The First and Last Thing I’ll Ever Write About Joel Osteen

No television preacher’s name likely evokes more visceral reactions than Joel Osteen’s. Some love his style of preaching while others denounce him (Google Christian rapper Shai Linne’s Fal$e Teacher$ for one example). I have to admit that until fairly recently I had never really paid very close attention to what Osteen said or wrote. Recognizing that it would be unfair of me to come to any conclusions about what he believes without letting the man speak for himself, a few years ago I checked out two of his books from the local library, Become a Better You and Every Day a Friday.

I started writing this note back then and had thoughts of doing a series of posts, pointing out both the good and the bad from Osteen’s works.  Brutal honesty time: I really couldn’t get into his books. I read the first few chapters of Become a Better You, but I just gave up after a while.  Aside from any theological issues, I just found the book repetitive and not engaging.  Those are issues of personal preference, however, and I certainly don’t hold those against Osteen or those who find value in his writing.


Be that as it may, the few paragraphs below are more along the lines of what I wanted to write about.  I don’t intend to read any of Osteen’s books in the future nor do I intend to spend very much time (if any) trying to discern whether his teaching is biblical or helpful.  I’ll leave that to others who can do it more effectively and who have the time to devote to it.

In the first few pages of Become a Better You I came across the following passage. I quote it at some length here to provide context.  The emphasis is in the original.

Too many people don’t have the confidence and self-esteem they should because they’re constantly dwelling on negative thoughts about themselves. I don’t say this arrogantly, but in my mind, all day long I try to remind myself: I am anointed. I am creative. I am talented. I am successful. I have the favor of God. People like me. I’m a victor and not a victim.

Try it! If you go around thinking those kinds of thoughts, low self-esteem, lack of confidence, or inferiority won’t have a chance with you. Throw your shoulders back, put a smile on your face, and be looking for opportunities to stretch into the next level.

Back in the Garden of Eden, after Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit, they hid. In the cool of the day, God came to them and said. “Adam, Eve, where are your?”

They said, “God, we’re hiding because we are naked.”

I love the way God answered them. He said, “Adam, who told you that you were naked?” In other words, “Who told you that something was wrong with you?” God immediately knew that the enemy had been talking to them.

God is saying to you today, “Who told you that you don’t have what it takes to succeed? Who told you that the best grades you could make in school would be C’s rather than A’s? Who told you that you are not attractive enough to succeed in your personal relationships or talented enough to flourish in your career? Who told you that your marriage is never going to last?

Those paragraphs come from the first chapter of the book entitled “Stretching to the Next Level.”  The focus of the chapter should be obvious from the excerpt above: don’t let what other people tell you about yourself (negative thoughts) overshadow who you are as a child of God (at least that’s the best way I can think of to summarize Osteen’s writing).  As far as that statement goes, it’s unobjectionable and, I think, is not inconsistent with Scripture.

In the passage above, however, after some reflection, I think there are two problems.  At first blush, the Scripture passage to which Osteen refers seems to support his general point about rejecting negative thoughts put in one’s mind by someone else.  But upon closer examination, I think that Osteen has divorced this particular story from its context (perhaps dangerously so).

Indeed, God did pose the question to “Adam, who told you that you were naked?” (Gen. 3:11).  Osteen’s next sentences, however, are where I think he goes astray.  First of all, looking back a few verses we see that Adam and Eve “realized they were naked.”  (Gen. 3:7 NIV).  So the answer to the question God posed was not, as Osteen seems to imply, that the serpent (“the enemy”) had told them they were naked; rather Adam and Eve came to understand it on their own. Failing to read Scripture in context is an error.  It’s an error that’s rampant, of course, and each of us has our favorite verses to which we resort with little or no regard for the context.  To that extent, I can’t fault Osteen more than anyone else for making the same mistake that I’ve made on more occasions than I can probably even remember. Nevertheless, the error seems pretty clear in this instance.

The second and more significant problem with this passage from Osteen’s book is that the error is not harmless. Osteen suggests that God, as he did with the first people, asks each of us, “Who told you that something was wrong with you?”  His line of reasoning is that people should reject negative thoughts about themselves and focus instead on telling themselves things like, “I am successful. I have the favor of God. People like me.

