Rursus Monas vel est Anima corporis vel est separata; haec vel creata (ut plerique volunt etsi ego an creata sint monades corporis complures dubito) vel (...) increata Deus. Substantia composita est quae Unum reale. Huc enim ponere necesse est aut statuere solas Monades esse res; composita autem esse mera phaenomena. Phaenomena sunt aggregata ex substantiis, quae de certo modo exhibent[iii] percipienti, atque ita inter substantiarum [aggregata] a nobis considerantur.[iv] Uti per nostram cogitationem phenomena ex substantiis oriuntur, ita per Divinam Cogitationem oriuntur ex substantiis simplicibus composita, posito in Deo praeter intellectum accedere voluntatem, ut fiat ex multis unum; nam si tantum multa simul consideraret, phaenomena ex iis seu aggregata faceret, uti cum deus novit iridem aut eius proprietates. At cum inde debet oriri [seu] resultare novum Ens, oportet ut accedat divina voluntas. Porro hujus novi Entis partes non sunt Monades, sed sunt ejus fundamenta, uti puncta non sunt partes lineae. Hoc novum Ens constat ex materia et forma. Materia est ortum totale ex viribus passivis omnium Monadum; et Forma est ortum totale ex entelechiis primitivis omnium Monadum. Et hoc ortum cum non sit Modus sed aliquid absolutum[,] posset conservari a Deo destructis monadibus, et vicissim ipso destructo possent conservari Monades. Atque hoc est substantia corporea, quae est in perpetuu fluxu quam . Porro modificationes sunt accidentia quae ex accidentibus Monadum oriuntur.. (shrink)

It is first Kant who makes "practical reason" a central term in moral philosophy. He departs from a tradition which assigned clearly distinct roles within the theory of moral obligation to "ratio" on the one hand, and "voluntas" on the other. Using an example of a Christian natural law approach employed before Kant, the article isolates and portrays each of these roles. Against this background it shows that Kant transforms a theological argument for God's self-obligation though His own will (...) to create a "kingdom of nature" into a philosophical argument for human self-obligation through human creation of a "kingdom of freedom". The rational and voluntary moments of this "act of creation" are expressed in the concept of "practical reason". This concept thus articulates human understanding of self as a self-legislating and free being. 'Praktische Vernunft' wird erst mit Kant zu einem zentralen Terminus der Moral. Er steht quer zu jener Tradition, welche bis dahin der 'ratio' einerseits und der 'voluntas' andererseits wohlunterschiedene Aufgaben im Rahmen der Theorie moralischer Verbindlichkeit zuwies. Am Beispiel einer christlich-naturrechtlichen Argumentationsweise vor Kant werden die beiden genannten Aufgaben herausgearbeitet. Es zeigt sich vor diesem Hintergrund, daß Kant ein theologisches Argument für die Selbstbindung Gottes durch dessen eigenen Willen zur Schöpfung eines 'Reiches der Natur' in das philosophische Argument einer Selbstbindung des Menschen durch die Schöpfung eines 'Reiches der Freiheit' transformiert. Vernunft- und Willensmoment ebendieses 'Schöpfungsaktes' finden Ausdruck in dem Begriff einer 'praktischen Vernunft'. Dieser artikuliert somit das Selbstverständnis des Menschen als eines sich selbst das Gesetz gebenden, freien Wesens. (shrink)

