1

I am reading Anselm's On the Fall of the Devil, and I encountered an odd bit of language that I can't quite wrap my head around. In Chapter 12, Anselm (through a religious teacher) attempts to argue that we have two wills, one for happiness and one for "rectitude" (i.e. the ability of a thing to perform the action to which it was assigned). In this discussion, he brings up a hypothetical, where God is creating an angel "part by part." So far, God has made the angel "apt to will," but has not yet given him a will to use. How is this phrase supposed to function? Clearly, "apt to will" cannot mean "ability to will," since Anselm claims that the angel cannot will, nor will himself to will. Are we to understand "aptness to will" as some sort of placeholder where the will goes? It seems to me that one can either will, or one cannot, and this seems to be some odd middle ground. Any clarification on this question would be sincerely appreciated. Cheers.

EDIT (Quote in context; Teacher to student): "So I am speaking of his own power when I ask about the newly created angel whom we are imagining, who up to this point has been made apt to have a will but does not yet will anything. Can he will anything on his own? Answer in terms of his own power."

scoopfaze
  • 125
  • 6
  • Can you give the quote in context? – CriglCragl Mar 14 '20 at 02:48
  • 1
    [Latin *aptus*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/aptitude) meant "fitted to", and was used for "capacity to learn" in a similar way. A child may not have an ability to read, nor an ability to teach herself to read, but still has the capacity to learn how to read because all the physical and mental prerequisites are in place. In other words, a child is fitted to read whether she has the ability or not. One could call it an ability to possess an ability without a refitting, a redesign. – Conifold Mar 14 '20 at 04:35
  • @Conifold That's rather helpful, thanks! – scoopfaze Mar 14 '20 at 05:27
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the [tour](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/tour) or find [help](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help). You can perform [searches here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/search) or seek additional clarification at the [meta site](https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/). Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the contributor. – J D Mar 15 '20 at 19:13

1 Answers1

1

Not having read the book, I can only approach this from a language-use perspective. In that sense, I would not interpret it as a placeholder, precisely, but more in the sense of a 'ripeness'. The analogy would be to a field that has been cleared and plowed, but has not yet been planted with any seed. The angel, thus, would have the capacity for will but not the actuality of it. It could, perhaps, perform tasks much in the way a sophisticated computer can — following instructions with a perfect literalness — but it cannot choose actions for itself.

I don't know if this is an overtly religious work, or which of the Abrahamic traditions (if any) it stems from, or I might be able to say more; there are lots of theological echoes here. But hopefully that's a start.

Ted Wrigley
  • 17,769
  • 2
  • 20
  • 51