Abstract

Volition and exertion play key roles in Reid’s philosophy, but his handling of them has been disputed. Some claim that he identifies volition and exertion, others that he is inconsistent or unclear about this. Some claim that he quietly slides between using ‘exertion’ in two or three different senses. I aim to clarify Reid’s notions of volition and exertion, and to defend him against the charges of inconsistency and ambiguity. I argue that from 1780 to 1792 he consistently distinguishes volition and exertion. Throughout this period, he takes a volition to be a decision or intention to do something, and an exertion to be an attempt to do something. I maintain that ‘exertion’ is no more ambiguous for Reid than it is for any ordinary speaker of English.