Disciplinary issues -- Field studies -- Appendix: Theory of law : legal ethnography, or, the theoretical fruits of the inquiries into folkways. /// Reedition of papers in English spanning from 1995 to 2008 /// DISCIPLINARY ISSUES -- LAW AS CULTURE? [2002] 9–14 // TRENDS IN COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES [2002] 15–17 // COMPARATIVE LEGAL CULTURES: ATTEMPTS AT CONCEPTUALISATION [1997] 19–28: 1. Legal Culture in a Cultural-anthropological Approach 19 / 2. Legal Culture in a Sociological Approach 21 / 3. Timely Issues of (...) Central and Eastern Europe 24 // COMPARATIVE LEGAL CULTURES? [2001] 29–48: 1. Legal Comparativism Challenged 29 / 2. Comparative Legal Cultures versus Comparative Law 34 / 3. Contrasting Fields 40 [a) The Historical Understanding of Socialist Law 42 / b) Convergence of Civil Law and Common Law 44] 4. Concluding Remarks 46 // THEATRUM LEGALE MUNDI: ON LEGAL SYSTEMS CLASSIFIED [2005] 49–75: 1. Preliminaries 49 / 2. Proposals 50 / 3. Impossible Taxonomy, or the Moment of Practicality in Legal Mapping 69 / 4. Diversity as a Fundamental Quality of Human Existence 74 // LEGAL TRADITIONS? IN SEARCH FOR FAMILIES AND CULTURES IN LAW [2004] 77–97: 1. Comparative Law and the Comparative Study of Legal Traditions 78 / 2. ‘System’, ‘Family’, ‘Culture’, and ‘Tradition’ in the Classification of Law 80 / 3. Different Traditions, Differing Ways of Thinking 85 / 4. Different Expectations, Differings Institutionalisations in Law 88 / 5. Different “Rationalities”, Differing “Logics” 92 / 6. Mentality in Foundation of the Law 94 / 7. Defining a Subject for Theoretical Research in Law 96 // SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING OLD IN THE EUROPEAN IDENTITY OF LAW? [1995] 99–102 --- FIELD STUDIES -- MEETING POINTS BETWEEN THE TRADITIONS OF ENGLISH–AMERICAN COMMON LAW AND CONTINENTAL-FRENCH CIVIL LAW: DEVELOPMENTS AND EXPERIENCE OF POSTMODERNITY IN CANADA [2002] 105–130: I. Canadian Law in General 105 / II. Canadian Legal Developments in Particular [1. The Transformation of the Role of Precedents 112 / 2. The Transformation of Law-application into a Collective, Multicultural and Multifactorial Search for a Solution 116 / 3. Practical Trends of Dissolving the Law’s Positivity 120 / 4. New Prerogatives Acquired by Courts 125 {a) Unfolding the Statutory Provisons in Principles 126 / b) Constitutionalisation of Issues 127 / c) The Supreme Court as the Nation’s Supreme Moral Authority 129}] // MAN ELEVATING HIMSELF? DILEMMAS OF RATIONALITY IN OUR AGE [2000] 131–163: I. Reason and its Adventures 1. Progress and Advance Questioned 131 / 2. The Human Search for Safety Objectified 133 / 3. Knowledge Separated from Wisdom 135 / 4. Pure Intellectuality thereby Born 137 / II. The Will-Element Formalised in Law 5. Mere Voluntas in the Foundation of Legal Positivism 141 / 6. Formalism with Operations Fragmented 145 / III. The State of America Exemplified 7. “Slouching into Gomorrah” 147 / IV. Consequences 8. Utopianism-cum-Voluntarism 154 / 9. With Logic in Posterior Control of Human Formulations Only 159 / V. Perspectives 10. And a Final Resolution Dreamed about 161 // RULE OF LAW? MANIA OF LAW? ON THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN RATIONALITY AND ANARCHY IN AMERICA [2002] 165–180: {Transformation of American Law and Legal Mentality 165 / With Repercussions on the Underlying Ethos 168 / Legislation through Processualisation 170 / With Hyperrationalism Added 172 / Example: Finding Lost Property 172 / Practicalness Veiled by Verbal Magic 173 / Ending in Jurispathy 175 / Transubstantiating the Self-interest of the Legal Profession 178 / Post-modernity, Substituting for Primitiveness 178} // TRANSFERS OF LAW: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS [2003] 181–207: 1. Terms 182 / 2. Technicality 190 / 3. Contrasts in Transfers of Law 200 {Contrasts 200 / Criticisms 202 / Alternatives205} 4. Conclusions 206 // THE DANGERS FOR THE SELF OF BEING SELF-CENTRED: ON STANDARDS AND VALUES [2002] 209–212 --- APPENDIX -- THEORY OF LAW – LEGAL ETHNOGRAPHY, OR THE THEORETICAL FRUITS OF THE INQUIRIES INTO FOLKWAYS [2008] 213–234 1. Encounters 213 / 2. Disciplines 218 / 3. The Lawyerly Interest 223 / 4. Law and/or Laws 226 / 5. Conclusion 233 --- Index of Subjects 235 / Index of Normative Materials 242 / Index 244 . (shrink)

