I find Luther and Erasmus' view points over free will to be insightful. Luther states free will is, "an empty name... a fiction and a label without reality" (Conley 122). As Americans we will fight and die for the freedom to do what we want. But, do we really have complete free will? One could argue that we are able to express ourselves freely and essentially do whatever we want to do, and the restrictions are nessasary in order to prevent chaos. However, the correct answer is no. In certain circumstanses our first amendment is taken away from us. We have laws to abide by. This is Luther's point. No one can fully, completely and entirely be completely free to do whatever they want. In a working society it is not plausible. The best the government can do is give people the essentials, and try to maintain order.
Erasmus, though correct in his analysis, takes a way out of the argument by seeing both sides. He states, "It is not that man's will really is free, but that the only way to arrive at a tenable position is by subjecting it to the skeptical methods of controversia" (123). What? I don't even know what this means. But I'm pretty sure he is taking a semi-middle stance, leaning more toward there being free will. He criticises Luther for being extreme, but all he is doing is choosing a side. He says there is no free will. Luther is not saying: well, there is free will but not always. Anyone can argue that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Erasmus is arguing from an ironic and satiric viewpoint. He does attack Luther for his viewpoints because of his dedication to his view of the Truth (notice the BIG T). There is no one easier to satirize than a person who is so gung-ho about their beliefs or stances that they see no other side. This is Erasmus' view as he looks at all sides of the free-will arguement and comes, eventually, to a logical decision.
ReplyDelete