Will is whatever it is that makes things move. The explanation for a softball's movement is the same (fundamentally) as the explanation for the movement of galaxies. — frank

Yet I won't find that from any physics book. Why would you give old Schopenhauer more credence than modern physics?

I mean you literally would find that in a physics book. That's a pretty standard idea in physics - the nonvariance of physical laws across huge spatial distances. But maybe we're not reading the same books. Which 'physics books' are you referencing? Or is this just more 'common sense heroes throwing off the chains of obscurantists'?

I mean you literally would find that in a physics book. That's a pretty standard idea in physics - the nonvariance of physical laws despite huge spatial distances. But maybe we're not reading the same books. Which 'physics books' are you referencing? — csalisbury

Not the description. It wouldn't attribute that to "Will", surely?

Not will. Newton attributed it to God. I don't know what most modern physicists attribute it to. What do the physics books you've read say? The most recent one I've read, attributed 'time' to humans, citing Heidegger favorably. I can link you, if you like.

Not will. Newton attributed it to God. I don't know what modern physicists attribute it to. What do the physics books you've read say? — csalisbury

A force, like gravity. What I'm questioning is why anyone would give Schopenhauer with his Will or Newton with his God the time of day, instead of going by what the physics books say.

We need to be careful here. Are 'physics books' mediums of knowledge or are they signifiers, like magic cards, we can lay down for this or that argument. Cards we don't understand yet summon, as the magician's apprentice did. Again, I ask, what physics books are you thinking of?

We need to be careful here. Are physics books mediums of knowledge or are they signifiers, like magic cards, we can lay down for this or that argument. Again, I ask, what physics books are you thinking of? — csalisbury

Mediums of knowledge. And nothing in particular, just the general basics of physics, which I studied at G.C.S.E. level in secondary school, which I own a few books on, and which can be read about through various sources online

The general basics of physics, as taught in school, don't purport to give an explanation of their cause though, so why would you bring them up as though they do?

The general basics of physics don't purport to give an explanation of their cause though, so why would you bring them up as though they do? — csalisbury

What? The cause of what? What are you referring to with "their"?

The force would be the cause. Physics explains that.

Physicists do this thing where they try to explain laws, like gravity. Why does gravity work as it does? What's the explanation? You must have come across that in your physics books, somewhere.

There are different theories. I have a book on quantum gravity, for example. What's your point? You think that the philosophy of Schopenhauer would better explain things like gravity? (And it's a force, not a law).

I don't know. The way you ask that question makes me think you'd shut down Augustine and Heidegger as well. Yet Carlo Rovelli, no scientific lightweight, cites both favorably. It seems that well-trained physicists are able to see different tacks as approaching similar phenomena through different lenses. In short, real scientists don't need to fetishize science.

Not the description. It wouldn't attribute that to "Will", surely? — S

Schopenhauer wasn't saying that there's a special thing called Will that makes things move. He was analyzing the way we think.

When we think of volition we might think of the world as having dual causes of locomotion: natural causes and the special purposeful causation attributed to animals.

Schopenhauer, being a determinist, believed that there is really only one cause of motion. I don't recall what he thought that is, but he had a scientific outlook.

What's cool about Schopenhauer is that he didn't just stop thinking and say that freedom of the will is an illusion. He went on to place our perception of freedom in a fairly startling picture of the universe. Definitely food for thought.

I don't know. The way you ask that question makes me think you'd shut down Augustine and Heidegger as well. Yet Carlo Rovelli, no scientific lightweight, cites both favorably. It seems that well-trained physicists are able to see different tacks as approaching similar phenomena. In short, real scientists don't fetishize science. — csalisbury

I own two books by Carlo Rovelli. In one them he praises Democritus and the atomists, whilst criticising Plato. Yes, I would shut down much of Augustine and Heidegger, but maybe there are some saving graces of which I'm not aware.

You're suggesting that I'm "fetishising" science, just because I'm questioning why you'd turn to Schopenhauer over matters which seem to pertain to physics? Clearly I value philosophy, too, but not to an unreasonable extent. I don't fetishise philosophy.

You're suggesting that I'm "fetishising" science, just because I'm questioning why you'd turn to Schopenhauer over matters which seem to pertain to physics? Clearly I value philosophy, too, but not to an unreasonable extent. I don't fetishise philosophy. — S

Good. Don't fetishize anything. Rovelli didn't and that's why, if he were a poster, and other posters were discussing, say, the Mahabharata, he wouldn't jump into say -- 'yet I won't find that in any physics book.' Instead he integrated it wonderfully.

(aside: it's not 'will', it's 'force'. )

Good. Don't fetishize anything. Rovelli didn't and that's why, if he were a poster, and other posters were discussing, say, the Mahabharata, he wouldn't jump into say -- 'yet I won't find that in any physics book.' Instead he integrated it wonderfully. — csalisbury

Go on then, what's the Mahabharata supposed to be? The capacity for doing work, which exists in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms?

