St. Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio is by far the most important of the saint’s philosophical works. Although he wrote it fairly soon after his conversion and before the Pelagian controversy broke out, he had no need to change his views in later life, but continued to recommend that it should be read. In spite of its title, it is not a discussion on the nature of free will, nor an analysis of the psychological circumstances in which choice is exercised. The (...) author himself tells us, in his Retractations, that it was written to answer the Manichaean objection to Christianity that, since the presence of evil is undeniable, it is inconceivable that God can be both almighty and infinitely good. The saint in his reply traced evil to sin, and sin to free will. Hence the title of this book. Since it was written before Pelagianism arose, there was no need to go into the difficulties of grace and free will, so the treatise is philosophical rather than theological. It contains the fullest exposition in any of his writings of his proof from reason for the existence of God, and in setting out the argument he deals with some of the deepest problems in philosophy. (shrink)

Students will be grateful to Fr. Koren for this very readable introduction to a difficult subject. While he admits that there is no such thing as “metaphysics without tears”, he nevertheless insists that true metaphysics must be taught to all students. He deplores the increasing tendency to water down courses and to cater to the lowest grade of intelligence. But, while he sets a high standard for the students he has in mind, he keeps an eye to their capacities and (...) makes the subject as clear and simple as possible. This is first and foremost an exposition of Thomistic philosophy. Historical and polemical considerations are given only at the end of each problem. After each chapter or section the author provides a list of suggested readings which are very much to the point and should be a great help to those who would like to go more deeply into the problems treated. On controverted points he usually takes the stricter Thomistic position. If there is a defect in the book, it is to be found in the style, which is often too close to the Latin to make easy reading. (shrink)

The average person who has ever made a decision is fully aware of the fact that the will is free. But the problem of free will has for long been the centre of philosophical controversy. Dr. Antweiler’s recent contribution is a comprehensive and very readable study of the question. Beginning with an examination of the nominal definition of free will, he gives the status quaestionis and indicates the limits of the problem. Next, he gives us the various arguments proving the (...) fact of free will, before giving us a long section on the nature or essence of free will. And lest his tale be without a moral, he concludes with a few moving pages on freedom as a responsibility: noblesse oblige. (shrink)

Spinoza has been variously represented as a pantheist, a sceptic or an atheist. But whatever about his pantheism, he would have been shocked at being called an atheist. For Spinoza, the pursuit of philosophy was never a mere academic exercise, but rather a search for a way to true happiness, for “the road to inner freedom”, the experience of the amor dei intellectualis. All his writings are characterised by this ethical aim, and to his greatest philosophical work he gave the (...) simple title Ethica. The Ethica has long since become a classic in philosophy and it is Dr. Runes’ very laudable intention in the present edition to bring it down to the level of the greatest number of people. Dr. Runes is a lifelong student of Spinoza and makes no secret of his enthusiasm for his favourite author. In the present work he gives us a selection of extracts from the Ethica which bears no trace of the complicated and almost forbidding lay-out of the original. But, in the attempt to popularise the Ethica, the editor has omitted most of the reasoning which gave the original its philosophical appearance. Not only must the reader be satisfied with extracts, but Spinoza’s order of treatises is changed and we are given parts 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, in that order. This means that, whereas Spinoza began with the treatise on God, the one substance, from which he deduced his whole system, Dr. Runes introduces the divinity only towards the end. Curiosity may lead the thoughtful student to read the original, where he cannot fail to be struck by the logical inconsistency of Spinoza’s philosophy. But if he bears in mind the sad circumstances of the philosopher’s personal life, he will not be too severe in his criticism of the persecuted Jew. (shrink)