Here’s the problem with using the passage about Adam and Eve to make that point: there was something wrong with Adam and Eve.  They had sinned, thereby requiring God to separate Himself from His creation.  Even if God meant to ask them “Who told you that something was wrong with you?” there can be no doubt that He certainly did not mean to imply that there was nothing wrong with them.

Osteen thus obscures the source of the first human beings’ sense that something was not right with them.  Removing sin from the story is, I think, the most harmful error one could possibly make.  To the extent that people today sometimes feel that something is missing from their lives or that something is wrong with them they are correct.  The only solution to that problem is salvation.  Absent a recognition of one’s sin nature and repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ there is no salvation.

Encouraging Christians with truths about the standing they enjoy with God because of Jesus’ work is one thing.  That seems to be the basis on which some defend the tone and content of Osteen’s preaching.  Confusing the lost by obscuring the effects of sin is indefensible for anyone who claims to be preaching the true Gospel.  Non-Christians very well may leave a service at Lakewood Church feeling better about themselves, but if they don’t come away with a clear understanding of their own sin and their need for repentance they have been deceived and they are likely much worse off than they were before.

That, I think, is the danger of the teaching of Joel Osteen and others like him.  I don’t doubt his sincerity and he does seem to be a genuinely happy person.  It is possible, however, to be very sincere, but, at the same time, to be sincerely wrong.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Time Management Tip from a Puritan Minister


Jeremiah Burroughs, c. 1600 –  November 13, 1646

What can we learn from the Puritans about the frenetic pace of modern life? Most would probably assume that their world and ours are so different that nothing they had to say could have much relevance for present-day followers of Christ. I think, however, that we should not be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Consider the following excerpt from Jeremiah Burroughs’ work The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment:


By murmuring and discontent in your hearts, you come to lose a great deal of time. How many times do men and women, when they are discontented, let their thoughts run, and are musing and contriving, through their present discontentedness and let their discontented thoughts work in them for some hours together, and they spend their time in vain! When you are alone you should spend your time in holy meditation, but you are spending your time in discontented thoughts. You complain that you cannot meditate, you cannot think on good things, but if you begin to think of them a little, soon your thoughts are off from them. But if you are discontented with anything, then you can go alone, and muse, and roll things up and down in your thoughts to feed a discontented humor. Oh, labor to see this evil effect of murmuring, the losing of your time

The Puritans, of course, could never have known anything of our technological advancements, but we can still learn from them because God never changes and because fallen human nature remains the same as well. If anything, modern Christians (especially those in the United States and other wealthy countries) are more susceptible to murmuring than the average Englishman of the 1600s. We have so many more distractions that the ways in which we can come to be discontent and prone to murmuring are almost without end.

What if we took Burroughs’ advice? What if we took all the time we spend thinking about things we think we ought to have or afflictions we think we should not have to bear and instead spent that time worshipping God and thinking on whatever is true and lovely and of a good report? (Philippians 4:8) I can’t help but wonder how much more productive we can be for the cause of Christ if we could rid ourselves of murmuring. We modern American Christians claim (murmur?) about how busy our lives are, but how much of that busyness could we shed merely by being content with God?


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What Does Inability Mean? (On Freedom of the Will, Part I Section 4b)

On Freedom of the Will Index page

Online version of Freedom of the Will

The previous explanation of natural and moral Necessity may also shed light on the concepts of natural and moral Inability. Someone would be naturally unable to do something when he cannot do it because nature does not allow it or because of some “obstacle that is extrinsic to the Will; either in the Faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects.” However, none of those things constitutes moral Inability, which may be defined simply as a want of inclination.

Some examples of moral Inability are the following. A person “of great honor and chastity may have a moral Inability” to engage in prostitution. A child who is devoted to and truly loves his parents may be morally unable to kill his father. “A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy.” Strength of virtue and a great degree of holiness may result in one’s being morally unable to “love wickedness in general.” On the other hand, the strength of one’s habitual wickedness may make him unable to “love and choose holiness.” Such a person may be “utterly unable to love an infinitely holy Being, or to choose and cleave to him as his chief good.”


