Free will is one the most central philosophical topics in Olivi’s writings and clearly something that he thought was crucial. This is a topic where he did not hesitate to claim what he thought the truth was, and his fiercest opposition to ‘‘worshippers of Aristotle’’ concerns denials of the absolute freedom of the human will. As Olivi argues, our main social practices like political power and judicial punishment, and emotions like love, hatred, shame, and gratitude, are all based on the assumption that people act freely. Even personhood depends on taking oneself to be free. Such a fundamental assumption shared by all humans cannot be wrong, Olivi argues. He has also some more metaphysical arguments to prove human freedom, but they are interesting primarily in showing how he understood the freedom at issue.
As Olivi saw it, the freedom of the human will is based on the capacity to control one’s will oneself so that the will is a self-mover. This is not to be understood in the sense that the will could not be moved from the outside. Rather, Olivi claims that normal healthy adult humans have a will that is able to move itself independently of external influences. That is, he admitted that the will in children, madmen, and drunkards can be and often is moved by external forces. A strong emotion may force a madman do something, but a mentally healthy adult person is able to control himself even in the face of a strong emotion. Freedom is, thus, a self-reflexive capacity where a person takes, with a second-order act, control over the first-order acts of the will directed at external objects. That is, people make genuinely free choices when and only when they make the choices consciously as their own choices. Olivi did not think that the will would be constantly active in making free choices, though he did think that all humans have the potential for free self-control. People do not always think about what they are doing, but they are always free to take control of themselves.
Olivi rejected the Aristotelian assumption that given the premises of a practical syllogism, the action follows as a necessary conclusion. A free person may choose otherwise, he says, though admitting that people do often consider rationally what would be the best course of action for a certain end. But people are free to follow the best course of action or not, even without giving up the end. Positing the end is also dependent on the will, even in the case of the ultimate end that is sought for no other further end. In Olivi’s example, if you hate your enemy and find by reasoning the best way to harm the person, this reasoning does not bind you to an action. You are free not to harm the person you hate, and you are even free to begin loving the person for his or her own sake.
Olivi uses the idiom “intellectual beast’’ to describe what a human being without freedom would be. Person-hood is grounded on freedom, and Olivi thinks that free will is the ground for human dignity. He claims that if given the choice to continue life without freedom, anyone would prefer nonexistence.
World History
