Intellect.

The objective reality of a thing cannot be demonstrated as necessary by pure practical reason, without first being conceived as possible by pure speculative reason.

Kant does acknowledge the primacy of practical reason, but only within considerations of morality in rational agencies, and it is not so much the primacy of the practical taken within the complete spectrum of reason itself, but rather allows that which the limitations intrinsic to the speculative, denies.

In Kant, practical reason is still pure, just not speculative, insofar as the practical incorporates, or proves, or demonstrates the necessity for, an objectively, albeit not physically, real object.

And I hesitate to suggest Kant himself would acknowledge the modernism of “voluntarism”. Seems more the case that term has been assigned to him by others, and would be more appropriately given to Schopenhauer, who didn’t consider the will as connected to reason at all. While Kant does consider the will as the source of personal conduct, it is not the supreme principle of it, and the human will has no say whatsoever in the general being of the Universe.

My opinion in language form, of course.

And I hesitate to suggest Kant himself would acknowledge the modernism of “voluntarism”. Seems more the case that term has been assigned to him by others, and would be more appropriately given to Schopenhauer, who didn’t consider the will as connected to reason at all.

I agree, (I think the author is referring to ethical voluntarism--which I'm not really interested in this context of epistemology).

BTW, what do you think about Schopenhauer's metaphysical voluntarism (did he support his theory based upon things like scientific cause and effect and other natural phenomena)?

I have to admit a knowledge of S to be decidedly less than a knowledge of K. But I do know S was just as much a transcendental idealist as K, based his philosophy on the presupposition that Kantian transcendental philosophy stood as fair accompli, even going so far as “....putting an end to (fourteen centuries of) Scholasticism...”.*

I also understand S to have a greater respect and utility for the principle of sufficient reason, “...to which I have given the name the ground of being...”**, than Kant, who rather favored the principle of universality and necessity, re: logical law. S claims the necessity of law derives immediately from sufficient reason, which just can’t be right!!!! I mean, c’mon, man. Everybody knows the understanding is the source of all that good a priori stuff. Jeeeez, Arthur!!! Get a grip!!

As to your question concerning S’s use of scientific cause and effect to ground his theory, I would have to say both S and K accepted Hume’s claim that cause and effect was an undeniable principle in itself with respect to human a posteriori knowledge, but K went so far as to extrapolate the connection between them which Hume did not attempt, while S, on the other hand, denied the methodology K used to do it, substituting his own based on an improper understanding of Kantian transcendental logic and the Analytic of Principles.***

I find S just tried waaaaayyyy too hard to one-up his immediate peer, but doing a rather messy job of it.

*WWR, Bk 2, Appendix, pg 17, 1819;
**WWR, Bk I, par3, 1819;
***https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/9110/auslegung.v12.n01.033-044.pdf?sequence=1

Question: which camp do you fall under; do you consider the will taking primacy over the intellect, or the opposite? — 3017amen

Neither. As Spinoza points out, "will and intellect" are, in effect, indistinguishable, or complementary. (Ethics, IIProp49)

Voluntarism
To begin with, there can be no discrimination.

Dilthey says the intention to understand precedes conceptual cognition. I'd go along with that. If it's a chicken or an egg thing then I'd say it is a primitive 'will to understand' that comes first.

Et al.

I thought this was an interesting distinction made from Schopenhauer's metaphysical voluntarism viz the contrast from Kant's thing-in-themselves (nature of existence). Generally, Kant reduced limits of reason to (unknowable) phenomena, whereas S reduced it to the Will (as taken from the Schopenhauer's Will in Nature):

"My system therefore, far from soaring above all reality and all experience, descends to the firm ground of actuality, where its lessons are continued by the Physical Sciences.

