I really liked it but if I were an athesist, I wouldn't have been convienced by it. It is too theological

Augustine's response to the problem of evil is classic and influential, but not overly illuminating.

هي محاولة ليست لإثبات أن الإرادة حرة بل لإثبات أنه لا حر حقا إلا الإرادة.

فإرادة أي شيء يجب أن تكون مقترنة بالقدرة على تحقيقها، فأنا قد أريد السفر إلى بلد معين ولكن ليس شرطا أن أقدر على السفر فعلا.

أما الإرادة بإعتبارها فعل في ذاته فهي مقترنة دوما وفي كل الأحوال بالقدرة عليها فلا يوجد إنسان على وجه الأرض عاجز عن الإرادة بل الإرادة حاضرة دوما ومقرونة بالقدرة عليها، فالكل قادر أن يريد أو بمعنى آخر أن يريد أن يريد.

تفسير أوغسطين للخطيئة الأصلية يجردها من معنى الخطيئة أصلا.

فهو يرى أنه لا يوجد إنسان إلا وكان جهولا أو ظلوما، لأنه يعلم الخير لا يجهله، ولكنه يضن ويعجز عن القيام به، وتلك سمات لكل البشر.

إذن فهي: إما خطيئة بأن تكون جهولا أو ظلوما بسبب ضعفك، أو إما تكون عقوبة على خطيئة ولكنها سميت الخطيئة مجازا كما تسمى اللغة لسانا بإعتبار أن اللسان هو السبب.

ولكن أغسطين اختار الاحتمال الثاني ألا وهو أن تلك عقوبة على خطيئة ولكن السؤال كيف نعاقب على خطيئة ارتكبها أبوانا ولم نفعلها بإرادتنا؟!

الإجابة بأن خطيئة الوالد كانت سببا في تحوله إلى فاني وأن يكون جهولا وأن يكون ضعيفا أمام شهوات الجسد.
وبالتالي فإن العقوبة نقلت بموجب الشرط الإنساني الوراثي.
وبالرغم من تلك الحالة التي ورثناها فإننا نملك الإرادة للخروج منها سواء من حالة الجهالة بطلب العلم.
أو باكتساب القدرة من الله وبالتالي التخلي عن العجز باستمداد القدرة بحرية الإرادة وبذلك ليس هناك خطيئة دائمة ولا عقاب أبدي.

ولكن حالة السقوط الأولى هي الحافز على الصعود والكمال، وهو الصعود غير الممكن إلا بحرية الإرادة مصحوبة بالتوفيق الإلهي، أو النعمة الإلهية.

I read this for a class in Medieval Philosophy. I probably need to read it again to grasp it better.

Masterful work of its time, a dialogue easy to read, and a compelling blend of Patristic, Neoplatonic, and Stoic philosophy.

This was a pretty interesting book, especially when compared to what I expected. The mix of great ideas and occasionally faulty logic makes this a clear three, and while I wouldn't recommend it as a book to rock someone's philosophical foundations, it is still certainly worth the read.

This book wasn't as good as I remembered it. I really liked St. Augustine's remarks on reason and that reason is the greatest of all gifts that God gave to man.

He also tackles some really difficult questions that those who believe in God have to face when talking about the free will of man. If God knew you would be bad would he still allow you to be born and fail (knowing you would)? Is free will a bad thing because bad choices can bring bad results?

These were all really good questions Augustine proposes and addresses. He has probably been the most influential philosopher of the Christian faith.

I have to admit that for such a short book to read it took forever. I was bored by the arguments and the writing. I also had a hard time trying to understand how a guy who sang praises to the idea of reason would present very unreasonable claims and arguments. Overall, the book had some good knowledge, but it was a boring read.

Przydatne w eseju na olimpiadę i w sumie to skłania do przemyśleń o swojej bytności

Tackling free will, predestination, and the sovereignty of God is always going to wind up to be a complex affair that I think we'll always come up short on. It makes no matter if we're a revered figure like St. Augustine or a theologian or philosopher today. It may be an interesting affair, but it's just a topic that while we may come to our own conclusions, such conclusion are hard to prove as the way to understand these topics.

On Free Choice of the Will is a conversation that was recording between Augustine and one of his contemporaries about the topics of free will, predestination, and God's sovereignty. I've read that this is based on an actual conversation, but also know that this was a popular way of writing so I'm not completely sure. Either way the first half of the book is the most enjoyable and seeing the back and forth between Augustine and Evodius. However, this back and forth disappears as the book goes on and Augustine settles into an extended monologue which is not nearly as enjoyable to read.

This seems to be a common complaint I have with Augustine's works. Half of it is okay, but half of it is much less enjoyable than the other. Throw in the fact that Augustine uses some questionable arguments about the topic at hand and I'm not sure he really solves the problem set before him (not that I really think anyone can fully). Augustine settles on the idea that God doesn't cause the future to happen, he just foreknows the future. We still have free choice, but God simply knows what we will choose. It's not an answer I found particularly satisfying, but also from what I understand this was one of Augustine's very early attempts at this question and is dealt with in later works in a bit more detail. I don't know if this basic underlying idea changes, or whether he simply tries to provide better arguments for it.

So bottom line here is that I found it an okay book. It starts out interesting enough, but Augustine lost me a decent amount when he deviated into full monologue mode (how much more annoying this would have been if I were the other person in this conversation?). The back and forth also produces some interesting quotes, but despite this I just didn't enjoy it that much. If you're a big fan of philosophy or Augustine and want to see his early thoughts on this topic, go for it, but otherwise you can probably pass on this.

I was so thrilled to discover that Augustine is a libertarian, and that his defense of sin included our power to turn to God and discover that God will help us when we do so. I don't think this makes Augustine Arminian, but he's certainly no compatibilist or Calvinist (in this book at least). Writing a paper on this one, so hopefully I come up with a more powerful critique or support for a particular argument in here.

Second read: disagreed with a lot more in terms of arguments about superior/inferior things, but agreed a lot more with things where it was important to hold distinctions between bad and blameworthy actions. I think one of his arguments that natures are necessarily good is defunct, but it might be better to press him more on what superiority means and why its easily counterexampleable.

better than I thought it would be. good overall intro to Augustine, as accessible as the Confessions, and the dialogue form is quite sophisticated in places - reminds me (esp. in the beginning) of good moments from early Socratic dialogues.