Saul Attacking David by Guercino

Regarding this idea of moral Inability, I think it is useful to draw a distinction between the general/habitual and the particular/occasional. A general/habitual moral Inability is “an Inability in the heart to all exercises or acts of the will of that kind.” Thus, a person “whose heart is habitually void of gratitude” may be unable to show gratitude through his actions. By contrast, a particular/occasional moral Inability is an Inability relating to a particular act at a particular point in time. If it is true that “the Will is always determined by the strongest motive,” it follows that the will is always unable (a particular/occasional Inability) to “act otherwise than it does.” It is not possible for the Will to “go against the motive which has now, all things considered, the greatest advantage to induce it.”


The second of these kinds of moral Inability is commonly referred to simply as “Inability.” because the word’s original meaning related “to some stated defect.” In addition, as we noted before, Inability is most commonly used as a relative term; it relates to a will and endeavor that is “insufficient to bring to pass the thing desired and endeavored.” Whether occasional or habitual, a will and endeavor against present acts of the will cannot even be supposed; “that would be to suppose the Will, as present, to be otherwise than, at present, it is.” There conceivably could be, however, will and endeavor “against future acts of the Will.” There is no contradiction in saying that acts of the Will at one time “may be against the acts of the Will at another time.” One might desire to prevent a future act of the Will, but that desire might be overcome by the strength of a fixed habit. “In this respect, a man may be in miserable slavery and bondage to a strong habit.” On the other hand, it may be much easier to prevent future acts that “are only occasional and transient.” In this way, the moral Inability associated with fixed habits “especially obtains the name of Inability.” So just as the will may, in this sense, resist itself in vain, reason may resist a present act of the Will, although its resistance may be insufficient.

Again, with each kind of moral Inability, the word “Inability” is being used very differently from its original meaning. The word refers to a natural Inability, those cases where it can be supposed a person is inclined to do an act, but is unable. Under the ordinary definition, we cannot say that “a malicious man . . . cannot hold his hand from striking.” Strictly speaking, a man is able to do something “if he has it in his choice, or at his election”; we would not say that a man cannot do a thing “when he can do it if he will.” It is incorrect to say that someone is unable to do a thing (something that depends on an act of the Will) that “would be easily performed if the act of the Will were present.” It would be even worse to say that he is unable to “exert the acts of the Will themselves.” That would be a contradiction; to say “he cannot will, if he does will.” Therefore, we should not attribute non-performance to a lack of power or ability. What is lacking is not ability, but one’s being willing. A person may understand, and have the natural ability and everything else necessary, except a disposition. The only thing missing is a will.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Distinction Between Natural & Moral Necessity (On Freedom of the Will Part I, Section 4a)

On Freedom of the Will Index page

Online version of Freedom of the Will

Section IV.

Of the distinction of natural and moral Necessity, and Inability.

The Necessity which has been explained above can be distinguished into more and natural Necessity. I will not delve into whether this distinction is a perfect one, but this is how the terms are understood and it is how I will use them below.

Moral Necessity is used in different ways. We use it to mean the Necessity of moral obligation, as when a person “is under bonds and duty of conscience from which he cannot be discharged.” Sometimes moral Necessity refers to “that Necessity of connexion and consequence” that arises from moral causes, such as the strength of inclination or motives, and the connections between those and “such certain volitions and actions. This is the sense in which I will be using the phrase “moral necessity.”

As applied to men, I define natural necessity as the Necessity we are “under through the force of natural causes” as opposed to moral causes, e.g., “habits and dispositions of the heart, and moral motives and inducements.” Thus, in certain situations, men experience particular things by Necessity: “they feel pain when their bodies are wounded;” they see things in a clear light when their eyes are opened; they acknowledge a truth as soon as they understand the terms (such as 2+2=4 or that parallel lines never intersect); “so by a natural Necessity men’s bodies move downwards, when their is nothing to support them.”

