Memory, self-examination, and time › The pear theft and the explanation of desire

In Book II, Augustine recalls stealing pears with companions. He says that he had access to better fruit and that much of the stolen fruit was thrown to pigs (II.4). These details remove hunger and the quality of the pears as adequate explanations of the theft. He wants to understand what attracted him when the ordinary benefit of obtaining fruit mattered so little.

His explanation attends to the attraction of the forbidden act and the pleasure of doing it with others. Later in the book he says that he would not have committed the theft alone (II.8-9). The companionship is part of what needs explaining. His account suggests that the same outward action can have a different meaning depending on what the agent wanted from it.

Consider a hypothetical student who helps conceal a harmless-looking prank because the group's approval matters more than the prank itself. That example does not establish Augustine's explanation of his own theft. It illustrates the distinction he invites us to examine: the object taken need not be the good the thief most wanted. An explanation that names only the stolen object can miss the social attraction of participating.

Augustine's theological interpretation goes further. He asks how wrongdoing can imitate goods such as freedom or belonging while directing desire badly. The episode therefore does not show that human action occurs without any attraction whatsoever. It asks why an apparent good, including companionship, can be sought through a wrongful act. Understanding the attraction and excusing the action remain different tasks.