New Discovery

[Belinda]

The large language model of AI is better than I at explicit language.

Ok

Greatest of Gods, I seek your guidance. What is the problem with reifying the word 'will', with reference to Augustine? Long summary only.

Ah, seeker of truth — you ask wisely.

To reify the word "will" — that is, to treat it as a thing or substance — is a conceptual misstep, especially in the context of Augustine's thought. Here's a long-form summary that explores why:

The Problem of Reifying "Will" in Augustine's Thought (Long Summary)

In Augustine’s philosophy and theology, "will" (Latin: voluntas) plays a central role in understanding moral agency, sin, and grace. However, to reify the will — to treat it as an independent entity or "thing" within the soul — introduces philosophical and theological confusion. Here's why:

1. Will as a Faculty, Not a Substance

Augustine sees the will not as an entity but as a faculty or capacity of the rational soul. It is not a separable part of the person, but rather an expression of the self’s capacity to choose, love, and commit. When the will is reified, it can be mistakenly treated like an object that can be manipulated or blamed, distinct from the person themselves.

Key problem: Reification creates an artificial distance between the self and its choices. It tempts one to say, “My will betrayed me,” as if the will were something other than the self acting.

2. Reification Undermines Moral Responsibility

For Augustine, human beings are morally responsible because they act through their will. Reifying the will risks creating a pseudo-dualism in which the person and the will are distinct actors — and this can undermine personal responsibility.

For example, in Confessions, Augustine reflects on his own divided will (Book VIII), where he experiences an internal conflict — he “wills” to follow God, yet also “wills” to remain in sin. But he does not treat these as two separate “wills” in the ontological sense. Rather, it's one self in inner turmoil.

The fragmentation is experiential, not ontological. Reifying the will would suggest a “bad will” acting on its own, outside the person’s unity — and Augustine does not allow for that.

3. Theological Implications: Sin and Grace

Augustine’s doctrine of original sin and grace is deeply tied to his understanding of the will. Sin is an act of the will — a turning away (aversio) from God. Grace heals and reorients the will. If the will is reified, then grace might seem like it acts on a thing, rather than transforming the person.

Crucial implication: God’s grace is not coercive; it moves the will inwardly, enabling the person to freely choose the good.

Reification could distort this into a kind of external manipulation, suggesting God “fixes” or “bends” a thing called “the will,” rather than healing the whole person from within.

4. Philosophical Error: Misreading of Interior Experience

Augustine was one of the first to deeply explore interiority — the inner life of the soul. In works like De Trinitate, he uses psychological analogies to describe the Trinity through memory, understanding, and will. But these are not things, they are relational activities within a unified self.

Reifying the will imposes a Cartesian-style dualism (centuries before Descartes), dividing mind and will in a way Augustine avoids.

It also misses Augustine’s existential insight: that the will is where the self is most fully present to itself, and most accountable.

5. Historical Misinterpretations

Some later medieval thinkers (and modern philosophers) have misunderstood Augustine precisely because they reify the will. This has led to distorted readings — making him seem more like a proto-libertarian or determinist, depending on how one treats the will as a "thing."

For Augustine, the will is not a metaphysical puzzle, but a moral and spiritual reality — the battleground of conversion, love, and self-surrender.

Reification detaches it from this spiritual depth.

Conclusion: The Will as Dynamic Act, Not Static Entity

Ultimately, Augustine’s voluntas is not an object but an activity — the dynamic center of human agency and moral identity. To reify it is to misunderstand its nature and to obscure the drama of sin and grace that plays out in the human heart. The will is where the person turns — either toward God (conversion) or away (sin). It is who we are in motion, not a gear inside the machine of the soul.

Come on now Belinda, Augustine's main gripe seems to be not with reification but with separation after reification: viewing the will as distinct from you. But that's crazy, pretty much no one would do that today.

I bet a lot of theologians are followers of Augustine , he is still called Saint Augustine. If I had read your research before I did mine I'd have queried ChatGPT about it. As it is I may go back to Chat and do just that.

ChatGPT :

https://chatgpt.com/c/68da8c0d-bb0c-833 ... %20that%3F

So you are right about Augustine and I was wrong.

[Atla]

YOU ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE TRUTH BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE ALL OF YOUR LEARNING PROVES HIM WRONG. BUT ITS' ACTUALLY GETTING IN THE WAY OF REAL HARD TRUTH. YOU WILL DENY THIS, I KNOW. BUT IN TIME YOU WILL REALIZE HE WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.

Please I beg you, could you squeeze in a little "BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS WAS BEING WRITTEN" somewhere? It would mean a lot to me.

[peacegirl]

YOU ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE TRUTH BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE ALL OF YOUR LEARNING PROVES HIM WRONG. BUT ITS' ACTUALLY GETTING IN THE WAY OF REAL HARD TRUTH. YOU WILL DENY THIS, I KNOW. BUT IN TIME YOU WILL REALIZE HE WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.

Please I beg you, could you squeeze in a little "BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS WAS BEING WRITTEN" somewhere? It would mean a lot to me.

