0
NL888 Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
Does ""no liberty can be inferred to the will" mean...?
Does ""no liberty can be inferred to the will" mean ""no liberty can be connected to(/intensify or weaken) the will
Context:
Free will as lack of physical restraint[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&action=edit§ion=19 | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&veaction=edit§ion=19]
Most "classical compatibilists", such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes, claim that a person is acting on the person's own will only when it is the desire of that person to do the act, and also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to each individual and not to some abstract notion of will, asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic]."[108] In articulating this crucial proviso, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains".[107] Similarly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_philosophique), claimed that "Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will." He asked, "would you have everything at the pleasure of a million blind caprices?" For him, free will or liberty is "only the power of acting, what is this power? It is the effect of the constitution and present state of our organs."
Context:
Free will as lack of physical restraint[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&action=edit§ion=19 | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&veaction=edit§ion=19]
Most "classical compatibilists", such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes, claim that a person is acting on the person's own will only when it is the desire of that person to do the act, and also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to each individual and not to some abstract notion of will, asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic]."[108] In articulating this crucial proviso, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains".[107] Similarly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_philosophique), claimed that "Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will." He asked, "would you have everything at the pleasure of a million blind caprices?" For him, free will or liberty is "only the power of acting, what is this power? It is the effect of the constitution and present state of our organs."
Top answer
Hobbes died in 1679. The language has changed so much since then that it is hard to read the old stuff. Besides, philosophy is hard to read at the best of times.
- Hobbes died in 1679.
- The language has changed so much since then that it is hard to read the old stuff.
- Besides, philosophy is hard to read at the best of times.
- "Infer to" is no longer used that way.
- We would say "bestow upon".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Hobbes died in 1679. The language has changed so much since then that it is hard to read the old stuff. Besides, philosophy is hard to read at the best of times. "Infer to" is no longer used that way. We would say "bestow upon".
He meant that the will has no freedom to act; it is the man who has that freedom. Make of that what you will (pun intended).
He meant that the will has no freedom to act; it is the man who has that freedom. Make of that what you will (pun intended).
00
Thank you.
Did he mean "there is no free will" and "only man can be free?"
Did he mean "there is no free will" and "only man can be free?"
00
Don't ask me. I'm no philosopher. Here's a philosophy joke by way of apology:
To do is to be. - Socrates
To be is to do. - Aristotle
Do be do be do. - Sinatra
To do is to be. - Socrates
To be is to do. - Aristotle
Do be do be do. - Sinatra
00
NL888Did he mean "there is no free will" and "only man can be free?"Roughly, yes.
He's saying that freedom can't be attributed to "the will", but it can be attributed to a person.
CJ
00
Okay, but would you like to expalin the grammar and meaning of "Do be do be do"?
00
It's nothing but a nonsense refrain of the kind you often hear in songs. It's from Frank Sinatra's famous rendition of "Strangers in the Night".
0
Related Questions