Shopenhaur identified “will†as the essence of man, but in attempting to describe this will he seems to nebulize it into nothingness. It seems appropriate to me that he has rendered it thus as I submit that will is nothing, that is, not a thing-in-itself, but rather a product, an effect.
What is will but desire? Will is no power and has no power. One is touched by some sensation, either from within (hunger) or without (pain), one feels thus (irritation at hunger or alarm at pain) and thinks thus (“I must eat†or “I must soothe this painâ€). What is called will is this underlying desire born of sensation and emotion and articulated according to the abilities of ones intellect. When one wills, one chooses; willing is a choice, and exercise of higher intellect (I sense, I feel, I think, I choose, I act) which stands in opposition to the instinctual operations of lower intellect (which senses and acts according to pure instinct rather than reason).
Schopenhaurian “denial of the will†as a remedy for suffering is cowardice; it is a choosing to seek the elimination of choice and even life itself, a choosing of death rather than life. Rather, one ought to embrace their suffering, even will their suffering. What is this denial of “the willâ€? There is no â€will†in man as there are emotions and intellect; what we call will is the product of these.
One does not have “a willâ€, one wills, one is willing (“I will thus and thusâ€). As such, ones will (what one wills) ought not to be denied (desire nothing) but purified (desire excellence). To wish for a cessation of will (which is itself a demonstration of will; one wills to cease willing) is to wish for death. Those weak and weary of life regard the struggle living entails (suffering) as an evil to be eliminated when it ought rather to be regarded as the seedbed of life.
Thoughts?
JVS