‘Doing the will of God’, or seeking to do it, is a notion close to the centre of at any rate Christian, Jewish, and Moslem religion. So too is the notion of ‘accepting’ something as God's will: Fiat voluntas tua. In the former case, the notion of ‘doing the will of God’ is invoked in connection with what would be right to do in a practical situation; in the latter in connection with happenings and circumstances outside our control and (...) as something to be accepted rather than accomplished. I shall be concerned here with the notion of the will of God as something to be accomplished, asking what, if anything, to say that an action is in accordance with the will of God adds to saying that it is right. I shall also look at ways in which we think of relations between our wills and those of other people when we say that one person is doing the will of another person, and ask whether these help us at all in trying to see what might be meant by ‘doing the will of God’. (shrink)

Der Beitrag ist eine Besprechung von T. Irwin, The Development of Ethics, vol. 1: From Socrates to Reformation, Oxford 2007. Er gibt einen Überblick über die großen historischen Zusammenhänge, um dann auf den systematischen Schwerpunkt des Buches, den aristoteli-schen Naturalismus, näher einzugehen. Irwin spricht von Naturalismus, weil Aristoteles im Ergon-Argument seine These über das Gut des Menschen mit Aussagen über die Natur des Menschen begründet. Das ist jedoch kein Naturalismus im Sinne der gegenwärtigen Naturalismusdiskussion; die Tatsache, von der Aristoteles ausgeht, (...) ist die Vernunft, und sie ist eine normative Größe. In einer solchen naturalistischen Ethik müssen nicht nur die Mittel, sondern auch die Ziele der Vernunft entsprechen. Damit ist eine zentrale Frage des Buches angesprochen: Wie verhält sich Aristoteles‘ Begriff der boulêsis, des auf das Ziel gerichteten Strebens, zu Thomas‘ Begriff der voluntas? Nach Irwin sind beide ein wesentlich vernünftiges Streben. Das ist für Aristoteles aufgrund von NE I 13 zu bestreiten. Nach Thomas gehört der Wille zum Strebevermögen, das ein passives Vermögen ist; er ist rational, weil er durch den amor intellectualis bewegt wird.The paper is a review of T. Irwin, The Development of Ethics, vol.1: From Socrates to Re-formation, Oxford 2007. It gives an overview of the historical connections and discusses the central systematic issue of the book: Aristotelian Naturalism. Irwin uses the word ‘naturalism’ because Aristotle in his Function Argument uses the nature of the human being as an argument for his thesis about the human good. But this is not the concept of naturalism of the present discussion because the nature of the human being is reason and reason is a normative entity. In such a naturalistic ethics not only the means but also the ends must be rational. This leads to the question: What is the relation of the Aristotelian concept of boulesis to Aquinas’ concept of voluntas? According to Irwin, both are essentially rational desire. But this interpretation does not agree with EN I 13. According to Aquinas, voluntas belongs to appetitus which is a potentia passiva; it is rational because it is moved by amor intellectivus. (shrink)

In the Ethics, Spinoza advances two apparently irreconcilable construals of will [voluntas]. Initially, he presents will as a shorthand way of referring to the volitions that all ideas involve, namely affirmations and negations. But just a few propositions later, he defines it as striving when it is “related only to the mind” (3p9s). It is difficult to see how these two construals can be reconciled, since to affirm or assent to some content is to adopt an attitude with a (...) cognitive (mind-to-world) direction of fit, while to strive to persevere in one’s being would seem to be to adopt an attitude with a conative (world-to-mind) direction of fit. Attempting to achieve consistency by taking striving under the attribute of thought to consist in affirming only pushes the equivocation problem onto the concept of affirmation (Lin 2019). It would seem, then, that Spinoza equivocates on the concepts of will, affirmation, or perhaps both. I defend the univocity of Spinoza’s accounts of will and affirmation, showing that it comports with established accounts of affirmation in early modern philosophy and yields a clear, uniform account of what it means to strive under the attribute of thought, preserving the systematicity of Spinoza’s account of mind in ways that other interpretations do not. (shrink)