And the Ding an sich, let me guess. That's how fast an object is moving, a vector quantity that indicates distance per time and direction?

Dasein? Well that's obviously the mass per unit volume of any material substance.

(aside: it's not 'will', it's 'force'. ) — csalisbury

In Schopenhauer?

No it's a kind of joke. 'It's not 'will' but 'force', as S said, is just exchanging one word for another. There are many nuances to bring in here, but in the relevant post, it was simply that kind of exchange.

No it's a kind of joke. It's not 'will' but 'force,', as S did, is just exchanging one word for another. — csalisbury

But for good reason, given that "will" is taken to be something quite different these days. It doesn't generally have the meaning that Schopenhauer attributed to it, or the meaning that Schopenhauer attributed to it according to Frank, anyway.

Go on then, what's the Mahabharata supposed to be? The capacity for doing work, which exists in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms?

And the Ding an sich, let me guess. That's how fast an object is moving, a vector quantity that indicates distance per time and direction? — S

I don't know, I guess you'd have to ask the guy who cites it. I couldn't say if he's knowledgable enough to list all those types of work, that's pretty hard-sci and anyone would struggle, but maybe he gets close.

The vector quantity stuff might be above his paygrade though.

I don't know, I guess you'd have to ask the guy who cites it. I couldn't say if he's knowledgable enough to list all those types of work, that's hard-sci, but maybe het gets close. — csalisbury

It just sounds a tad revisionist to me. Anyway, so Schopenhauer's great contribution was to take the findings of Newtonian physics, and give it a different name, "Will"? Is that about right?

I don't think so. He seems to be more preoccupied with Kant.

Think of it this way.

There's a guy in a small town and he's hemmed in by this and that. Regulations, mores, all of that stuff. People are asking him to adhere to bullshit things for no reason.He's sick of it, and isn't going to put up with it anymore.

Now, how is the guy going to do this? One option is full-throated rebellion, fuck you, I'm doing my own thing. The other is to seek the protection of a third party. This will allow him to rebel, but with someone he can call upon. 'Fuck your god! ...Science, are you there?'

What's the psychology of this? well, you idealize the third party. It's less about what they are, then the capacity they have to intervene on your behalf.

What gives them that power? Well. It works. You can see the results. The same way a feudal lord is visibly powerful based on his estate. You can call on him, when need be. But unless you get close to the source of that power, and understand it, its just vassalage.

And its clear when an invocation of a lord is just that. It's derived power. Which is a trope in movies. I offer no fealty to Rovelli, though I like reading him. But when you meet someone claiming power from science in this way, you gotta say, ok, you're invoking something - but do you even know what you're invoking? What is going on here? Stand on your own. You claim the name of your lord, though your lord seems not to really be down with what you're doing. So what can you say without giving the answer to implicit high school physics questions?

Why would you listen to Schopenhauer when Physics knows already.

I don't even like Schopenhauer mostly, but this kind of appeal is lame. It's cheerleading essentially.

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. So we've resorted back to insinuations of Scientism, and that I don't know enough about physics to have any input, or maybe that I can't think on my own two feet because I largely agree with what I do know of physics. The bottom line is that it was somehow wrong of me to have the gall to appeal to physics in my criticism, because you will react like I've pissed in your cereal, and start an agressive interrogation about what physics books I've read and whatnot.

You could have just said so, and in less words.

Just read some before attacking, everything will get more interesting

responding to the edits. I mean, huff all you want S, you entered the thread trying to negate the whole thrust of someone else's point. Breakfast cereal and piss, nonwithstanding, if your approach is negating you're gonna get negated. Don't aggressively invoke 'physics books' and then complain people are being aggressive to you about 'physics books.'

Fair, but what is 'nature'? — csalisbury

Here's some few comments I've made about what I think nature is:

To me, logic is the expression of the laws which govern activity in nature. Here, nature being interactive reality and thus the relative aspect or designation of reality. — BrianW

I believe everything is within the purview of nature (reality's mode of operation), otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognise them. Also, if logic is adhered to, nothing should be beyond nature, just beyond our understanding or appreciation of it... — BrianW

Also, I don't believe in randomness/chance because I believe reality works in intelligent mechanisms. For me, intelligence is definite and therefore negates randomness/chance. Also, if this were a random universe, it would lack the constancy of the laws of nature. — BrianW

Well, in spite of all of your lengthy replies and insinuations, and in spite of my "huffing", the bottom line is that no physics class in any formal educational institution would teach that it is in fact Schopenhauerian Will which makes things like beach balls and galaxies move, which is the thrust of what I was getting at, and we both know that that point is true, in spite of your inventive ways of dancing around it, which means, like it or not, that I was right. The negation was successful.

The next step would be to acknowledge that there's a reason for that, which would be that it's either redundant, or that it lacks the required support that the high standards of science expect.

You obviously have some gripe with the fact that much of philosophy is outdated and no longer seen as credible, and with the fact that I jumped in to point that out. That's too bad.