Características de la estructura de los sistemas institucionales

C H A F T B B T H R B R The Determini em of

* Ï ' •W H f. A v>

r / ; m - X H l ' i : ^ j L : c . - . ‘

t.

»> f %& t * <■ . - v?fe' * * i- V

iroiMBtty

mmiam'

'<4f-T%c =**'■ T i r &. % "There are few names of the eighteenth-ewtuxy

Rhicâi hove obtained imoh oelehvity as th at of jeasthea Sftmrde. Critic# end htetoxiane down to our

tm

day have preleed in diRtyseaRla terms the legioal vigour end the oonetruotive power# of a w riter Whom they hold

to be the greatest aetept^eieiaa imeriea he# yet pmdnsed. Who knows, Rwy here asked thamsolve##

to

what height# th is ewigmal geaiias eight have risen# i f , inetead hf being bom in a half#eavage country* fa r

... - md eM em e, he had

. Ç4

from the traditions of ghilsaophy

S

peared rather in oor old world# and there received the root impulse of the modem world. FeidiapB he would have taken a idace between Lelbni# end Kant asxsm # e founders of immortal gystem , instead e f the worn he has le f t reducing its e lf to a

mmimo

and barbarous theology, whifl* astonishes our reason and outrages our h eart, the object Of a t one# our horror and admiration."

0

#M8«m ifftm, qi»U i ttm

"A*

of xwaigi** .0# ath lo # ",, V ,4 . m . e. 1 ^ 0 m . ) *--1 'V, ^ 1 , rtf ' 4Ï- X 1

Kt

-r

- TE -

Tokaihah gWAnne (XToa-aTeel

Jonathan adaarda wae born In 1703 a t Windsor on tho banks of tho connootloutf How laagland, and ho died In 1768. He eerved as a Minister of Religion from 1787 u n til his death, and his statue and influence in the lim ited sphere of Nee T^ litn d can be said to be sim ilar to that of John Wesley in B ritain, except th at Bdvords was by far the greater theo­ logian. Xn 1736, he published a work — "HOrratire of Surprising Jossers ions" — which may be said to bo an anticipation of W illis* James' "Varieties of Religious Experience", and Which had an M fect upon the promotion of the Bfangelical Revival in England, adwards wrote exten­ sively on a wide range of theoiogioal subjects. Bis works on the "Religious Affections", "Original Sin" and "God's Last Bod in Creation" are of a very high quality and won Hj” considerable fame. His ethical tre a tise on — "The Hature of Virtue" — indicates a profound gra*p of moral doctrine and is worthy to be ranked with Francis Hutcheson's work on — "An Inquiry Into the Original of Our ideas of

Beauty end Virtue". However, his real fame rests upon his work on the Freedom of tho w ill, the oor root t i t l e of which is — "A careful and s tr ic t Inquiry into the modern prevail­ ing actions of that Freedom of the w ill %Aiioh is supposed to be essential to moral agency# virtue and yiee, reward and mmis;went i .p%#e# andMemefL.

acme attempt must be made to account for the neglect of Edwards during the la s t two hundred years. This neglect cannot be explained by suggeoting that Edwards has made an insignificant contribution to philosophical thought.

I » L * a" »'/f ^ '• 18 * 4, ‘'H'"_„4a'>' J‘.t

Wr'

' m;,., . '# -j# astCttlsheSi

thmm om

be l i t t l e doubt th at h it

thmdo

upon "the Freedem

M the ViU" ie the meet ii ^ r t e n t eCRtxibutim e r a m e# # th a t BUbjeet. r a th e r , me eyetem ef DetemWam elnee hie day has been able to i g r a e hi# work, and there oan be l i t t l e doubt # a t Freedom and Reoeeaity are e t i l l r a y in^ortant ieeoee in modem philoeeoby. Ferltape the folio*' ihg point# may maggee^ # re a e ra b le emplamation to the nag-

loot of the eentxibation made by adwor#*

KKmat# A h..m rn W k !R t.m M m ' «•urge# lyoa i^nak# of the meoiogy ef BdwarO# ## ‘"#bblim# and baabaron# * h i#

tm

reaeen and outrage# our heart". m ere i# «ft #l,amapt> , Of tru th in a n #

a

etatam m t. mdeard# mad# « valiant

effo rt to keep hi# m ilo#t#dleal eontributioa free from ora-«n<di Theologieal dagmatiem, and, in hi# Preface to

M&e Preedom of the w ill", he #ay#t- . ; *1 «%W*kr

iiM0aiK

*

àmmAqaa»

on g ia .ltf '.. ^ m a wggr MM «>« 8w iW fB l< «W 8#%#mW#m «T CiOvia «m&. adaerd# w ill not de«d»t the v alidity ef auoh # atatesmnt* R tm ra , i t r a inevitable m at nimarde ahould be regarded

a# the greatest Calvinist ainee me Beforsntion, and hi# fheologleal work# bear ont suoh « deeoription. th e ninm- te#%m-eentury

mm m

r a y etroag rernw tim to CalvWam,

and ram rda undoubtedly suffered an eoUpee in th ie roratiomei B|# outetanding eemxm — "gimer# in the Hand# ef an amyqr Gad*, has been quoted with eonsidevable horror by modem # r a # t # of the Christian meligion, Tbare is l i t t l e doubt that i t is erne ef the most te rrib le atteranee# e r a mad#

from

a C hristiaa pulpit# but i t is «ften forgotten th at eeneluded th is eermm

wim

these word##-

"ROW God stand# ready t# p ity you; this Is the day of merqy, you may ery now with aeme encouragement #f obtaining mereys , Christ has thrown m e door of merqy wide open and is crying wim a loud voie# to poor sin n e r# as# awful i t i« to be le f t bcMnd a t suoh a # y ?"