Julkaisematta jääneessä muistiossaan Mietteitä oikeuden yleiskäsitteestä (1702-1703?) G. W. Leibniz muotoilee uudelleen Platonin Euthyfron-dialogissa esitetyn kuuluisan kysymyksen. Hän kirjoittaa: ”Myönnetään, että kaikki mitä Jumala tahtoo, on hyvää ja oikein. Sen sijaan kysytään, onko se hyvää ja oikein siksi että Jumala niin tahtoo, vai tahtooko Jumala sitä koska se on hyvää ja oikein. Eli kysytään, onko hyvyys tai oikeus jotakin mielivaltaista, vai koostuvatko ne asioiden luonnetta koskevista välttämättömistä ja ikuisista totuuksista, kuten luvut ja suhteet.” Universaaleja, ikuisia totuuksia puolustava filosofi ei voi (...) hyväksyä ensin mainittua vaihtoehtoa. Hänen mukaansa ”Se toden totta tuhoaisi Jumalan oikeudenmukaisuuden. Sillä miksi ylistäisimme häntä oikeudenmukaisista teoista, jos oikeudenmukaisuuden käsite ei hänen tapauksessaan lisää mitään teon käsitteeseen? Ja sanonta stat pro ratione voluntas, minun tahtoni käyköön perusteesta, on todella tyrannin motto.” Leibnizin kritiikki on suunnattu erityisesti hänen aikalaisiaan René Descartesia, Thomas Hobbesia ja Samuel Pufendorfia vastaan. Hän ei voi hyväksyä näkemystä, jonka mukaan oikeudenmukaisuuden mitta on vain Jumalan tahto. Perustan on löydyttävä ikuisista totuuksista, jotka ovat myös Jumalan oikeudenmukaisuuden standardi. Erityisen kuuluisaksi tuli Leibnizin kritiikki Pufendorfin näkemyksiä kohtaan, sillä Pufendorfin laajalle levinneen teoksen De officio hominis et civis ranskalaisen laitoksen neljännen painoksen toimittaja Barbeyrac liitti siihen Leibnizin kiistakirjoituksen, joka tunnetaan lyhyellä nimellä Monita (Epistola viri excellentissimi ad amicum qua monita quaedam ad principia Pufendorfiani operis de officio hominis et civis continentur, 1706) ja puolusti Pufendorfia Leibnizia vastaan. Leibnizin onnistui kuitenkin ilmeisesti osoittaa eräs heikkous Pufendorfin näkemyksissä, jota Barbeyrac ei pystynyt sivuuttamaan: tämän mukaan Jumala on saman aikaan sekä ylin tuomari että lakien laatija. Siten Leibnizin näkökulmasta Jumala on tyranni – hänen tahtonsa on oikeuden ja etiikan mitta ja koska hän on kaikkivaltias, hän voi pakottaa ihmiset noudattamaan sellaista oikeudenmukaisuutta, joka on hänen mieleistään. Koska Jumalan yläpuolella ei ole Pufendorfin mukaan mitään, hän voi toimia aivan mielivaltaisesti. Leibnizin kritiikki kiteytyy Pufendorfin epäselvään erotteluun ulkoisen ja sisäisen velvollisuuden välillä, joka jättää hänen näkemyksensä arvoitukselliseksi. Tutkiskelen tässä esitelmässä oliko Leibnzin kritiikki johdonmukainen ja oikeutettu. Onko Pufendorfin näkemyksissä heikkous, jota hän ei itse huomannut? Vertailen myös asiaa koskevia eri kommentaareja (mm. Kari Saastamoinen, Petter Korkman, Fiametta Palladini) ja arvioin Leibnizin kritiikin reseptiota Pufendorf-tutkimuksessa. (shrink)

