Let us see. By the will we may mean the attitude of the ego toward its ideas, i.e., the element of decision, the fiat or veto, will in the narrow sense of the term.1 Or by will we may mean the so-called impulsiveness of consciousness, that is, the tendency of consciousness to act, the so-called self-determination of the soul.2 Thus in attention there is psychic energy. Whether I pay attention to a loud noise or force my attention upon my lesson, I am always putting forth mental energy, I am willing in the broader sense of the term. This psychic energy or conation is present in all states of consciousness; every state of consciousness is impulsive or energetic.

By freedom we may mean unhindered by an external force. A nation or individual is free when not hindered by an outer force; I am free when I can do what I please, that is, when my acts are the expression of my consciousness, the outflow of my own will, not the expression of some consciousness outside of mine. This is what the average man means by freedom when he applies the term to human beings. Man is free to do what he pleases, means that he is not hindered in his willing. In this sense there can be no doubt of the possibility of man's freedom. I am free to get up or sit down, free to teach or not to teach, as I please. If I will to get up, I can get up; if I will to sit down I am free to do that.

1 See chap. viii, § 3 (4). P 2120

See chap. viii, § 3 (4), p. 215, note 2.

But by freedom I may mean something else. I may mean by free something uncaused, undetermined, having no necessary antecedents, self-caused, causa sui, an uncaused cause. God, we say, is uncaused, not caused by something outside of Himself, causa sui.

If we apply this last conception to the will in the narrow sense of the term, free will means: The will is uncaused, undetermined by antecedents. I will that A be done instead of B, I give my consent, or assent, to A without being determined thereto by anything outside of me or inside of me. I, as will, decide for or against an act absolutely, without being influenced to do so. Not only, then, can I do as I please, but I can please as I please.

If we employ the term will in the broader sense, and accept the second interpretation of freedom, free will means: The energy of the soul, the activity or impulsiveness of consciousness, is an uncaused or indeterminate factor, dependent upon nothing. We can put forth any amount of effort of attention or psychic force at any time. The amount of effort put forth depends upon no antecedents whatever; it is not determined by anything; it is free or indeterminate.1

In short, the libertarian view holds that the will, in whatever sense we take it, is not subject to the

1 See James, Psychology, Vol. II, chap. xxvi; also "The Dilemma of Determinism," in The Will to Believe; Ladd, Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory, chap. xxvi.

law of causality; it is a cause without being an effect. Freedom here means, as Kant and Schopenhauer put it, the faculty of beginning a causal series. A man is free when he has the power to begin a causal series without being in any way determined thereto. Psychical activity is free when it acts without cause, when it depends upon no antecedent event. I will to perform a certain act; nothing has determined me to will as I did; under the same conditions I could have willed otherwise. However this view may be modified, freedom essentially means a causeless will.

The deterministic view opposes this conception, and holds that there is no such thing as an uncaused process, either in the physical or psychical sphere; that every phenomenon or occurrence, be it a movement or a thought, a feeling or an act of will, is caused, not an independent factor, but dependent upon something else.

4. Determinism. Which of these two views is correct? Is the will caused or uncaused? Let us see. By a cause we mean the antecedent or concomitant, or the group of antecedents and concomitants, without which the phenomenon cannot appear. The scientist explains things by revealing their invariable antecedents or causes, by showing that things act uniformly under the same conditions. It is a postulate of science that all phenomena in the universe are subject to law in the sense that they are caused, that there is a reason for their

being and acting so and not otherwise. Now can we apply the same formula to human willing, or, let us say, making the statement as broad as possible, to the human mind as a whole? Has the human mind any such antecedents or concomitants, or is it independent of them? Is there any reason why the mind should think, feel, and will as it does? Is it dependent upon anything for thinking, feeling, and willing in this way?

Science will naturally answer the question in the affirmative. Its ideal is to explain the world, and explanation is impossible unless things happen according to law, unless there is uniformity in action. Even where we are unable to find the invariable antecedents or causes, we imagine them to be present, though we may regard their discovery as practically impossible.

Now the scientific investigation of mind seems to show uniformity of action. Under the same circumstances the same states occur; the same antecedents seem to be followed by the same consequents. In the first place, we may say that in order to have human consciousness we must be born with human minds, with human capacities for sensation, ideation, feeling, and willing. Physiologically speaking, we must have a human brain, human senseorgans, a human body. In a certain sense, all human beings are alike dependent upon the nature of the consciousness which they inherit from the race. What a being is going to think, feel, and

will in this world depends, to some extent, upon the mental and physical stock in trade with which he begins life.

Not only, however, does man inherit the general characteristics of the race; he also inherits specific qualities from his ancestors. Just as a man may

inherit a weak or a vigorous brain and more or less perfect sense-organs, so he may receive from his nation or his ancestors a capacity for thinking, feeling, and willing in a particular way. In short, if we embrace all mental tendencies or capacities or functions under one term, character, we may say that every individual has a character of his own, and that this character is dependent upon the entire past. As Tyndall says: "It is generally admitted that the man of to-day is the child and product of incalculable antecedent times. His physical and intellectual textures have been woven for him during his passage through phases of history and forms of existence which lead the mind back to an abysmal past.' "1 We may say that the way in which the world affects an individual must depend largely upon his character. Physiologically stated, the impression made by an external stimulus upon a human brain will depend largely upon the nature of the entire organism affected, which does not merely receive excitations, but transforms them according to its nature. This character, this brain, is the heir of all the ages, an epitome of the past. It is what it 1 "Science and Man," Fortnightly Review, 1877, p. 594.

Y