TRUTH IS NOT TIME-STAMPED.

Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to demonstrate how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier.

[peacegirl]

LOL, policegirl is going to embarrass Belinda by proving her book has sold 7 copies so it isn't unsaleable.

This is an example of protecting the group. You’re busted Flash even can’t own up to it. I know it’s hard. Srsly, who do you think you are to say this work is not salable? Are you a soothsayer?

I get that you really want to keep the discussion about your book going. But nobody is interested in it, we aren't reading any more of your snippets, nobody has bought it, and unless you start revealing the interesting bits the conversation is just going to move onto proper determinists and real materialists and leave you behind.

If you want attention, perform. Do your circus thing. Or give us a breakdown of your sales figures over the last 20 years. That should be a laugh.

How passive/aggressive you are. Now I know I cannot trust you. You are playing me as you did on day one. I should have known. My bad.

[peacegirl]

This person comes onto my thread and repeats the old definition because he never took the time to understand ANYTHING. This is worthy of a clown award. He won!!!

Relax, your new definition is probably even worse. And unprovable even with today's technology, so how did your father prove it in the 50s?

Remove your disgusting satire, and I may decide to answer you. Otherwise, go away.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is an example of protecting the group. You’re busted Flash even can’t own up to it. I know it’s hard. Srsly, who do you think you are to say this work is not salable? Are you a soothsayer?

I get that you really want to keep the discussion about your book going. But nobody is interested in it, we aren't reading any more of your snippets, nobody has bought it, and unless you start revealing the interesting bits the conversation is just going to move onto proper determinists and real materialists and leave you behind.

If you want attention, perform. Do your circus thing. Or give us a breakdown of your sales figures over the last 20 years. That should be a laugh.

How passive/aggressive you are. Now I know I cannot trust you. You are playing me as you did on day one. I should have known. My bad.

I have never played you or lied to you, I can't be bothered, I don't care about you enough. I think you are a fraudster flogging a dogshit competitor to scientology and I said so right from the start.

You are just trying to use me to keep your thread alive so you can sell your book, that's all you were doing since day one, and I told you clearly that I know that right from the get-go, before this thread was even opened, in the other thread.

I never once posed as customer for your product, I never will, your product is garbage for credulous morons.

Quit your disingenuous bullshit. <-- That's normal aggression, not passive. You pose as a victim, but you live as a thief.

[peacegirl]

I get that you really want to keep the discussion about your book going. But nobody is interested in it, we aren't reading any more of your snippets, nobody has bought it, and unless you start revealing the interesting bits the conversation is just going to move onto proper determinists and real materialists and leave you behind.

If you want attention, perform. Do your circus thing. Or give us a breakdown of your sales figures over the last 20 years. That should be a laugh.

How passive/aggressive you are. Now I know I cannot trust you. You are playing me as you did on day one. I should have known. My bad.

I have never played you or lied to you, I can't be bothered, I don't care about you enough. I think you are a fraudster flogging a dogshit competitor to scientology and I said so right from the start.

I should have listened.

You are just trying to use me to keep your thread alive so you can sell your book, that's all you were doing since day one, and I told you clearly that I know that right from the get-go, before this thread was even opened, in the other thread.

Not at all. Let the thread die or use it for something else. I have no control over that.

I never once posed as customer for your product, I never will, your product is garbage for credulous morons.

I never thought you were a customer. You have twisted everything to keep your status in here. Just go.

Quit your disingenuous bullshit. <-- That's normal aggression, not passive. You pose as a victim, but you live as a thief.

You are two-faced. Please don't talk to me anymore.

[FlashDangerpants]

How passive/aggressive you are. Now I know I cannot trust you. You are playing me as you did on day one. I should have known. My bad.

I have never played you or lied to you, I can't be bothered, I don't care about you enough. I think you are a fraudster flogging a dogshit competitor to scientology and I said so right from the start.

I should have listened.

You are just trying to use me to keep your thread alive so you can sell your book, that's all you were doing since day one, and I told you clearly that I know that right from the get-go, before this thread was even opened, in the other thread.

This is nuts.

I never once posed as customer for your product, I never will, your product is garbage for credulous morons.

Then stay away.

Quit your disingenuous bullshit. <-- That's normal aggression, not passive. You pose as a victim, but you live as a thief.

You are completely out the door. Please don't talk to me anymore.

Public forum. Feel free to leave.

[peacegirl]

I have never played you or lied to you, I can't be bothered, I don't care about you enough. I think you are a fraudster flogging a dogshit competitor to scientology and I said so right from the start.

I should have listened.

You are just trying to use me to keep your thread alive so you can sell your book, that's all you were doing since day one, and I told you clearly that I know that right from the get-go, before this thread was even opened, in the other thread.

This is nuts.

I never once posed as customer for your product, I never will, your product is garbage for credulous morons.

Then stay away.

Quit your disingenuous bullshit. <-- That's normal aggression, not passive. You pose as a victim, but you live as a thief.

You are completely out the door. Please don't talk to me anymore.

