So, basically, my proposition is this: that inhibitions are evidence of an active will-power, without which, a person can neither be said to be intentional in application of intelligent influence and, to some degree, even the instinctive reactions are diminished. — BrianW
The problem with this idea is that many inhibitions have a neurological source that is not conscious and cannot be consciously rejected without great difficulty, if at all. — Judaka
Though I think some of your examples just demonstrate that people are contradictory, capricious and complicated. — Judaka
I'm trying to find the connection between inhibitions (the restraint we apply un-/sub-/consciously) and will-power (the motivation towards 'something') because they both seem to reflect a symmetry in the nature of force/influence they exert such that they could almost be said to be different phases of a singular factor. — BrianW
I think will power can be in service of inhibition or lack of inhibition. — Andrew4Handel
that inhibitions are evidence of an active will-power — BrianW
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.