The idea of will itself is an important aspect of the free will debate but it often doesn't get much focus, especially in connection with materialist determinism. The idea of will was at the core of the thinking of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud.

The psychodynamic approach gives it attention in relation to the conscious and unconscious aspects and the conflict between these. So many conscious choices may be thwarted by the subliminal mind and this is central to neurolinguistic programming approaches. The cognitive behaviourist model, even though it uses a different language framework, does still incorporate this in the emphasis on automatic thoughts, which can be questioned within the therapy.

As far as will and intentionality it is partly about developing self-mastery. It is a lot easier to have intentions but harder to live up to them, like all the broken new year resolutions. It is hard to change one's behaviour patterns for many, probably because they become habitual.

.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, I'm fairly certain that our minds operate through habits. Even your "style" of thinking is a habit which can be changed with concerted effort. Maybe even your ego. But there the question of will creeps in again. But I do want to expand that to encompass all the dimensions I touched on. How do you quantify 'cognitive effort'? Why is it 'difficult" (or not) to do the 'right' thing? Etc.

Excellent OP, Pantagruel.

I'm not sure that it follows that will is subjective, but rather that people have different attributes, capabilities, potencies of addictions, etc. It is much harder for an alcoholic to refuse a drink than for someone who just has a beer every now and then - even if the alcoholic might have significant willpower. I would say that the extent to which someone can accomplish something they will to or will not to do is instead relative based on their attributes and extraneous factors. But, if I'm being honest, a deficit of willpower is often the greatest obstacle to achieving the things one wants to achieve, imo.

I think something you don't address in the OP that is important, is the inevitable pain derived from the failure to accomplish what one wills. This is reciprocating insofar as the more one fails the more one's will to will decreases. What this means is that one should divorce the pain of failure from their actual failures and invite such things, thus "good".

While Nietzsche predated Jocko by over a hundred years, Jocko sums up a similar philosophy: compartmentalize the pain of failure and don't let it affect your will to will, or you will be consumed. This is why people become jaded and apathetic: fear of the pain of failure.

edit: deleted the thing on free will, it isn't relevant

Thoughts? — Pantagruel

A couple.

First a question - how is will different from intention?

In my experience, most of our actions are unwilled. Not that they are inadvertent, but that they arise without conscious or rational thought.

I'm not sure that it follows that will is subjective, but rather that people have different attributes, capabilities, potencies of addictions, etc. It is much harder for an alcoholic to refuse a drink than for someone who just has a beer every now and then - even if the alcoholic might have significant willpower. I would say that the extent to which someone can accomplish something they will to or will not to do is instead relative based on their attributes and extraneous factors. — ToothyMaw

Hmm. And I tend to think the opposite. Two people can have the exact same physical abilities, but one person is able to push further - past the pain barrier, per your second point. I do agree that some things are easier for some people and some things harder. But I also feel that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and, ceteris paribus, each person will find opportunity to use (or not use) his or her will, regardless of relative strength or weakness in whatever capacity is required.

First a question - how is will different from intention? — T Clark

That is what I was trying to catch in my intro - intending to do something is a choice, but there can be obstacles to enacting a choice. To what extent one is or isn't prevented by obstacles is where it becomes a question of will.

In my experience, most of our actions are unwilled. Not that they are inadvertent, but that they arise without conscious or rational thought. — T Clark

I agree, this I would say is the operation of habits. As mentioned though, will can also be internalized towards the modification of our own habits. Which can also be more or less difficult.

Hmm. And I tend to think the opposite. Two people can have the exact same physical abilities, but one person is able to push further - past the pain barrier, per your second point. — Pantagruel

I'm not saying that, quantitatively, willpower is constant across people, but rather that what willpower is is the same in each person so defined as in your OP; qualitatively it doesn't differ from person to person, even if it does in quantity. Thus, what one can accomplish is functionally relative to both their amount of willpower and their attributes and the extraneous factors imposed on them. Sorry if this seems pedantic; I'm just trying to come to a common understanding of the term in question.

That is what I was trying to catch in my intro - intending to do something is a choice, but there can be obstacles to enacting a choice. To what extent one is or isn't prevented by obstacles is where it becomes a question of will. — Pantagruel

I agree, this I would say is the operation of habits. As mentioned though, will can also be internalized towards the modification of our own habits. Which can also be more or less difficult. — Pantagruel

Sorry, I said something I didn't mean to say in one of my previous comments and then corrected it after you already responded to it. My newest comment represents what I think.

