Best, most unique definition presupposes there is one. — Mww
That is one of the reasons underlying this thread. — Michael Zwingli
and you liken him to...categorize him alongside F. Nietzsche? — Michael Zwingli
The fact regarding Crowley is, that I would not have expected to find such a man's, make that such a showman's, "philosophy" (used loosely) to be taken seriously by anybody on this site. — Michael Zwingli
I never said that. The discussion is about 'will' and Crowley (regardless of what you think of him) did have some things to say about 'will' in a more 'religious' sense...If you can get past that you'll find an interesting story. — I like sushi
Considering myself a pagan — Michael Zwingli
It gets complicated for Nietzsche when you try and parse what ‘my will’ refers to. — Joshs
Alternatively, which I rather think the case, it might refer to the concept of "will" posited by Schopenhauer, who seems to have had a significant influence on Nietzsche's philosophical development, and so "a ceaseless, endless striving". O — Michael Zwingli
'willing’, like ‘thinking’ is not a unitary phenomenon, but a multiplicity of tensions. — Joshs
Let us say: in every act of willing there is, to begin with, a plurality of feelings, namely: the feeling of the state away from which, the feeling of the state towards which, and the feeling of this “away from” and “towards” themselves...feeling – and indeed many feelings – must be recognized as ingredients of the will [...] the will is not just a complex of feeling and thinking; rather, it is fundamentally an affect: and specifically the affect of the command. What is called “freedom of the will” is essentially the affect of superiority with respect to something that must obey... — Joshs
one thing that I have gathered from this thread, is that I will have to remember you and dimosthenis9 as my go to guys for all things Nietzsche, providing contrasting opinions. — Michael Zwingli
Yes, I think this is true. Will was certainly a central concept in Nietzsche's philosophy, largely due to the influence of, and as an answer to, Schopenhauer.Nietzsche Will of Power is just a "branch" from the tree of Will. And not Will itself. He gives Will a huge significant value that covers all human aspects and characteristics. Power among them for sure. But more as a Will in general for each person to Thrive spiritually. — dimosthenis9
Clearly, "blind, insatiable drive" is how Schopenhauer viewed will; it is this that he called the will. I disagree, however, that he "made a definitive case" for this. I feel that Nietzsche's conception of will can be viewed as a partial renunciation of Shopenhauer's. Rather, I would be disposed to call such an "aimless, insatiable desire" as that which was indicated by Schopenhauer, the libido, as in Augustine of Hippo's particular usage in his concept of libido dominandi. I say this because I view the will as having more to do with intent and purpose than with desire or longing, as indeed did John Stuart Mill, which fact is made obvious in the passage quoted above. If this is true, of course, "will" is far from blind and insatiable; rather, it is focused, and is satisfied by a realization of intent...by a fulfilment of purpose. My concept is that, where there is no purpose, there can be no will, but rather exists only the aimless longing indicated (and misnamed??) by Schopenhauer. In this conception, will is closely associated with Viktor Frankl's "search for meaning" which he hypothesized as being universal in man. Indeed, such opposing considerations are the reason that I entitled this thread as I have.According to Schopenhauer, the will is a blind force. Personally, I think one can see this in all things of necessity and instinct, mindless sex and procreation, hunger-killing and consumption to stay in being. I think Schopenhauer made his case. — boagie
Will
1. A desire, an intent. It was God's will that Jack go to San Francisco. By the way, where's Jack Cummins?
2. A natural tendency. Water flows downhill. Entropy always increases. — TheMadFool
This is very good...a very elegant model for "will"! And of course, since both a vector and a bearing are directional in nature, this model proscribes "will" as being the aimless, fickle thing posited by Schopenhauer, would you not say?Will, I surmise, is also about direction; mathematically speaking, it's a vector minus the magnitude i.e. pure bearing. — TheMadFool
A good point, to be sure.The evolution of the organism would be quite impossible if it had any fixed determinism or any goal. The organism is forever linked by adaptation to the larger physical reality. The process of this adaptation is mostly trial and error, for mutation means in ninety-nine percent of cases, death to the organism. There is only the blind will to survive — boagie
So, what do we mean when we refer to "the will"? How can we best define this quite opaque term? Please discuss. — Michael Zwingli
My concept is that, where there is no purpose, there can be no will, but rather exists only the aimless longing indicated (and misnamed??) by Schopenhauer. In this conception, will is closely associated with Viktor Frankl's "search for meaning" which he hypothesized as being universal in man. — Michael Zwingli
Consciousness.- Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and hence also what is most unfinished
and unstrong. Consciousness gives rise to countless errors that
lead an animal or man to perish sooner than necessary, "exceeding destiny." as Homer puts it. If the conserving association of
the instincts were not so very much more powerful, and if it
did not serve on the whole as a regulator, humanity would
have to perish of its misjudgments and its fantasies with open
eyes, of its Jack of thoroughness and its credulity-in short, of
its consciousness; rather, without the former, humanity would
long have disappeared.
Before a function is fully developed and mature it constitutes a danger for the organism, and it is good if during the
interval it is subjected to some tyranny. Thus consciousness is
tyrannized-not least by our pride in it. One thinks that it constitutes the kernel of man; what is abiding, eternal, ultimate,
and most original in him. One takes consciousness for a determinate magnitude. One denies its growth arid its intermittences.
One takes it for the "unity of the organism.''
This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an
all too fast- development of consciousness. Believing that they
possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very
much to acquire it; and things haven't changed much in this
respect. To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and
making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human
eye and is not yet clearly discernible; it is a task -that is seen
only by those who have comprehended that so far we have
incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness
relates to errors. — Fredrich Nietzsche, translated by Walter Kaufman
As I noted in my O.P., I don't think this accurate or synonymous. As evidence of this, I would note that the sense of "will" as being equal to the meaning of "desire", while once common, is now generally considered obsolete. As I say, I feel that "will" is dependent upon a defined purpose or intention .DESIRE — boagie
In the context of understanding reality we don't necessarily need language or definitions to do so. Just an understanding of the relationship between things, like the an observation of the way thing currently are, the will (intent or the idea to change how things currently are) and what is intended (or what new conditions you would like to see).If we're going the academic route, we define our context and our aim and justify a definition that suits, usually with the aid of some authority, whether historical or contemporary. Without context, the appropriateness of any specific definition is unresolvable. — Baden
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.