2^V 'iVV-

- 74 -

ÜDweveri there oan be no doubt about the general horror with ^hleh the Theology of Bdmrde was regarded. Hie cold, p ltlle w logic Xli*ed to a majeetlo yIcw of God*e moverei^ power brought a c h ill to the etouteet heart, and

mn

were glad to turn away to a more benevolent and kindly view of the workinge of Providenee, With the rejeotiom of thie Theology want the rejection of the greater part of hie work end thie eocounte in eeme way for the negleet of hie con­ tribution to philoeo£dilaal thought.

SSfilEftf

the Idterary

aeaeon.

aflworde ie one of the

meet

painful w riters in lite ra tu re . Rle thesis on — "The Free­

dom ef the Will" — is one of the most d iffie u lt works in fh iloec#y.

one of his most ardnnt admirers end devoted disciples puts the lite ra ry aM lity ef Edwards in those words#-

"Tho etyle of Jonathan Boards is# in general# peahsps the most repulsive whlsh even metaphysios ever sssmned . . . . Probably there never was » man whs was so characterised by suoh a wide range ef in te lle e t and imoh a narrow rmage of language . . . . . . without bound­ less elaeU oity and buoyancy of thought, his works# so fearfully laden with redamdaneee of lampage, would long since have am* lik e lead In the m i# w waters of oblivioa". W

has the power of holding a thought in pure abstrae- tistti and refining i t u n til the ovdinaty adnd begins to reel and stagger under the stra in of this rarified in te lle ctu a l atmosphere. Then, he marches forward to another position without the slig h test regard to syntax or making clear his universe of discourse. ,?or instance, i t is very d iffic u lt to ke#> up with adwards in the following typical expressicn on the Freedom of the Will s-

"And if volitions are properly the effects of th e ir motives# then they are necessarily conneotod with th eir motives; every effect and event being# as was proved before, neoes&arily connected with that WhiSh i s the proper ground and reason of its existm ce. (1) An %eay on Jonathan adwards by Henry Rodgers.

- 76 -

Thus I t is manifest that volition is neeessary# and is not

ttm

any se lf "determining poser in the w ill; the v o litien , shioh i s earned by previous motive and Sauoemsnti is met esmsSd by the w ill exereising a seveeeisn power ever itse lf# to detemiae# eawse and esoite volitions in its e lf . This is not oeasistent with the w ill's setind in a sta te of Indifferenoe and

eqwiliheâmm# to determine its e lf te a preferense; for the Way in whi Sh motives operate, is by btsseing the w ill and giving i t a^qewtaan inolimatlon or prepon*

deration one way", d )

suoh involved argimmtt# joined to

..m

suspicion that Edwards was making way for his "barbarous" Theology to triui#% did not oonatitute any real attractio n for his writings# and

time they lo st th e ir hold upon mm's minds.

Thjsd.

%ïm

M sto rie heæOB. I t may not be too fanciful to suggest that in ccwisideration of these important issues in Philosophy sud& as Idberty and leaessity there is a kind ef eyolie msvemmt. There seems to be grounds for holding that the human mind views these questions with approval or disapproval aooording to the particular se t of oiroumstances Which may be present a t any particular time in history.

The smcient philosophy was prepared to hold these questions together witheut making may attempt to be too enphatie upon Idbeofty or Weoessity Further, there are indioatione that the f ir s t four oenturios of ohristianity did not witnose any marked emphasis on either side. With the coming of Augustine,

there was an introduction of a Detersdniam which moulded the philosophy and theology for the next nine hundred years. Of course# there were revolts and oppositions against the poeitim of Augustine during th is period, but# on the whole# the period was largely Deterministio in oot-look. The ecsdng of Aomas Aquinas, with a revival of the A ristotlian view-foiAt# inaugurated a decided reaction against Detorminiaaa# and this continued to the simteenth-eentury when Luther and Calvin# la te r helped by spinoma# created a reaction in favour of Deterodnima. This reaction continued u n til the close of

(1)

The Freedsm

of

the

w ill.

Part

a. sect.lo.

- 76 -

the oightoenth-centuiyi when a movement led by Kant, sue- ooeded In putting conelderablo ecphasls uixm Liberty.