Note the following things about these two kinds of Necessity:

1. “Moral Necessity may be as absolute as natural Necessity.” Moral cause and effect may be just as perfectly connected as any natural cause and effect. Regardless of whether the Will is always “necessarily determined by the strongest motive,” anyone would accept, I think, that in some cases the motive is so strong “that the act of the will may be certainly and indissolubly connected therewith.” When a motive or bias is very powerful, it is generally accepted that it is difficult to go against them (and the difficulty increases in direct proportion to the power of the motive). At a certain point, the difficulty could become so great as to be insurmountable. Men have some power to overcome difficulties, but that power is not infinite; rather it has limits. Because it must be allowed that there can be a perfect connection between moral cause and effect, “so this only is what I call by the name of moral Necessity.”


2. Just because I distinguish between these kinds of necessity (moral vs. natural), that does not mean that if something comes to pass by moral necessity, “the nature of things is not concerned in it. I do not mean to say that when an act of the Will “infallibly follows” an insurmountable motive, “this is not owing to the nature of things.” Nevertheless, “natural” and “moral” are how these two kinds of Necessity have usually been distinguished and they must be distinguished somehow because there is a difference between them that has important consequences. The difference consists more “in the two terms connected” than in the nature of the connection. The cause of the effect “is of a particular kind,” namely something of a moral nature, “some previous habitual disposition, or some motive exhibited to the understanding.” Likewise, the effect is something of a moral nature, some “volition of the soul, or voluntary action.”

I suppose that natural necessity is so called “because mere nature,” as that word is commonly used, is not concerned with choice. “Nature” is often used “in opposition to choice” not because nature never has anything to do with our choice, but probably because our first notion of nature comes from our observation of things in which our choice plays no part. This is especially true with respect to the material world, in which we easily perceive “a settled course” or “manner or succession.” However, where we do not easily recognize “the rule and connexion” (although the connection truly exists) we refer to that sort of thing as something other than “nature.” Even some things in the material world that do not obviously occur “according to any settled course” are not called “nature,” but rather accident, chance, contingence, etc. Men distinguish between nature and choice “as if they were completely and universally distinct.” But I suppose it must be acknowledged that in many cases choice “arises from nature, as truly as other events.” It is not always obvious, however, how acts of choice and their causes are connected “according to established laws.” Choice appears to us to be a departure from the established order of things, showing itself most obviously in “corporeal things.” Choice also tends to “alter the chance of events” and causes them to go forward differently that they would have if left alone. “Hence it is spoken of as if it were a principle or notion entirely distinct from nature and properly set in opposition to it.”

3. Note that in explaining my term “moral Necessity,” the word Necessity is not used in its “original design and meaning.” As explained already, terms such as necessary, impossible, etc., as commonly used, are always relative; they always assume some “voluntary opposition . .  that is insufficient.” With moral Necessity, however, no such opposition can be assumed because it “is a certainty of the . . . will itself.” It is absurd to imagine an individual will opposing itself in its present act, just as it would be absurd “to talk of two contrary motions, in the same moving body, at the same time.”

Leave a comment

Filed under On Freedom of the Will

More Thoughts on Necessity (On Freedom of the Will Part I, Section 3b)

On Freedom of the Will Index page

Online version of Freedom of the Will

Section III (continued)

Concerning the meaning of the terms, Necessity, Impossibility, Inability, &c. and of Contingence.

I will now try to show that necessity is not inconsistent with liberty. Before proceeding, however, I will give my definition of the word “necessity.” What I mean when I use the term is the complete and certain connection between the subject and predicate of a given proposition.

“The subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms the existence of something, may have a full, fixed, and certain connection several ways.”

(1.) The full and perfect connection may be inherent in the nature of the things themselves and any supposition to the contrary would be a contradiction or “gross absurdity.” For instance, “the eternal existence of being” is necessary in itself; it would be the “greatest absurdity” to deny the existence of being (would space allow, this could be shown to be “the sum of all contradictions”). The attributes of God, including his infinity, are, in this same sense, necessary. It is also necessary in itself that 2+2=4 and that all lies extending from the center of a circle to its edge are equal in length. Other metaphysical and mathematical truths are necessary in themselves: “the subject and predicate of the proposition which affirm them, are perfectly connected of themselves.”