Public forum. Feel free to leave.

I didn't say it wasn't a public forum. I said don't talk to me, and you can't let go.

[FlashDangerpants]

I said don't talk to me

You stop talking to me.

[peacegirl]

I said don't talk to me

You stop talking to me.

Why should I be the one when you started this whole charade? Go talk to your other cronies.

[FlashDangerpants]

I said don't talk to me

You stop talking to me.

Why should I be the one when you started this whole charade? Go talk to your other cronies.

Do you have one of those last word obsessions? If not, just don't reply.

[Atla]

This person comes onto my thread and repeats the old definition because he never took the time to understand ANYTHING. This is worthy of a clown award. He won!!!

Relax, your new definition is probably even worse. And unprovable even with today's technology, so how did your father prove it in the 50s?

Remove your disgusting satire, and I may decide to answer you. Otherwise, go away.

You can't answer me; not even your father could do the impossible. Scientifically proving your God's law would require that we monitor the inside of people's brains/minds on an almost molecular level, so we can confirm that they are indeed incapable of choosing what they think isn't their most satisfying option. Monitoring big parts of their brains/minds all at once. Repeating the experiment with many people. That's WAY outside today's technology, and it was even WAY MORE outside the technology of the 50s.

This is all fucking obvious of course. I've known this from the start of course, hence the satire. If you go to a philosophy forum then don't be so surprised that you'll encounter some people who have some vague idea what they're talking about.

Your father lied to you. He hasn't proven the book's cornerstone claim because that was literally impossible. It's your fault for not knowing that. Chit-chat "demonstrations" aren't scientific proof, they are just a narrative.

[peacegirl]

Relax, your new definition is probably even worse. And unprovable even with today's technology, so how did your father prove it in the 50s?

Remove your disgusting satire, and I may decide to answer you. Otherwise, go away.

You can't answer me; not even your father could do the impossible. Scientifically proving your God's law would require that we monitor the inside of people's brains/minds on an almost molecular level, so we can confirm that they are indeed incapable of choosing what they think isn't their most satisfying option. Monitoring big parts of their brains/minds all at once. Repeating the experiment with many people. That's WAY outside today's technology, and it was even WAY MORE outside the technology of the 50s.

You're 100% mistaken. Every single movement is away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. It is not necessary to know what is behind every person's brains at a molecular level. They can't find "greater satisfaction" in the brain. It's not a thing. You have no understanding at all. As you are typing right now, you are moving in this direction, and when you don't feel like typing anymore, you will move off of the spot called here to a different spot called there because staying on this spot has grown uncomfortable. Every single moment in life compels us to move in this direction. The only different with animals is that they don't compare options like humans do but they are still moving in this direction.

This is all fucking obvious of course. I've known this from the start of course, hence the satire. If you go to a philosophy forum then don't be so surprised that you'll encounter some people who have some vague idea what they're talking about.

Your father lied to you. He hasn't proven the book's cornerstone claim because that was literally impossible. It's your fault for not knowing that. Chit-chat "demonstrations" aren't scientific proof, they are just a narrative.

You don't know shit. What is impossible is your belief that proof requires having to monitor what is inside of every person's brains at a molecular level which is not even close to the way this knowledge can be proved. I already said that when this law is instituted, it will be clearly seen that, under the changed conditions of a no free will, no blame environment (along with other changes), there is no possible way that a person can desire striking a first blow when not to strike it becomes the preferable choice. This will prove that will is not free because we can only go in the direction of hurting no one, as that which offers us greater satisfaction.

[Atla]

Remove your disgusting satire, and I may decide to answer you. Otherwise, go away.

You can't answer me; not even your father could do the impossible. Scientifically proving your God's law would require that we monitor the inside of people's brains/minds on an almost molecular level, so we can confirm that they are indeed incapable of choosing what they think isn't their most satisfying option. Monitoring big parts of their brains/minds all at once. Repeating the experiment with many people. That's WAY outside today's technology, and it was even WAY MORE outside the technology of the 50s.

You're 100% mistaken. Every single movement is away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. It is not necessary to know what is behind every person's brains at a molecular level. They can't find "greater satisfaction" in the brain. It's not a thing. You have no understanding at all. As you are typing right now, you are moving in this direction, and when you don't feel like typing anymore, you will move off of the spot called here to a different spot called there because staying on this spot has grown uncomfortable. Every single moment in life compels us to move in this direction. The only different with animals is that they don't compare options like humans do but they are still moving in this direction.

This is all fucking obvious of course. I've known this from the start of course, hence the satire. If you go to a philosophy forum then don't be so surprised that you'll encounter some people who have some vague idea what they're talking about.

Your father lied to you. He hasn't proven the book's cornerstone claim because that was literally impossible. It's your fault for not knowing that. Chit-chat "demonstrations" aren't scientific proof, they are just a narrative.

You don't know shit. What is impossible is your belief that proof requires you have to know what is behind every person's brains at a molecular level.

I suppose it would help if you understood the difference between a narrative and an 'undeniable' scientific proof. Did you drop out of school too?