The will, what can we do about it?

“The world is a mirror in which the will becomes aware of itself”----- Arthur Schopenhauer

The idea that makes Arthur Schopenhauer well known in philosophy is a simple but a very subversive idea: all the things we can touch, feel and smell in this world, and even the whole phenomenal world is simply the reflections from funhouse Mirrors, we were born into this funhouse, we take the images on those funhouse mirrors around us as “the reality”, but behind this reality there is another reality, and this deep reality is “the will”, it is the only thing that lies at the other side of the funhouse mirrors, yet we can never see it directly.

And this “will” is blind, insatiable, and malignant. Its sole purpose is to strive, but it does not know what and why it is striving for, it simply strive, shouts “more!” “more!” ;it will manifest itself in the form of individuality: a human being strive to live , to earn more, and to consume more because she is forced by the “will” to strive and live and consume. it is the root of all evil.

Schopenhauer also said that the best symbol for “the will” is sex, the nature of sex and especially sex drive best represents the blind, insatiable and malignant nature of “the will”:

To illustrate this he once wrote that there is a type of moth existing that when it was in a pupa a complete reproduction organ is given by nature, but nature forgot one thing: a mouth! Therefore it starves to death after it has laid its tiny eggs.

The big turtles in the deep ocean of south pacific strive to swim to the beach and lay down its eggs during the storm, and thousands of them were smashed by the huge tides but they keep swimming to the beach any way.

Here is a documentary I found that can be seen as evidence for Schopenhauer’s idea, it is about the monarch butterfly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvvTq30St6Q

If we exam the human conditions and the life journey of a human being with clear eyes, we can realize after all, we are just some another monarch butterflies.

After all, does “the will” exist? Is it the root of all evil? If this is so, what can we do about it? If it does not exist, how to explain the moth, the big turtles, monarch butterfly and ultimately human actions?

I found I just posted the same thread five times, how to delete them? #-o

Use your will, start a petition asking the mods to delete the posts.

The will is not root of all evil.

The will is amoral. Morality is concerned with how we act. We are driven by the will, by Schopenhauer’s account, and that produces in us desires. How we regard those desires and act upon them speaks to the character of an individual. Another of Shope’s famous sayings is “man is free to do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants”, which implies a distinction between what we will and how we act. Malignant desires don’t necessarily produce malignant actions, if we can recognize those desires as such. In such cases Schopenhauer advocates asceticism as a kind of denial of the will, or the malignant aspects thereof. The more we learn about the will and how it drives us to act, the more freedom of action we have. The will may be blind, but we are not if we can come to understand it and moderate our actions accordingly.

A man can choose his desires. This does not mean that free will exists, but rather, a robot, its consciousness directly synchronised with its’ self, feeling the illusion of agency, can modify its desires.

This sort of analysis seems considerably reasonable – that is until we take it out into the world and attempt to use it to explain actual human behaviors.

Then we encounter nurture. The manner in which, over the centuries, the “will” has come to be embodied in any number of conflicting ways given such factors as culture, personal experience and a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

That’s the part where we always get stuck. That’s the part where the “will” [sexual or otherwise] becomes entangled in the human capacity to twist it into any number of actual existential combinations. As opposed to the “will” of more savage beasts propelled by nature alone.

And thus folks with all manner of conflicting moral and political agendas will claim that their own rendition of the “will” confirms that “our side” [and only “our side”] does in fact embody it “ideally” in a particular set of behaviors.

For example, the objectivists among us.

1. You are an objectivist, because you keep toting the same worldviews as truth.

  1. There is a such thing as good and bad. For instance, feeling like your foot is on fire is bad. So, if our will is forcing us to put our feet in flames every day, it is bad. But if our will does not force us to put our feet in flames every day, then it is not as bad. If an organism is starving to death, it is bad, and if a rabbit cannot figure out how to chew vegetables, it is bad for the rabbit, because it is starving to death.

The only question of “ambiguity” is, whether it is good for a lion to eat a rabbit, as they both may have sentience, so which is good or bad? But there is no ambiguity of a rabbit eating a carrot, as a carrot does not have sentience. If an animal eats a fruit, it is good, because the plant does not die, and it carries its seeds to make other plants.

See what I mean about the Kids here?

And the will to be one on thread after thread after thread after thread.

They think they are being really, really clever. And witty. Even wise.

And, sure, who am I to say that they are not. :wink:

To expand it, let’s say that you are a hardworker and in order to the job right, your foot had to be on fire a little bit. That is not bad, because it is part of getting the good job done. But if the foot is being put on fire for a while, for no reason, then it is bad.

This should be obvious, to anyone with a sane mind. But I guess if I dont enjoy my foot being on fire, I have a childlike, irrational mind, I am a “Kid”, because having your foot on fire is not good or bad, having your foot on fire is no better or worse than anything else.

We should takes this sort of thing over to Know Thyself.

Now, do you have anything relevant to add regarding the distinction that I made between nature and nurture as it pertains to the human will?

Because I suspect that, with regard to your foot being on fire, the will to put it out is one that transcends historical and cultural contexts. It seems like the rational thing to do for all of us.

Nature, means that to a male like Satyr, gay porn is disgusting.

Nuture, gives the wisdom on what to do about it.

The animal base instinct, for an average male like Satyr, is to be disgusted by it.

Dasein comes into play with our choice of intelligent actions.

Do we push laws to ban porn, like a feminist would?
Or do we simply, push for people to have common etiquette and display a warning on websites that have such things?

The latter option, is inherently better, because the first option paves the way for slippery slope, and a potential backfire of even worse porn in the future?

Once again, I can only leave it to others to decide for themselves if he addressed the distinction that I made above or merely contributed yet again another example of Kid Stuff.

So You admit that “the will” does exist?

:smiley: You are right.

After all, does “the will” exist? Is schopenhauer right?

Well, it exists in the sense that a waterbottle exists…A water bottle is comprised of atoms, but when you zoom out it appears to have a form…will is the same way, it is comprised of just circuitry, but when you zoom out it appears to have a will form.