(2.) The certainty of connection may come from the fact that the thing “is already come to pass” and has been “made sure of existence.” Therefore, a claim that acknowledges both present and past existence of it, is, in that way, made unalterably true. The “existence of whatever is already come to pass, is now become necessary.”

(3.) The connection might also be necessary as a consequence of something that is necessary in one of the ways discussed above [i.e., in previous posts]. This type of necessity hinges on the connection of two or more propositions with each other. Something that is “perfectly connected” with something that is already established as necessary is necessary “by a Necessity of consequence.”

It is only in this last sense that we can call something in the future necessary. It cannot be inherently necessary in itself, or else it would already exist. Likewise, for anything in the past (except those which were from eternity) this is the only sense in which they “could be necessary before they came to pass.” Therefore, this is the only way that any effect or event (anything that had, in the past, a beginning or will have one in the future) “has come into being necessarily. This is the Necessity we must focus on in questions about the acts of the will.

Furthermore we can distinguish between general and particular Necessity. A thing’s existence falls under general Necessity when “there is a foundation for the certainty of their existence” or where there is a complete and certain connection between “the subject and predicate of the proposition which affirms its existence.”

Something is necessary with particular Necessity when there is nothing that can affect the certainty of an event or the existence of a thing. With a particular Necessity nothing “can be of any account at all, in determining the infallibility of the connection of the subject and predicate in the proposition which affirms the existence of things.” So there are things that happen to particular people despite the fact that (at least at that time) their will does not affect its existence. Regardless of whether such things carry a general Necessity, yet they are necessary to those particular people “as they prevent all acts of the will about the affair.” It may be true that the same thing is necessary both in the general sense and in the particular sense, but that does not alter the case for drawing this distinction in the first place.

All of this should be sufficient for explaining how the terms “necessary” and “Necessity” are used as terms of art by metaphysicians and others. They assign a more extensive definition that either the original meanings or common usages of those words.

What I have said to explain “necessary” and “necessity” may also be sufficient for explaining the opposite terms: impossible and impossibility. The only difference is that the former are positive while the latter are negative. Impossibility is negative necessity or “a Necessity that a thing should not be.” It is also used as a term of art, distinct from its original, common meaning.

The same can be said for the words “unable” and “inability.” It has been pointed out that these words were originally used in relation to will and endeavor and as falling short of being able to bring to pass the thing willed or endeavored. When it comes to more philosophical writing, however (“especially writers on controversies about Free Will”), they are used very differently, even in cases where no will or endeavors “is or can be supposed.”

Just as all these words (necessary, impossible, unable, etc.) are used by some writers in ways that go beyond their common meaning, the same has happened to the term “contingent.” In its original sense, a thing was contingent if “its connection with its causes or antecedents . . . is not discerned.” With regard to us, something is deemed contingent or accidental if “it comes to pass without our foreknowledge, and besides our design and scope.”

However, the word “contingent” is frequently used in a very different sense. Rather than referring to something we cannot foresee, it is used to refer to “something which has absolutely no previous ground or reason.”

Leave a comment

Filed under On Freedom of the Will

What Do We Mean by Necessity? (On Freedom of the Will: Part I, Section 3a)

On Freedom of the Will Index page

Online version of Freedom of the Will

Section III.

Concerning the meaning of the terms, Necessity, Impossibility, Inability, &c. and of Contingence.

When discussing free will, words such as “necessary” and “impossible” are used frequently. Therefore, we must understand exactly how they are used.

We could say that something is necessary if “it must be and cannot be otherwise.” But unless we also explain the word “must” with something other than the phrase “there being Necessity” the phrase above is not a proper definition of Necessity. Words such as “must,” “can,” or “cannot” need to be analyzed just as much as “necessary” and “impossible.”

In everyday use, the word “necessary” is a relative term. To say that something is necessary is to say that it is (or will be) regardless of any supposed opposition to its existence. This is the same as saying that it is impossible for the thing not to exist. But the word “impossible” is also a relative term, referring to an effort to make something happen which turns out to be insufficient to bring it to pass. “Irresistible” is another relative term referring to a resistance made against some force or power which is insufficient to withstand the power or hinder its effect. Necessity and Impossibility imply something that frustrates endeavor or desire. Note the following.

