We often speak of something which we call, in English, "the Will". But recently, after cogitating a bit on this topic, I have come to wonder whether we can truly speak of "the Will", but rather, only of "will" or "willing". It would rather seem to me that the conception of this is flawed. For when one speaks of "willing" something to be, we do not speak of the will as deriving from the Will, but rather, are we saying something more along the line of: I - which is primarily our mind, and primarily of our mind our conscious mind - have chosen x as an object of desire, and thus I have instructed myself to achieve this through the direction of my body or mind in one way or another. In essence: To will is to choose mentally an objective (consciously, subconsciously, or in that grey mixture of the two) and to then seek that objective out. Does anyone here hold a view in opposition to this? That there exists something which can truly be said to be the Will, as opposed to willing simply being as I said about, and thus not simply an action of the mind, but more like an aspect or perhaps even master of the mind?
Your will is your drive, dedication, and strength to do whatever it takes to achieve your goal. If your good, like I am, you can impose your will onto others so that their goal is yours. I dont do this to often because sometimes I feel like they dont understand what is going on, and I am taking advantage in some weird way.
BSFilter: Yes, a will is any of those things. But do you propose that it is an entity rather than simply an expression of thought put to action? That is to say, some, such as Arthur Schopenhauer, place the Will as the driving force behind all thought and as something which, rather than being determined by us, we are instead determined by it. That it is almost a completely different being that drives us.
Prince James, that seems like quite a good definition of will: will being that which "I...have chosen...as an object of desire, and thus I have instructed myself to achieve this through the direction of my body or mind." Personally I view will as being futuristic; that which will happen, but I have discussed this before.
Spectrum: Your conception of will as futuristic is an interesting one and one which seems apt, in that one cannot will that which is in the present, as one ceases to will for that which one has, as one has all attained, and thus one has only willed it beforehand.
I'm not sure I agree with your whole first part. But even if that's true, there can still be a thing spoken of called the Will. You just have to be rigorous about it. On the left side, English uttered (spoken, writen, etc.) word, on the right a defined set. I = primarily the conscious mind willing = choosing attractive option x and following through in required physical and/or mental capacity -------------------------------- the Will = the set defined as all the mental capacities and segments which are involved in producing an analyses of desire and action. Essentially the Will is then a sort of calculator instead of a series of anything. It's an open program which can be used; a tool, not an object. Of course, other problems can be raised with this, but at least it's a starting point for an alternative.
Tyler, Your words are concise and understandable. I want to add something, since I was on a similar topic recently. I believe we have to make a distinction with the word "will" as used in the context of universal determination and that of human determination. The calculation can only be an approximation as human minds think in classical physics. The universal determination is reserved for a god, or, the God, if you like. Simply put, when humans speak of will, they make a statement about the future given only the present knowables, which include an estimation of their own desire to accomplish whatever they "will". All present knowables are in present tense, so the term "willing" is befitting. "Will" seems to include the present and future, so it is merely a claim when the future cannot be known. The future is approximated, its calculation variant at any given time.
I disagree. Though I am thankful and glad to hear that my post was understandable; so thank you. But I do think that there is no problem in the way you are describing with the idea of the will (there's no need to capatalize, that's an old aristocratic flare that means nothing but style). Simply put, it's a system which can analyse. When I say "The will" of person x I am referencing (whatever that means) the way in which they analyse situations. This presents no necessary guarantees of the future. It simply references a current structural form.
Tyler: "the Will = the set defined as all the mental capacities and segments which are involved in producing an analyses of desire and action." So in essence, you would make Will a subset of conscious thought, by regulating it to the aspect of our consciousness appropriated for this task of computation of desire and appropriate action? Nicholas1m7: "The universal determination is reserved for a god, or, the God, if you like. " In that the results are, as it were, fated by certain conditions? That within the human will is the capacity to fail, but whatever may be, will be? "Simply put, when humans speak of will, they make a statement about the future given only the present knowables, which include an estimation of their own desire to accomplish whatever they "will". All present knowables are in present tense, so the term "willing" is befitting. "Will" seems to include the present and future, so it is merely a claim when the future cannot be known. The future is approximated, its calculation variant at any given time." Can not we say that when a human is willing he is essentially acting to frame the future in his image? Rather than claiming a future will be such and such, he -stakes- claim to the future, via the employment of what he sees to be rational means to achieve his ends?