:up:

Insofar as ethics is concerned, the role of will would be relatively controversial, I think. However, I can say my own desire to seek some sort of higher moral truth is an act of will, as it certainly involves obstacles to my biased, although admittedly developed, primate brain. Thus, according to it as so defined, it is different from the mere intention of intending to do what is right or wrong. There is an impetus to discover, even if it takes me to some unpleasant or weird places.

edit: this is probably true for most people who study ethics

Insofar as ethics is concerned, the role of will would be relatively controversial, I think. However, I can say my own desire to seek some sort of higher moral truth is an act of will, as it certainly involves obstacles to my biased, although admittedly developed, primate brain. Thus, according to it as so defined, it is different from the mere intention of intending to do what is right or wrong. There is an impetus to discover, even if it takes me to some unpleasant or weird places. — ToothyMaw

Often I find myself ethically offended when I encounter selfish uses of the systems I manage by people who are exploiting their position and authority. My instinct is to challenge them and I do; and this has often created considerable conflict. Now, many people in my position would simply ignore such happenings, safeguarding their own jobs. On the other hand, it would be harder for me to do that. But am I right to act in ethical outrage? Maybe there are better ways. Is ethics always about what you think is right? Or is it about not doing what is easy? I just don't know.

Is ethics always about what you think is right? Or is it about not doing what is easy? I just don't know. — Pantagruel

Yes, I think that ethics is partially about doing the difficult things we know we ought to.

Some people might claim that ethics is largely a will to control, an attempt to impose one's - or their culture's - norms on others or those within their culture. But I think that this is inconsistent with actual formulations of morality, as nested within many of those formulations is the idea that people ought be free to live as they choose, so long as they do not step too far out of line. The preponderance of this seems too significant to adopt such a simplistic view.

But people want easy answers like that - ethics is about norms enforced by a will to control - and will is both the means and the end.

But people want easy answers like that - ethics is about norms enforced by a will to control - and will is both the means and the end. — ToothyMaw

I think this last observation is great. The will is both a means and an end; we must utilize our will in order to strengthen it. :up:

I guess it is easy to act in ethical outrage sometimes, and to suppress such things could be expedient and also more difficult. Compassion might be a hindrance in some cases, and a will would be required to overcome such an overriding imperative - or at least that is how it would be for me.

I think this last observation is great. The will is both a means and an end; we must utilize our will in order to strengthen it. :up: — Pantagruel

Thanks.

It is in this sense that the will as applied both externally and internally is the crux. — Pantagruel

The view of what is 'internal and external' in willing suggests different domains that don't ever become the sole province of the other. One example of this can be found in Proverbs 16:1:

The plans of the mind belong to man,
    but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. — RSV

So, there are thoughts and deliberations toward ends that we choose to be acted or not acted upon and that gets expressed through something more than the planning preceding it. The instrument that permits the expression is not formed by the plans. Much of the ensuing verses exhort the need to not become uppity or conniving as a consequence. The wise combine understanding with the best use of the instrument. What I find most interesting about this section is how being aware of what is happening is revealed through this focus on what gets revealed beyond or despite our intentions:

There is a way which seems right to a man,
    but its end is the way to death.
26 
A worker’s appetite works for him;
    his mouth urges him on.
27 
A worthless man plots evil,
    and his speech is like a scorching fire.
28 
A perverse man spreads strife,
    and a whisperer separates close friends.
29 
A man of violence entices his neighbor
    and leads him in a way that is not good.
30 
He who winks his eyes plans perverse things,
    he who compresses his lips brings evil to past. — RSV

Thoughts? — Pantagruel

Not sure what 'will' might be and I doubt it is rational. It sounds more like a literary, poetic term for a range of other factors in people's behaviour. People have a psychology and personality that propels them along and can even get in the way and sometimes kill them (lifestyle, suicide, etc). I tend to hold that people generally do not know what they want and often chaotically pursue things they think will provide happiness. This process is often kickstarted and instilled in them by parents and culture rather than their own creative volition. Do you see will as something belonging to idealism? As I understand it, Schopenhauer's will (one of the most famous accounts) is probably better understood as an energy which is blind and striving.

I don't know...it seems pretty self evident that you can give up easily or you can keep trying. Effort. I've spent a lifetime doing difficult things. My personal experience, will is real.

Effort. I've spent a lifetime doing difficult things. My personal experience, will is real. — Pantagruel

I'm not denying that people try things. But what is 'will' in this? What you describe may be a multifactorial psychological process rather than this poetic account of 'will'.

So what is will and can you articulate its elements in dot points?

So what is will and can you articulate its elements in dot points? — Tom Storm

I thought I characterized it pretty well in my opening post. I'm not interested in disputing its existence with a will-denier, if that's where your going. More in figuring out its role in relation to doing versus not doing, persistence in solving problems and learning, self-control, etc. Its existence isn't something that I doubt or want to debate.

It's existence isn't something that I doubt or want to debate. — Pantagruel

So perhaps you are not open to thoughts, only agreement. Ok.

More in figuring out its role in relation to doing versus not doing, persistence in solving problems and learning, self-control, etc. — Pantagruel

My point is that what you are calling will might well be a conflation of complex psychological processes. Worth considering.

I have spent three decades working with people who have chronic substance misuse issues and suicidal ideation. One of my roles is trying to identify people's 'will to live' (as you might put it). The concept of 'will' can be seen to map onto these issues - for instance, the lack of will to stop using substances and the loss of the will to live. In almost every case I have seen it is actually not will that is the issue. It ususally involves complex factors including interplay of trauma, loss, grief, identity. In other words, to make big changes and different choices, people don't need more will power, they need to reimagine who they are.

But I'll fuck off now. I enjoyed your OP.

Yes. 'Volitions' (i.e. more veto than volo) are only infrequent interruptions in involuntary systems, reflexes & habits (i.e. embodiment). I suspect, however, the libertarian (i.e. decisionist) OP is less counter-intuitive for most than a compatibilist conception of "willing".

My point is that what you are calling will might well be a conflation of complex psychological processes. Worth considering. — Tom Storm

I'd say it represents a fundamentally different approach to the psyche, which I don't share. However upon reflection, I would further characterize will as the psychic analog of negentropy. Similarly, the will is better understood through effect rather than cause, perhaps. It is no mystery that water flows downhill. But when it flows uphill, spawns creatures that grow limbs and write symphonies, the underlying cause does seem mysterious. However the effects are not.

Cool. It's fine that we disagree. I'l watch this with some interest. :pray:

'Volitions' (i.e. more veto than volo) are only infrequent interruptions in involuntary systems, reflexes & habits (i.e. embodiment). — 180 Proof

Are you saying that will is useful to stop us from doing something rather than motivating us to action? If so, I think I agree with you.

:up:

people don't need more will power, they need to reimagine who they are. — Tom Storm

Indeed. And do you not think that is the ultimate act of will? I had chronic substance abuse problems. And suicide attempts after my fiance was killed in a car due to criminally negligent driving by one of my best friends. I was painfully shy as a child and youth, and fearful of human contact. So I took karate to overcome that and became a black-belt. I've run fifteen ultra-marathons. I went into my first fifty-mile with a serious ankle injury, rolled it again near the start, and still finished. None of which was easy, quite the opposite. I feel I am well-qualified to evaluate the nature of will.

I am familiar with psychologistic approaches. Have you heard of Joseph Sirgy? He wrote an excellent book called Self-Congruity. His self-congruity theory explains peoples' actions and behaviour in terms of three motive forces: self-knowledge, self-esteem, and self-consistency. We want to know, we want to feel good about ourselves, and we want to maintain self-sameness or identity. But what is it that tips the balance of self-knowledge, for example, to override the other factors in some cases? As mechanical systems, we are subject to the law of entropy. We take the easiest path wherever possible. But some people don't. They consciously choose to do what is difficult, change themselves, change the world, evolve. That is will.

Indeed. And do you not think that is the ultimate act of will? — Pantagruel

Rather than will, what it often takes is the realisation of something you were not aware of. For instance, understanding that being sexually abused was not your fault can create a huge shift and remarkable change may follow from there.

Have you heard of Joseph Sirgy? — Pantagruel

No. I'm not a big theory guy.

I feel I am well-qualified to evaluate the nature of will. — Pantagruel

It's clear that the idea of will is very important to you.

I am not saying people don't appear to set and achieve goals, sometimes with the zeal of an addiction. I'm not saying that people can't be determined. I am just not convinced 'will' holds up to being fetishised or understood as a transcendent, transformative virtue.

I am not saying people don't set and achieve goals, sometimes with the zeal of an addiction. I'm not saying that people can't be determined. I just don't think will holds up to being fetishised or understood as a transcendent, transformative virtue — Tom Storm

I don't think identifying a capacity is fetishizing it. Transcendent? Well, again, that is a fundamental orientation. Yes, I believe in the transcendence of consciousness, at least to the extent that materialism is a box and there is stuff that doesn't fit into it.

You have person A with a set of problems. You have person B with a similar set of problems. You say that providing person A with a certain idea (X was not your fault) thereby gives A the ability to overcome some functional impairment. But then, different people are differently receptive to that idea. Some people cling to trauma. Some people can utilize external authority to facilitate change. In Freudian terms, the superego can be projected onto external authority figures. An abrogation of responsibility and will.

Yes, we are all ensconced in a set of contingent mechanical circumstances. I am a certain type of person with certain strengths and certain weaknesses and I was born into a certain social context. If my social context and my native capacities align well, I may roll happily through a life that unfolds easily along a gradient of traditional norms and goals. But even in the case of perfect adaptation, there is the nagging question, isn't there something more? Hence the mid-life crisis , the turn to involution. If we perfect our external adaptations, eventually we turn inward. Then an effort is required to break out of an easy and comfortable rut. But it is still will, it is always will. Anytime you do anything difficult, that is what you are exercising.

A decision is not an action. Some things are difficult and not easy. Will is what separates action from decision.