The "Commentariolum Petitionis" has long served to demonstrate the validity of the theory that Republican electoral politics were founded on relationships of patronage that permeated the entire society, and that appeals to the voting citizenry were relatively unimportant for election. Yet the attention the author pays to the necessity of cultivating the popularis voluntas strongly implies that a successful canvasser cannot rely on the direct or indirect ties of patronage and amicitia but must win the electoral support of the (...) anonymous mass of voters. A consular campaign emerges as to a great extent a public performance before the populus in which the candidate seeks to demonstrate to those who do not know him personally that he is dignus consulatu. While the exploitation of personal connections is undeniably important, certain features of the treatment of the studia amicorum in the Commentariolum suggest that the traditional, Gelzerian emphasis on noble patronage is misplaced. Noble allies are particularly prized not for networks of clients but for the luster they shed on a candidate; on the other hand, the homines gratiosi whose electioneering activities are most suggestive of patronage tend to be of middle and lower rank. Nor can all the personal political relationships discussed in the Commentariolum be plausibly subsumed under the concept of patronage, which entails asymmetry between the parties and a connection of some duration; rather, the picture presented here is one of a relatively "free market" of political deal-making between candidates and vote-brokers. The "Commentariolum Petitionis" offers no obstacle to a new model of Republican politics that assigns a much greater role to symbolic appeals to a voting citizenry, and a less dominant role to personal patronage, than have until recently been accepted. (shrink)

This book tells an overlooked story in the history of the will, a contested idea in both politics and philosophy of mind. For it is Cicero, statesman and philosopher, who gives shape to the notion of will as it would become in Western thought and who invents the idea of 'the will of the people'. In a single word – voluntas – he brings Roman law in contact with Greek ideas, chief among them Plato's claim that a rational elite (...) must rule. When the republic falls to Caesarism, Cicero turns his political argument inward: will is a force to win the virtue in the soul that was lost on the battlefield, the marker of inner freedom in an unfree age. Though his vision of a free republic failed in his time, Cicero's ideal of rational elitism has shaped and fractured the modern world – and Ciceronian creativity may yet save it. (shrink)

It is commonplace in the philosophical literature the translation of the Aristotelian akrasia as “weakness of will”. This raises several important difficulties, far beyond a mere problem of translation. First of all, there is a growing consensus among scholars concerning the idea, held among others by Hannah Arendt, that there’s no concept in ancient Ethics that corresponds, behind some lexical appearances, with the Augustinian voluntas construed as a power or faculty fully autonomous with respect to reason as well as (...) to appetites, free from every determination not reducible to its own self-determination, and uniquely responsible, therefore, for the actions it commands. Secondly, the Augustinian voluntas raises a host of unsolvable paradoxes, as, for example, the supposed infinity of will, or its ultimate reduction to mere arbitrariness. This annihilates the very role assigned to will, i. e., that of founding and explaining the responsibility of the self. Therefore, it seems far more reasonable to hold a view of human soul that, in the same vein as the ancient Greek Ethics, refrains itself from introducing additional elements in the traditional dichotomy Reason-Desires, even if the detailed description of their mutual interactions can be greatly refined thanks to the modern cognitive science. (shrink)

La tesis que se defiende en este artículo es que a la dignidad humana le pertenece una libertad contingente. En primer lugar se acota la noción de libertad contingente frente a la noción voluntarista de libertas indifferentiae y a la noción intelectualista de voluntas ut natura. En segundo lugar se analizan las condiciones de posibilidad del pecado y de la mejora moral, y las paradojas que resultan cuando estos fenómenos se intentan explicar desde la libertad de indiferencia o desde (...) la visión intelectualista. La libertad contingente comparece entonces como la voluntad que introduce la contingencia en el obrar porque puede decidirse en pro y/o en contra de una y la misma cosa; puede relacionarse respecto al propio comportamiento. Para terminar, desde lo que se ha explicado se analiza un caso particular, a saber, si es posible decidirse a creer algo o creer en algo. (shrink)

This paper makes a phenomenological description about the native will (the name that Leonardo Polo uses for the thomistic voluntas ut natura). The author tries to show how this function of the will is the foundation of the greatness of the moral objective. Finally, the native will is a means of developing an optimistic consideration of ethics.