Here's a question: Supposing one had infalliable, or semi-infalliable (infalliable so long as something else does not randomly occur), knowledge of the future. Could then, with the knowledge that the future is so set, truly will a different course? And if not, does that demonstrate that to will is to be ignorant of the results, but intent on one in particular?
to will something to happen, without doing any work to make it happen, is magic. to have the will to do things, is life. The creator gave us life and the will to live it, but everything else is up to us. -MT
"So in essence, you would make Will a subset of conscious thought, by regulating it to the aspect of our consciousness appropriated for this task of computation of desire and appropriate action?" If you so choose. Always remember that most words and phrases do not have rigorous definitions in any sense. If you want to talk about these concepts with true sincerity and depth, you'll need to find a closed definition (if possible). It is possible to define "the Will" as a subset of the {conscious mind, unconscious mind} (though this presupposes a good definition of those two things). The subset could be defined as the processes which contribute to analyses work on desire/action decisions.
Mosheh Thezion: Can we truly say that we have a will to live life inherent, or is it within us to decide whether we live or die?
This might be a good read regarding will... Deception, Dependency & Dread Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. Farber, Harlow, & West (1957) coined the term "DDD syndrome" to describe the essence of Korean war thought reform with prisoners of war: debility, dependency, and dread. Lifton (1961), who also studied thought reform employed in Chinese universities, demonstrated that the process did not require physical debilitation. Contemporary cultic groups, which do not have the power of the state at their disposal, have more in common with this brand of thought reform than with the POW variety, in that they rarely employ physical coercion. In order to control targets, they must rely on subterfuge and natural areas of overlap between themselves and prospects. As with all Korean er thought reform programs (those directed at civilians and at prisoners), however, contemporary cultic groups induce dependent states to gain control over recruits and employ psychological (sometimes physical) punishment ("dread") to maintain control. The process, in my view, can be briefly described by a modified "DDD syndrome": deception, dependency, and dread. Although the process here described is complex and varied, the following appears to occur in the prototypical cult conversion: * A vulnerable prospect encounters a cultic group. * The group (leader) deceptively presents itself as a benevolent authority that can improve the prospect's well-being. * The prospect responds positively, experiencing an increase in self-esteem and security, at least some of which is in response to what could be considered "placebo" The prospect can now be considered a "recruit". * Through the use of "sharing" exercises, "confessions," and skillful individualized probing, the group [leader(s)] assesses the recruit's strengths and weaknesses. * Through testimonies of group members, the denigration of the group's "competitors" (e.g., other religious groups, other therapists), the tactful accentuation of the recruit's shameful memories and other weaknesses, and the gradual indoctrination of the recruit into a closed, nonfalsifiable belief system, the group's superiority is affirmed as a fundamental assumption. * Members' testimonies, positive reinforcement of the recruit's expressions of trust in the group, discrete reminders about the recruit's weaknesses, and various forms of group pressure induce the recruit to acknowledge that his/her future well-being depends upon adherence to the group's belief system, more specifically its "change program." * These same influence techniques are joined by a subtle undermining of the recruit's self-esteem (e.g., by exaggerating the "sinfulness" of experiences the recruit is encouraged to confess"), the suppression or weakening of critical thinking through fatiguing activity, near-total control of the recruit's time, trance-induction exercises (e.g., chanting), and the repetitive message that only disaster results from not following the group's "change program." These manipulations induce the recruit to declare allegiance to the group and to commit to change him/herself as directed by the group. He or she can now be considered a convert embarking on a path of "purification", "enlightenment", "self-actualization", "higher consciousness," or whatever. The recruit's dependency on the group is established and implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged. Moreover, he/she has accepted the group's authority in defining what is true and good, within the convert's heart and mind as well as in the world. * The convert is next fully subjected to the unrealistically high expectations of the group. The recruit's "potential" is "lovingly" affirmed, while members testify to the great heights they and "heroic" models have scaled. The group's all-important mission, e.g., save the world, justifies its all-consuming expectations. * Because by definition the group is always right and "negative" thinking is unacceptable, the convert's failures become totally his or her responsibility, while his or her doubts and criticisms are suppressed (often with the aid of trance-inducing exercises such as meditation, speaking in tongues, or chanting) or redefined as personal failures. The convert thus experiences increasing self-alienation. The "pre-cult self" is rejected; doubts about the group are pushed out of consciousness; the sense of failure generated by not measuring up to the group's expectations is bottled up inside. The only possible adaptation is fragmentation and compartmentalization. It is not surprising, then, that many clinicians consider dissociation to lie the heart of cult-related distress and dysfunction (Ash, 1985). * The convert's self-alienation will tend to demand further psychological, if not physical, alienation from the non-group world (especially family), information from which can threaten to upset whatever dissociative equilibrium the convert establishes in an attempt to adjust to the consuming and conflicting demands of the group. This alienation accentuates the convert's dependency on the group. * The group supports the convert's dissociative equilibrium by actively encouraging escalating dependency, e.g., by exaggerating the convert's past "sins" and conflicts with family, by denigrating outsiders, by positively reinforcing chanting or other "thought-stopping" activities, and by providing and positively reinforcing ways in which the convert can find a valued role within the group (e.g., work for a group-owned business, sell magazines on the street). * The group strengthens the convert's growing dependency by threatening or inflicting punishment whenever the convert or an outside force (e.g., a visit by a family member) disturbs the dissociative equilibrium that enables him or her to function in a closed, nonfalsifiable system (the "dread" of DDD). Punishment may sometimes by physical. Usually, however, the punishment is psychological, sometimes even metaphysical. Certain fringe Christian groups, for example, can at the command of the leadership immediately begin shunning someone singled out as being "factious" or possessed of a "rebellious spirit." Many groups also threaten wavering converts with punishments in the hereafter, for example, being "doomed to Hell." It should be remembered that these threats and punishments occur within a context of induced dependency and psychological alienation from the person's former support network. This fact makes them much more potent than the garden-variety admonitions of traditional religious, such as "you will go to hell if you die with mortal sin." The result of this process, when carried to its consummation, is a person who proclaims great happiness but hides great suffering. I have talked to many former cultists who, when they left their groups and talked to other former members, were surprised to discover that many of their fellow members were also smilingly unhappy, all thinking they were the only ones who felt miserable inside.