Jenatiian Bdwarde lived at tho end of tho Determlniet period of thought* He gathore into hlmeelf a ll that was rl<* and fru itfu l in the history of DetesBdniam, and présenta the ease for Deterndnlem with a s k ill td ii^ ie superior to Augustine, Lather# Calvin or even Qplnoaa# but i t ie to l i t t l e purpose. The pendulum of man’s Intellectual in te r­ est Is swinging hack to FreedSB# md the word, of iidward# holds l i t t l e attractio n for minds # ie h hsvo had oonturles

of Deteroinistio philosophy. This may be a reasonable explanation of the neglect with i^ o h his great work on volition has been treated. In any case# the neglect cannot be explained in terms which suggest th at Edwards' treatment of the subject is antiquated and obsolete. Ample evidence w ill bo produced in the course of this exposition of the system of Deterolnism of Edwards which wHl indicate that such a

oystom

is capablo of ohall«%ing tho most modem theories on the Freedom of the w ill. I t may bo that the cyclic movemmit in p h ll0 6O£*y w ill return to an appreciation

of the Deterministic V ies-poiat. I f thie happent# there can be l i t t l e doUbt that Edwards w ill arrive a t the status of fame r^ich he dCGerves,

<1) Tho Nature of the W ill.

Edwards it, of the opinion that considerable oonfu&lon has taken place in ditcusslcna ooncemlng Liberty and Necessity because there has been an absence of a clear and simple underütandin-) of what the Will really i s t and ho a tte rp ts to remsQ/ th is obscurity by saying th a t the Will ik nothing more or loss than that faculty or principle of tho mind by

which i t chooses somethin;^. Therefore, an aot of the w ill is siiqply an aot of Choice.

m

the ëurfaco th lt is slzqple and d irect, but i t Ic Important to

vmwibot

that Edwards is here in sistin g m^on something which is calculated to have

- 77 -

raty fa r reoohlne liifluenoe upon his ^ o le (wq^Okitlon of Detonninifim. F irs t, i t ie jlo ar that isdwords w ill have no desire to draw a sharp lino of domaroation between the Will and the mind. That is , he is no advooate of i# a t might be termed a "faculty" peyehology. Tho Will ie a principle or aepect of the mind, or b etter s t i l l , i t ie that by Which the mind chooses something. second, Edward# ie concerned with the Freedom of the nan rather than with the Freedom of the W ill. I t is here th at ho heartily agrees with Locke that a^y discussion of Liberty end Necessity must stand related to the whole personality and net to What is a supposed faoulV* He w ill have much mere

to say about th is fact a t a la te r period, but his definition of Will is made with th lt point clearly In view. Third, i t is obvious that the above definition of Will is intended to make i t d iffic u lt i f not impossible for ax^ of hi# oppon­ ent# to argue that tho Will can choose it&, own volitions. This ic a v ita l link in the exposition of Determinism by Edwards, tait i t is fa r too important to be discussed a t th is early stage.

Edwards now passes on to discuss Whether there is a negative as well as a positive as^pect to the act of willing* He observes that i t i&> often said th at the #111 chooses or

"refuses’*, but he ix>ints out that even th is apparent nega­ tiv e act of Will is actually "positive" . . . "for in every act of w ill whatsoever, the mind chooses one thin^& rather than another". The point of su<A an insistance Is that Edwards wiwhes to etree# that every act of the vjill is voluntary. That i*., the Willing subject is personal, posi­

tiv e , and therefore (ghoioe is a voluntary act of tho real s e lf, such

prellaimxy

observations are necessary booause dwards, in his OKpOLitian of Beternlxxisa, makes frequact reference to the metaphor of a "chain"; and his exposition is in its e lf (1) VTMdMi Of t&o «111, pfcrt 1. Boot.l.

- 7B -

a oarofuXly aonstraoted chain of arguments. I t is only a#

oaroful atten tio n is g ir ai to the lin k s in th is chain that

i t ti. possibla to appreoiato the and foroo of hi#

GXpOLltiOB#

Roving forged the above«montioned lin k s, i^viards klip s in

another link Which is highly important to h is i>oint of view.

Re axarsine# Locke's d istin ctio n between "proferring" and

choosing, and is far from satisfie d «1th Wake's finding u:x>n th is important p oin t. Locke appears to think that

tho act of v olitio n is best exprossed by the term "pre­ ferrin g", hat Looko h esitates about making th is id en tica l \dth Jholco bocauso ho thiif^:# that a man could prefer f ly ­

ing to walking but cannot « il l much an aot. However, Edwards tlil/iij# there is confusion h ers, end in sist# that "preforoncQ" 1# Jhoice because & man is alwoy;, uoncemod

about tho next and immediate object of the w ill. Of

courso, man can have a remote preferoncG to fly , but each

idea# or id ea ls have vary li t tl e to do with actual "wilH%"

33«ardfi eayoi-

"Ths th in s n cxtlj chosen or preferrod when a mm w ill#

to walk, i# f not h is b d n s removed to such a place «hare he would b e, but euch m exertion and motion of h is leg# and fe e t etc* , in order to do lt" (l)

This seems a sm all matter to dispute, but acW ally i t is

v ita lly important to the chain of Determinism expounded ty

In document Teoría, Sociedad y Poder en Talcott Parsons, C Wright Mills, Jürgen Habermas y Anthony Giddens : una contribución a la Teoría Social contemporánea (página 101-108)