Abstract
This chapter examines the ways in which Hobbes and Bramhall link liberty and necessity to inner or outer causes or “necessities” in their seminal controversy on free will. The chapter shows that Hobbes and Bramhall were not arguing on the particular Hobbesian doctrine of necessity, which focuses on intrinsical necessity or volitional determinism, but on ethical and theological consequences of predestination and determinism in general, and on Hobbes’ denial of an autonomous free will. Consequently, Hobbes’ particular doctrine of necessity and liberty could not have been refuted by Bramhall, who argues against deterministic doctrines in general and in particular against extrinsical necessity – not Hobbes’ position. Bramhall denies that Hobbes could acknowledge internal deliberation, consultation, or election. However, Hobbes describes at length the process of internal computation and deliberation in terms of mechanics and internal motions of volitions or appetites, thereby purporting to make moral philosophy “scientific.” External causes are only the beginning of complex internal causations which constitute the real beginning of voluntary motions, which are internally generated. Hobbes even employs an introspective argument, which later became commonplace in Empiricist argumentation. The introspective method or reflection was supposed to provide Empiricists philosophers with direct insight into the real essence of mental phenomena, and Hobbes explicitly contrasts this experiential proof with Bramhall scholastic verbalism. Given the importance of this controversy, it is surprising that the core of Hobbes argument was not debated. As the issues of intrinsical necessity and volitional determinism were not discussed, no wonder that this controversy could have never been resolved.
An earlier version of this chapter, “Bramhall and Hobbes on intrinsical and extrinsical necessity,” appeared in Dascal, M., Fritz, G., Gloning, T., Senderowicz, Y. (Eds.). 2001. The Bramhall-Hobbes Controversy (Technical Report 1). Tel Aviv: Research Group “Controversies in the République des Lettres”: 41–47.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sources and Abbreviations
Bramhall, J. 1645. A discourse of liberty and necessity. (DLN)
Bramhall, J. 1655. Vindication of true liberty from antecedent and extrinsical necessity. (Vin.)
Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan, The Project Gutenberg EBook of Leviathan [EBook #3207], Release date: October 11, 2009.
Hobbes, T. 1655. Of liberty and necessity (LN). In Molesworth, William (ed.). 1966. The English works of Thomas Hobbes. Aalen: Scientia.
References
Chappell, V.C. 1999. Hobbes and Bramhall on liberty and necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dascal, M. 1998. Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. In Dialogue analysis VI, vol. 1, ed. S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova, O. Mullerova, and J. Svetla, 15–33. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Hall, E. 2010. Hobbes’s liberty and Skinner’s discontent. Politics 30(1): 11–17.
Herbert, G.B. 1989. Thomas Hobbes: The unity of scientific and moral wisdom. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Hunter, G. 1989. The fate of Thomas Hobbes. Studia Leibnitiana 21(1): 5–20.
Jackson, N.D. 2007. Hobbes, Bramhall and the politics of liberty and necessity: A quarrel of the civil wars and interregnum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, S.I. 1962. The hunting of the Leviathan: Seventeenth-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishori, D. 2003. The dilemmas of the dual channel: Reid on consciousness and reflection. The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 1(2): 141–155.
Mishori, D. 2004a. Arguing from inner experience: The inner sense from Locke to Reid. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Mishori, D. 2004b. Locke on the inner sense and inner observation. Locke Studies 4: 145–181.
Mishori, D. 2005. Subjective arguments: Instances of introspective moves in empiricism. In Subjectivity and controversies, ed. P. Barrotta and M. Dascal, 251–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Russell, P. 2011. Hobbes, Bramhall, and the free will problem (Chapter 20). In The Oxford handbook of philosophy in early modern Europe, ed. D. Clarke and C. Wilson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, Q. 2008. Hobbes and republican liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Den-Enden, H. 1979. Thomas Hobbes and the debate on free will: His present day significance for ethical theory. Philosophica 24(2): 185–216.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishori, D. (2014). Extrinsical or Intrinsical Necessity? Hobbes and Bramhall on Free Will. In: Riesenfeld, D., Scarafile, G. (eds) Perspectives on Theory of Controversies and the Ethics of Communication. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7131-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7131-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7130-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7131-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)