1. Things are necessary in general if they exist or will come to pass regardless of any opposition. A thing is necessary to us if it exists or will come to pass regardless of any opposition from us.

2. Terms such as “necessary,” “impossible,” etc. are most appropriate to discussion about liberty and moral agency (in the sense just described of a thing being necessary/impossible to us regardless of any possible opposition by us).


Impossible triangle

3. In common usage, “necessity” is a relative term that always supposes some sort of opposition. So when we say something is necessary to us, we mean in relation to some opposition of our Wills, or some effort of ours to the contrary. The only sense in which we can say we make opposition to an event is in our voluntary opposition to it. Something is necessary as to us when, even if we do not want it or do not act to prevent it, the thing is or will be anyway. Our opposition is the opposition our wills (or implies as much).

It is plain that other similar words and phrases are commonly understood the same way. We say that something is impossible for us if we want it or try to make it happen, but our desires and efforts are or would be to no avail. We call something irresistible when all our opposition or efforts to the contrary are overcome. We say we are unable to do something when “our supposable desires and endeavors are insufficient.”

We grow up having learned to understand all of these terms as having a strong connection “to a supposed will, desire, and endeavor of ours.” The connection is so strong that they can never be separated. Certainly, all of these words can be used as terms of art, but unless we are very careful we will unconsciously slide back into the common usage of these words and we will apply them inconsistently in our line of reasoning, “even when we pretend to use them as terms of art.”

4. Therefore, when words such as “necessary,” “impossible,” “irresistible,” etc. are used in cases that do not suppose an insufficient will, they are not being used according to their proper meaning. To use them in such cases is to use them nonsensically. An example of this misuse would be as follows: it is necessary for a man to choose virtue rather than vice during the time that he prefers virtue to vice; and it is impossible for him not to have this choice “so long as this choice continues.” In this example, the words “necessary,” “impossible,” etc. are used either with insignificance or outside their usual sense. Their common meaning (as discussed above) refers to some kind of unwillingness or resistance, but here those things are excluded, “for the case supposed is that of being willing, and choosing.”

5. Thus, it appears that philosophers use words like “necessary” or “impossible” differently from the way they are used in everyday speech, by applying them to cases in which there is no supposable opposition. They use them “with respect to God’s existence before the creation of the world, when there was no other being.” They use them in the context of God’s loving himself, his loving righteousness, or his hating sin. They apply them to the actions of “created intelligent beings,” even in cases where it is supposed that “all opposition of the Will is excluded.”

“Metaphysical or philosophical Necessity is nothing different from their certainty.” By “certainty” I refer to “the certainty that is in things themselves” rather than to a “certainty of knowledge.” It is the former that provides the foundation for the latter.

Philosophical necessity is sometimes defined as “where by it cannot be otherwise.” This is a faulty definition for two reasons. First, the words “can” and “cannot” need just as much explanation as the word “necessity.” So if someone asks us what we mean by saying “it cannot be otherwise,” we might explain by saying “it must necessarily be so.” Second, “this definition is liable to the fore-mentioned great inconvenience.” The words “cannot” or “unable” are relative–they are connected to a power that is or may be exerted “in order to the thing spoken of.” But as already noted, philosophers do not use the word “necessity” in that way.

Leave a comment

Filed under On Freedom of the Will

What Influences the Mind to Choose? (On Freedom of the Will: Part I, Section 2c)

On Freedom of the Will Index page

Online version of Freedom of the Will

The previous post in this series ended as follows: “Listing everything that influences the mind in its perception of something as pleasing would probably require its own book. Rather than do that, I will outline some general ideas.”

I. The nature and circumstances of the object. This may be whether the object, viewing it as it is in itself, appears beautiful and pleasant or deformed and irksome to the mind. It includes the apparent degree of pleasure or trouble resulting from the object (or its consequences). These must be viewed as parts of the object as it appears to the mind’s view of a proposed choice. Lastly, with respect to the nature and circumstances of the object, are the apparent state of pleasure or trouble as they appear across a span of time. All things being equal, the mind will choose a present pleasure rather than one at some point in the future. The nearness in time is a circumstance of the object by which it appears more pleasing than the alternative.

