Anselm's De Concordia

[rkwright]

I'm working on a paper, using parts from St. Anselm's De Concordia and need a bit of help with something. In accounting for sin in the world Anselm talks about how things which are good acts of the will owe their existence to God, while things that evil from the will (sin) do not owe their existence to God because since they lack uprightness they lack any real existence.

[quote] Therefore, although God is a factor in all that is done by a righteous or unrighteous will in its good and evil acts, neverthesless, in the case of its good acts he effects both their existence and their goodness, whereas , in the case of its evil acts he causes them to be, but not to be evil. [/quote]
[quote]And so only in the kind of evil that is unrighteousness by which a person is termed unrighteous is it never the fact that it is an actual thing; and for something to be unrighteous it is not necessary for unrighteousness to be an actual thing.[/quote]
[quote]However, existing rightly is something and is owed to God, but not existing rightly is not something and is not due to God.[/quote]

So a few questions...
1- Is my representation above accurate?
2- Is it that sin doesn't really exist, but is the lack of existence and goodness in the world?
3- Is it possible for something in our will to not exist, yet the action follow?

Any help is appreciated!

Edited April 25, 2006 by rkwright

[Snarf]

I've only skimmed the De Concordia, but your assessment does seem accurate. When I did read it I was struck by the fact that Anselm borrowed heavily from Augustine. See the early life of Augustine when he speaks of realizing that "evil is nothing at all" and that "Evil is but the privation of good". I believe the theme is picked up later in the De Civitate Dei. However, in the De Concordia Anselm offers an explanation of free will (as opposed to divine prescience) that clearly borrows from Augustine's nature of time, but curiously Augustine never formulates the exact argument himself. My explanation was that Augustine saw the argument as "too tautological", and my professor seemed to agree.

[Guest JeffCR07]

first and foremost, [i]De Concordia[/i] cannot be read in a vacuum. If you want to fully understand Anselm's point here, you should also be aquainted with [i]De Veritate[/i], [i]De Libertate Arbitrii[/i], and [i]De Casu Diaboli[/i]. Regarding your questions, hopefully I can be of some help:

With regards to the first quote, we must recall from [i]De Libertate Arbitrii[/i] that freedom is "the ability to keep uprightness of will kept for its own sake." Now this uprightness of will is nothing more than willing what one ought to will. So, freedom them is "the ability to will what one ought to will for its own sake." Now sin is that deficiency in freedom by which we fail to will what we ought to will.

Now, when we analyze this more deeply we find that there are two aspect of significance:
1.) The actual act of willing, or the [i]power[/i] or [i]faculty[/i] to will.
2.) The orientation of what is willed to the Divine Will.

Now, the first can be said to exist, while the second cannot. 1.) is a faculty, 2.) is a relation.

Given this, we see that when we will as we ought to will, God is the source of both the existence of the faculty AND the goodness of the relation, because we will "as we ought to will" precisely because we will in accord with God. However, when we will in a manner in which we ought not to will, then God is the source of the faculty, but NOT the source of the relation, because we will "as we ought not to will" precisely through a rejection of God.

Thus, we see that in good acts, "He effects both their existence and their goodness, whereas, in the case of...evil acts he causes them to be, but not to be evil."

******

With regards to your second question: Sin lacks existence but sin [i]is not[/i] the lack of existence. Rather, for Anselm sin is the failure of the will to keep uprightness for its own sake. Sin is a lack of proper orientation within a particular context, not, as you have it formulated, the lack of existence or goodness more broadly.

With regards to your third question, you are equivocating between the power or faculty of the will and the relation of the will-in-action to the Divine Will. I suggest you read Anselm's [i]Philosophical Fragments[/i], [i]De Grammatico[/i], or [i]De Conceptu Virginali[/i] for a fuller exposition of Anselm's philosophy of Will.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[rkwright]

thanks jeff for the further clarification!

Breaking down the act in the 2 ways you did pretty much answers all the qusestions.
I probably should also read all the other writings you have mentioned before writing this paper, sadly I'm a bit short on time wtih finals week fast approaching.

[rkwright]

[quote]1.) The actual act of willing, or the power or faculty to will.
2.) The orientation of what is willed to the Divine Will.[/quote]

Jeff could you point me to where Anselm breaks this down?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[i]De Libertate Arbitrii[/i] and [i]De Casu Diaboli[/i] are his formal discussions of Free Will and Original Sin, he treats the question in depth there. Moreover, he discusses willing in detail in [/i]Philosophical Fragments[i].

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

Edited April 26, 2006 by JeffCR07

[rkwright]

One more question...

Since it seems that Anselm is holding that true evil is in the lacking of uprighteousness in the will, are there are any acts or actions alone that evil?

[quote] Therefore, although God is a factor in all that is done by a righteous or unrighteous will in its good and evil acts, neverthesless, in the case of its good acts he effects both their existence and their goodness, whereas , in the case of its evil acts he causes them to be, but not to be evil. [/quote]

Especially with this quote in mind, it would seem that Anselm has God completely control of every action, and that sin is always in the intent but not the act? But what of moral philosophy that points to an act is evil depending on both the intent and the action?

To me Anselm may have it better here, because even 'good intentions' are usually not Holy intentions, are usully bad intentions masked with justifications. I can live with that if its true, but I just want to see if theres something more I'm missing...

On a side note I finished up bits of On Free will, and am working on the fall of the devil and have to admit that I really like Anselm's theodicy a lot better than what I've been raised in.

[rkwright]

After reading from Virgin Conception and Orginal Sin, I'm almost postive that Anselm does hold that acts are not lacking in justice, only the will.

[quote]My argument that an action is called unjust not in itself, but rather through an unjust will, is clearly demonstrated by those things that on occasion are done not entirely without justice, such as killing a man, as Phineas did; or sexual intercourse between married couples or between animals. However, it is less obvious in things which can never be done without injustice, such as perjury, and other actions which perhaps we will not name here[/quote]

So a new light on morality? Ends (read as intent) justify the means?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Your most recent quote is a flagrant misunderstanding of St. Anselm's doctrine and reads a moral relativism into his thought that simply does not exist.

Yes, Anselm argues that sin can exist only in the will. This is why we do not say that a child who trips and accidentally pushes his friend off a bridge is a murderer.

No, this does not mean that the ends justify the means. Good intent is not sufficient, for Anselm, to make an upright will. Remember, freedom is "the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake" and uprightness of will is [i]willing what we ought to will[/i].

I cannot stress this enough: Just because our intent is good does not mean that we are willing what we ought to will. Thus, if we will something that we ought not to will, even if our intention is good, then we have sinned and have failed to keep "uprightness of will" (justice).

I urge you, read Anselm more carefully.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[rkwright]

hmm it seems that I made too quick a jump on the ends justify the means comment, my apologies.

But I think post # 7 is not quite a flagrant misunderstanding is it?

Either way your wording and understanding is far greater than mine, thanks for all the help, trying to muddle through this alone can be difficult at times.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I apologize for snapping at you earlier: I am feeling kind of sick today, but that is still no excuse.

Now what I would warn against is saying that "God is completely in control of every action." For Anselm, God does not cause us to do what we do, but rather, God is said to be the "cause" of an action because it is He who creates and sustains the will that does the action. So [i]we[/i] are the cause of all of our choices, but the ability to choose is possible only through God.

So the will is good in and of itself, and God caused it to be. Moreover, the will operating is good, because that is what it was meant to do. However, when the object of the will's operation is not in line with the object of the Divine Will, then we have sin, which is failure to "keep uprightness of will for its own sake."

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff