Schopenhauer didn’t see it necessary to ascribe a polarity to will, because he saw will as the basic substance of existence, rather than reality. He saw reality as a simple projection of it.
Other philosophers since, howevar, did consider the issue.
Maybe just one.
(Not Heidegger lololololololololololol)
Is will wish? No. Is will intention? No.
Will is that which presses “go.”
What suspicion? You don’t think a person could hallucinate and confuse fantasy with reality?
So I guess it’s just this philosopher’s wording that confused me.
True, but the will is what makes the choice. Here is his excerpt again which applies to what we are talking about:
[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed death. I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer”…
Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from here to there, however slight or imperceptible, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction, otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.[/i]
Again, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind and presuming some measure of human autonomy: absolutely shameless!
I noted my own admittedly problematic ideas/assessment/conclusion regarding determinism and moral responsibility above: Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to “choose” an abortion. But insist some compatibilists/free will determinists, she is still morally responsible for doing so.
Then the part where some determinists argue that of course they will insist this. Why? Because anything that any of us insist we insist only because our brains compel us to. Nothing material in the entire universe is an exception to the rule.
But: The enormous mystery then embedded in the explanation of human minds given this…
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
I don’t know what all that is about, I just wanted to discuss a line of thinking with you.
Click.
We’re done then! ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Really?
I want to discuss a line of thinking with you.
Click, we’re done.
What are you here for, if not to discuss lines of thinking?
I really like you iam, I would like for you to be able to just chill and talk about it. But if that’s where you draw the line - at a calm discussion about ideas - I understand.
Click.
Not done?
Okay, then I’m back to this:
I don’t know what any of that has to do with the offer I made to you earlier of some ideas I want to discuss. You were asking how responsibility works in determinism, I was offering to have a conversation with you to work through the thought processes involved for the people that think that.
Again, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind and presuming some measure of human autonomy: absolutely shameless!
I noted my own admittedly problematic ideas/assessment/conclusion regarding determinism and moral responsibility above: Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to “choose” an abortion. But insist some compatibilists/free will determinists, she is still morally responsible for doing so.
peacegirl: She was responsible for making the choice to abort. You are responsible for choosing to post here. The past is not forcing you. It is YOU that is is responsible for moving your fingers and typing. That does not mean you are responsible for choosing what is beyond your control.
Iambiguous: Then the part where some determinists argue that of course they will insist this. Why? Because anything that any of us insist we insist only because our brains compel us to. Nothing material in the entire universe is an exception to the rule.
Peacegirl: There IS is no exception but the way you word it is incorrect. Our brains compel us to choose what offers us the most preferable option when comparing one thing over another. Why else were we given the attribute of contemplation if not to mull over our options to give us the best choice possible in our eyes? You can’t find one example where this is not true. The way you put it, our choices are not our own. We are forced. If you don’t clear this up in your mind, you will keep regurgitating that we are the result of a causal chain where there is no room for choice. It’s the definition that is problematic, but don’t let me tell you that.
Iambiguous: But: The enormous mystery then embedded in the explanation of human minds given this…
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
Peacegirl: Sorry but your reasoning is full of ^*#+
Click.
Then we’re stuck. We apparently want to discuss determinism and responsibility [moral and otherwise] from different angles.
My own assumption here is that given human autonomy, Mary is not compelled to abort Jane and, after discussing her pregnancy with a friend, chooses to give birth instead and Jane is around to participate in this discussion herself.
But if Mary’s brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels her to abort Jane, Jane was never not going to be toast.
Only then the truly surreal part:
Discussing all of this given that we seemingly have no way in which pin down the actual existential parameters of the “click” part:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
The analogy being those in Flatland never able to grasp the reality of our own three dimensional world.
Similarly with things like string theory, the suggestion that our three-dimensional world is embedded in turn in a reality that our brains even given autonomy may never be able to crack: space.com/more-universe-dim … 0of%20time.
Then back to fitting that into this: youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0
Iambiguous: Click.
Then we’re stuck. We apparently want to discuss determinism and responsibility [moral and otherwise] from different angles.
My own assumption here is that given human autonomy, Mary is not compelled to abort Jane and, after discussing her pregnancy with a friend, chooses to give birth instead and Jane is around to participate in this discussion herself.
But if Mary’s brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels her to abort Jane, Jane was never not going to be toast.
Peacegirl: After the fact, Jane was never not going to be toast, but before the act she may have changed her mind. This is not fatalism which states that your course is set in stone before you even do anything. This gives people a feeling of resignation that whatever they do won’t change the outcome, so there’s no point. 
Iambiguous: Only then the truly surreal part:
Discussing all of this given that we seemingly have no way in which pin down the actual existential parameters of the “click” part:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
The analogy being those in Flatland never able to grasp the reality of our own three dimensional world.
Similarly with things like string theory, the suggestion that our three-dimensional world is embedded in turn in a reality that our brains even given autonomy may never be able to crack: space.com/more-universe-dim … 0of%20time.
Then back to fitting that into this: youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0
Peacegirl: What does this have to do with the laws of nature we CAN understand and learn from? There are some things we may never know, but the truth of determinism isn’t one of them.
That doesn’t mean we’re stuck.
You started this conversation with incredulity that anybody could have compatiblist views.
And then I offered to explain some arguments
It doesn’t matter that we have different angles for that conversation to continue. The only thing that matters is that you care enough to understand the other angle, in order to resolve your incredulity.
If you don’t care to understand the angle, then your subsequent approach to the conversation makes total sense. But if you do care to understand the angle, the angle you’re fascinated by apparently, then all you have to do is listen. Put your angle to the side for the duration of a conversation and listen. Ask questions, answer questions, have a conversation, try to sate the curiosity you apparently have in this angle you say you’re fascinated by – that doesn’t seem massively difficult to me. If I was fascinated in another position, that’s exactly what I’d do: find someone who says they understand it, and listen to them.
The offer’s still on the table for you to do that. Committing to listen to another person doesn’t mean committing to changing your mind, it just involves having a conversation and trying to understand. That’s it. I trust you to be able to do that, and there aren’t a lot of people on this forum I’d rather do that with than with you pal. So if you’re as fascinated as you say you are, there’s the offer.
Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
What this points to for some however is just how surreal all of this is. Suppose the opposite occurs. One day it is announced that the scientific community is all in agreement that this…
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
…has been cracked. The human species has acquired some measure of autonomy. On the other hand, that, in and of itself, might just be but another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe…the only possible reality.
But how to wrap our heads around human brains discovering that which human brains could never have not discovered: that we really are just nature’s dominoes toppling over onto each other on cue.
Again: weighs the evidence only as it ever could have been weighed because human honesty and thoughtfulness themselves are no less psychological illusions.
Same with this…
Again, what am I missing? It’s as though the author here is suggesting a wholly determined “human condition” but is still asking us to imagine things just as a libertarian might? The whole point is that the “reckoning” is compelled.
So, sure, I’m thinking, “it must be me…I’m just not getting his point”. When his point [to me] seems to be that I was never able to freely opt to get it.
Then just more of the same…
A “crisis” that could never have been otherwise? How to encompass human brains discussing a crisis when the brains themselves could never have not discussed it other than as they are compelled to by the immutable laws of matter. Then me necessarily typing these words and you necessarily reading them.
Same thing. A conviction that could have not been a conviction. Concepts that could never have been otherwise. Responsibility that is no less a psychological illusion “somehow” built into the human brain when matter acquired life here on planet Earth. Reasons that are neither good nor bad when all reasons are only as they must be.
Ultimate destruction only because there was never the possibility of no destruction. Just as ultimately Mary aborts Jane because there could never be a reality where she didn’t.
What then is to be done?!!! Exactly as the libertarian would put it, right?
Iambiguous: What then is to be done?!!! Exactly as the libertarian would put it, right?
Peacegirl: So now we can’t ask the question without being called a libertarian?
Wow. Just…
wow
My whole world is shattered.
I just realized I have been wasting all of my time here on… someone without even an average 3rd grade level of education.
Holy fuck, what is wrong with my life
You betta reco’nize!
Like many animals/persons, we know our capacity, or predisposition, for self=other behaviors intuitively (as empathy) before we recognize it intellectually (like only some animals/persons do). Once recognized, we are free to consent/refuse to act based on informed reasons/choice (as full persons) rather than morally neutral intuitions/predispositions (as “bad faith” animals, post-recognition, giving a bad name to animals who lack recognition).
John 9:41
P.s. Baby animals (humans) are born intuitively recognizing their mother’s voice, and looking for faces.