The aim of this study is to analyse a passage of the pseudoepigraphic Carmen de resurrectione which relates to insipientes, interpreted as those who do not accept that the rational observation of nature proves the existence of a unique creator God. Such a refusal is believed to make them worthy of eternal damnation. The resulting concept of sapientia involves both ratio and voluntas; it is also connected with gnoseology and soteriology. A similar concept can be found in the Aquitanian (...) poetry of the fifth century and in the theology of the so-called Semipelagians. This similarity calls into question the traditional dating and the supposed area of origin of the Carmen. (shrink)

One of the most surprising features of the final part of the fourth book of the De rerum natura is the peculiar way Lucretius introduces the topic he intends to examine at length. We approach the extensive treatment of love from merely physiological phenomena. The terms libido and amor are mentioned for the first time at 1045 and 1046 respectively; I would like to focus on the interpretation of those lines and on the meaning of the clausula dira libido in (...) the context of the final section of Book Four. Lucretius is talking of semen: quod simul atque suis eiectum sedibus exit, per membra atque artus decedit corpore toto, in loca conveniens nervorum certa cietque continuo partis genitalis corporis ipsas. irritata tument loca semine fitque voluntas 1045 eicere id quo se contendit dira libido, idque petit corpus mens unde est saucia amore. (shrink)

La philosophie médiévale du langage présente deux séries d’affinités remarquables avec les approches contemporaines. L’une se situe du côté des sémantiques formelles et, plus généralement, des analyses logiques des conditions de vérité des énoncés. L’autre relève plutôt de la pragmatique, notamment des perspectives contextuelles sur les actes de langage. Les logiciens, grammairiens et théologiens du Moyen Âge étaient, de fait, pleinement conscients qu’ils avaient à leur disposition deux types d’approche des énoncés, selon qu’ils prenaient en compte les seules propriétés sémantiques (...) de leurs composants ou qu’ils intégraient des considérations extralinguistiques allant de l’intention des auteurs / locuteurs à leur statut, en passant par le contexte d’énonciation. Chacune de ces perspectives a bénéficié d’un certain nombre d’études récentes ; la question que je voudrais aborder est plutôt celle de leur frontière en logique, de son emplacement, ses déplacements, sa porosité éventuelle. La complexité des matériaux en jeu ne permettra pas de proposer plus que quelques points de repères, qui peuvent toutefois aider à évaluer l’hypothèse d’un « projet formel » en sémantique médiévale. (shrink)

La philosophie médiévale du langage présente deux séries d’affinités remarquables avec les approches contemporaines. L’une se situe du côté des sémantiques formelles et, plus généralement, des analyses logiques des conditions de vérité des énoncés. L’autre relève plutôt de la pragmatique, notamment des perspectives contextuelles sur les actes de langage. Les logiciens, grammairiens et théologiens du Moyen Âge étaient, de fait, pleinement conscients qu’ils avaient à leur disposition deux types d’approche des énoncés, selon qu’ils prenaient en compte les seules propriétés sémantiques (...) de leurs composants ou qu’ils intégraient des considérations extralinguistiques allant de l’intention des auteurs / locuteurs à leur statut, en passant par le contexte d’énonciation. Chacune de ces perspectives a bénéficié d’un certain nombre d’études récentes ; la question que je voudrais aborder est plutôt celle de leur frontière en logique, de son emplacement, ses déplacements, sa porosité éventuelle. La complexité des matériaux en jeu ne permettra pas de proposer plus que quelques points de repères, qui peuvent toutefois aider à évaluer l’hypothèse d’un « projet formel » en sémantique médiévale. (shrink)

One of the most surprising features of the final part of the fourth book of the De rerum natura is the peculiar way Lucretius introduces the topic he intends to examine at length. We approach the extensive treatment of love from merely physiological phenomena. The terms libido and amor are mentioned for the first time at 1045 and 1046 respectively; I would like to focus on the interpretation of those lines and on the meaning of the clausula dira libido in (...) the context of the final section of Book Four. Lucretius is talking of semen: quod simul atque suis eiectum sedibus exit, per membra atque artus decedit corpore toto, in loca conveniens nervorum certa cietque continuo partis genitalis corporis ipsas. irritata tument loca semine fitque voluntas 1045 eicere id quo se contendit dira libido, idque petit corpus mens unde est saucia amore. (shrink)