Tyler: "If you so choose. Always remember that most words and phrases do not have rigorous definitions in any sense. If you want to talk about these concepts with true sincerity and depth, you'll need to find a closed definition (if possible)." This is very true. "It is possible to define "the Will" as a subset of the {conscious mind, unconscious mind} (though this presupposes a good definition of those two things). The subset could be defined as the processes which contribute to analyses work on desire/action decisions. " Well, in order to see whether or not this is true, we ought to analyze it a bit more, I say, before we settle this as a definition for what can be considered the Will. Now, as I have put forth in my first post, it would seem to me that the act of willing is thought put to action, essentially. But even more than this, that this computation of desire and of action do not seem to me to be essentially different than many other types of thoughts, as it requires identification and correlation, much like types of thought entail. For instance, when I ponder the relation of the tree to my front door, I identity the two objects, and draw their correlation mentally. When I seek to put a desire into practice, I first identity the desire - going to get some ice cream, for instance - and then consider its correlation to a course of action - leaving the house and going to the store. The only difference is to be found in that will, in order to manifest, requires the thought processes to make a decision that is then acted upon physically, so that aside from simply deciding, I actually do following my decision. Thus I see a connection betwixt all types of thought, with willing being but an adding of an extra quality of action, whereas regular thoughts are self-contained and do not need to be put into action.
THE WILL to live is purely instinctive... its a hunger driving you towards food, and water. towards mating with the opposite sex.. towards violence to controll that which you call precious. the will to live or die, is only in the aspect of fighting.. or running. if we do not have the will, we will not fight the fight, and we will die. if we do not have the will, we will not run that much faster and get caught by the beast and eaten. no one wants to die... they just want to live better, and cant. -MT
Mosheh Thezion: Truly, I am not really convinced that the "will to life" is instinctual. For indeed, can we not set our will on death? And in so doing, violate our instincts? A suicidal person, for instance, wills death. Bowser: That is a frightfully interesting paper on the impact of cults and other system whose focus is slavery of the minds and bodies of those beneath them. How close the cult is, also, to just regular religion! Very interesting. That being said, is this an example of the will being subverted, and that is why you put it in here? Or did you have another point in mind?
to will himself to death.. he must will himself to action. that he chooses actions which he knows will harm him, is another matter. he is sad.... mentally pained in someway, and does not want to live, cause life sucks ass... and he might as well be dead. but its all lies and delusion... our suffering is our own to make or break. he may not have the will to fight, and gives in.. and wants to die. he can will himself to take the pill, or slash the wrists... THATS EASY. but he is to weak... to will himself to get over it, and do battle. weakness is also another matter. -MT
Mosheh Thezion: Weakness it is indeed in many cases, but that not withstanding, is not it still an example of something which would demonstrate that, if we do have a "will to live", it's instinctual hold is not so absolute as you proclaim? For we can negate it through conscious action and are not determined in our lives to follow its dictates.
well... yes.. you still have free will to a certain extent.. and we are free to kill ourselves.... but if we do so, it will be the last thing we ever do.... and from a completely biological point of view, we find that, only conscious animals such as man, can actually kill themselves. all the lesser life forms, never do such things. they kill each other,, but no matter how bad it gets, they dont jump off cliffs on purpose. im not sure where you are going with this... but... dont kill yourself. -MT