II. The manner of view. The degree of apparent pleasure is an influence, but so is the manner of view. Consider two ways that this bears on an object that is connected with future pleasure. First, think about the degree to which the mind believes the pleasure to be in the future. Certain happiness is more pleasing than uncertain. All things being equal, a mere probable pleasure will be chosen over a less probable one. Second, consider how well the mind grasps a future pleasure. We have a clearer understanding of some things rather than others. For instance, the things we can immediately sense are usually more lively in our minds that things we can only imagine. “My idea of the sun when I look upon it is more vivid, than when I only think of it.” Our idea of the sweetness of a fruit tends to be stronger when eating it than when we only imagine it. Still, sometimes our ideas of things that we can only think about are stronger than at others times. This strength of an idea is one thing that greatly affects the mind in acts of volition. When one must choose between two future pleasures, the one that is more vivid to the mind will be chosen even if both options are otherwise considered the same and equally certain. Therefore, if one is presented with several future enjoyments, each with varying degrees of apparent enjoyment and probability then, all things being equal, the agreeableness of a particular option will be a combination of all those factors along with the strength of the idea of that thing to the mind.

In addition, one’s state of mind in viewing a choice contributes to the agreeableness or disagreeableness of that choice. This includes the mind’s natural temper as well as modes of thinking developed by education, custom, or some other means. A choice may seem less pleasing to one person, but not to another. Similarly, the same choice might not always appear agreeable even to the same person. Some find satisfaction in following reason, while others follow their appetites or passions. Some find it more pleasing to “deny avaricious inclination than to gratify it,” but others prefer “to gratify the vilest appetites.” These are just a few examples, among many possible others, of how different things will be most pleasing not only to different people, but also to the same people at different times.

Perhaps, however, we do not really need to distinguish between the “state of mind” and the apparent nature and circumstances of the object or the manner of view. Strictly speaking, we might say that a different state of mind only alters the agreeableness of a choice by altering how the nature and circumstances of the object appear or by changing the manner of view of an object to be stronger or weaker. However, I think it is safe to say that volition always consists of the greatest apparent good (as already explained). All things considered, the mind will always choose the thing that appears most pleasing, given the direct and immediate object of decision. If the immediate object of one’s will is his own actions, then he wills the actions that appear most agreeable to him. If, at this moment, it is most pleasing to him to walk (or speak or remain silent) then he now will to walk (or speak or remain silent). If the experience of humanity has shown us anything that is obvious and universal, it is certainly that “when men act voluntarily, and do what they please, then they do what suits them best, or what is most agreeable to them. To say, that they do what pleases them, but yet not what is agreeable to them, is the same thing as to say, they do what they please, but do not act their pleasure; and that is to say, that they do what they please and yet do not what they please.”


Thus, in a sense it appears that “the will always follows the last dictate of the understanding.” “Understanding” must be defined broadly: it includes not simply reason or judgment, but rather “the whole faculty of perception or apprehension.” It would not be true to say that the Will always follows the last dictate of understanding, if we define the understanding to include only “what reason declares to be best.” This is a different matter from the thing that now appears most agreeable in light of all the factors that combine to form the mind’s present perception of a thing. The dictate of reason certainly plays a role in the combination of influences which move the Will. Indeed, reason ought to be taken into account “in estimating the degree the degree of that appearance of good which the Will always follows.” Reason may be consistent with other factors or it may fall on the other side of the scale, “resisting the influence of other things.” However, reason may sometimes be overcome by the greater weight of other factors, resulting in an act of the Will that “is determined in opposition to it.”

I hope the preceding discussion has illustrated and confirmed the assertion  I made at the beginning of this section [i.e., Section 2): the Will is always determined by the strongest motive. This is a crucial point to establish as the basis for the rest of the discussion. I hope the truth of it will be clear “before I have finished what I have to say on the subject of human liberty.”

Leave a comment

Filed under On Freedom of the Will