# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0037
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0037?run=74
# Title: The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, And Chance (shelfmark Leibn. Marg. 163)
# Folio 25, page id 1030877386:0037
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=1030877386&page=37
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/1030877386/jpgs/default/00000037.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 66 lines, status machine
# Lines: 66 recognised, mean confidence 0.87
# Machine transcription. Not an edition. Errors are expected: about 8% character error rate on Latin and French lines, higher on German.
# Licence: CC BY 4.0, Leibniz Legible. Machine output: do not ingest it as verified text; keep this provenance with the text.
# Wording rule: say "the machine reads it as …", never "Leibniz wrote".
# After the first blank line: the recognised lines in reading order, one per line.

MEE
esire and
liberus
DM. (5
May be
nilede.
acionol
hen ne
lies 8D.
hisonn
e Lore
are not
nEcal.
1S May
Whien
recria
nece.
a46.
Dpini.
5 m)
lre
Neen
ne-
enceot
vil
welli
re disre.
28
spect mo. He WaS diverced (hesarth) by trittes called
busnels. t seems then he actenomlede eth that the nill can be
divertedbys business. thichiboneh said onthe By, iscontrary
Trhinte to themayne, thac the Will is Frec; for free it is not if
any thing but it self can divertit.
b) The very Ars words oE T. FI. his detence, erip ux
chehreeles oF his whole caule, _c.
Fem so? Thad once (saithhe) Resolred. T0 Retolre
pixsuppoleth deliberation. Buc whac deliberation can chere
beoF chac whicb is incricably decermined wichone our
selres ? There is no man doubesbut a man may deliberaie of
nhat himsets Ball do, Wherher thethine beimpessible or not, in
case hebnomnot ofthe impossibility; thongh he cannot deliberate
of rhat another sall dorohim. Therefore his examples of the
man condemned, of the manthat breatheth, andof him that crom-
eth, (becanse the Dnestion is not urbat they sall do) but hat
they sall suffer, are impertinent. T his is soevident, chat L monder
hon hethat was before sorvitty, asto say, my first mordstript up
ivebecles of my cause, and that havine line enonch L mould con-
fure my self, conldpresently beso dull, as not 10 sec his Aren
ment mas too meal 10 suppore so triumphant a langnace. And
hereas heseemeth to beoffended mith Paradores, Uet himthante
the Schoolmen nhose sencelessvritines, have made the createst
number of important Truths seem Paradoxe.
(C) This Argument thatfolle methis nobetter. T0 Relolre
(Saith he) implies a mans dominion over hisactions, and
his actual decerminarion oFhimselF, _c.
If he understand Wtat ic is co Relolre, he hnomes that it
senifies no more then (aster deliberation) eo Will. Flethintes
therefore co Will is to have dominion over his cion actions and
actnallu to determine his oon Will. But noman can determine
his omn mill; for the mill is appetile, nor can a man more deter-
mine his willthananz other appetite; that is, more than he can
determine nhen besall be hunery and mhennot. W hen a man
ishunery, it is in bis choise to eat or not eat; thisistheliberti
ef the man; Butro behunery or not huvery (whichisthat mbicto
Thold to proceed from necessicy) is not in his choise. Besidesthese
mords dominion orer tus omn actions, and decermination