Now the extraneous and empirical corroborations I am about to bring forward, all concern the kernel and chief point of my doctrine, its Metaphysic proper. They concern, that is, the paradoxical fundamental truth, that what Kant opposed as thing–in–itself to mere phenomenon (called more decidedly by me representation) and what he held to be absolutely unknowable, that this thing–in–itself, I say, this substratum of all phenomena, and therefore of the whole of Nature, is nothing but what we know directly and intimately and find within ourselves as the will;

that accordingly, this will, far from being inseparable from, and even a mere result of, knowledge, differs radically and entirely from, and is quite independent of, knowledge, which is secondary and of later origin; and can consequently subsist and manifest itself without knowledge: a thing which actually takes place throughout the whole of Nature, from the animal kingdom downwards;

that this will, being the one and only thing–in–itself..."

[ Commentary: Schopenhauer attaches a far wider meaning to the word than is usually given, and regards the will, not merely as conscious volition enlightened by Reason and determined by motives, but as the fundamental essence of all that occurs, even where there is no choice.]

With respect to "no choice" (volitional existence) in Psychology (Voluntarism is interesting in that it covers a lot of disciplines), my view is more of an unconscious will to live and survive, and to have beliefs and hopes about our existence here. Otherwise we have denial of the will that's manifested by some things like:

-personal experience of an extremely great suffering that leads to loss of the will to live.
-knowledge of the essential nature of life in the world through observation of the suffering of other people.

My question is, what is the metaphysical will to exist (both for Man, and Universe)?

My question is, what is the metaphysical will to exist (both for Man, and Universe)? — 3017amen

To be is mandatory, since there can be no opposite; so, will is not required.

:smirk:

Shakespeare was right
For fear or flight
To be or not to be
What's the meaning of life

Hey Poetic, can you break that down a little bit for me... when you said ' to be is mandatory ...' what are you saying?

In other words, are you thinking that is some sort of a metaphysical necessity? Or a conscious necessity of sorts...

In other words, are you thinking that is some sort of a metaphysical necessity? Or a conscious necessity of sorts... — 3017amen

A metaphysical necessity since there can't be 'Nothing'.

To be or not to be — 3017amen

Being or becoming: that is the question
That haunts existence’s investigation:

Whether ’tis simpler for the All to offer
The slings and vectors of a told fortune
All at once, as a marble monument,
Or to perform in the sea of actions,
And by disposing ever create them?

Question: which camp do you fall under; do you consider the will taking primacy over the intellect, or the opposite? — 3017amen

I don't think Scotus was on the right track, as will can easily be misguided without intellect and intellect does not exist a feasible way of life without will. I don't see how someone can be an "intellect" (i.e. live a consistent/rigorous lifestyle) without will. It seems contradictory, doesn't it? 'Like living like a nihilist'.

I prefer to view intellectualism as a form of lived lifestyle; one that must be continuously practiced/active - not just merely being intelligent and capable of high processing speed, so a sense of voluntary will is required and must be issued to be an intellectual.

You can also "will to not be an intellectual" .. and we call those the willfully ignorant. So there is a 'willful intellectual' so to speak. This is where I think Scotus & Thomas lose me. Will without intellect results in a reckless fool, intellect without will results in possibly losing your mind, this is likely what happened to Nietschcze. He died before his death. He was a walking dead. He died from a loss of all will, brokenness .. succumbing to his own mind, and then he physically died from an illness.

Hey everybody, thanks for contributing thus far... . I don't know about you guys but I think this is a wonderful thought experiment.

I'm not sure which camp I fall under, however, I'm leaning toward Schopenhauer a bit.

Though my theory, hasn't been fully worked out, I'm thinking on a human scale that the Will could reside in the primitive limbic system. We already know that human sentience is supposed to reside there. And just based on scale itself, because the limbic system is much smaller than the other parts of the brain, perhaps there's a correlation there.

Meaning by virtue of scale, it's possible the Will is the metaphorical heart of the brain, which then pumps blood impulses to the larger parts that are performing the intellectual functions. And maybe those impulses (dumb/raw emotion of sorts) represent the crude oil needing the refinement over to the intellectual area of the brain.

I know that's far from any exhaustive analysis... but I'm just trying to grapple with this innate sense of the 'will to survive' and how that impulse or energy seemingly makes us want to exist.

And speaking of existing things, I wonder about the metaphysical will in nature... and how Kantian things-in-themselves are able to be . How many things in nature are seemingly harmonious...