Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
- Radulon40crotch
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: December 11th, 2013, 1:43 pm
Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
He seems to have been implying that we can infer the "Will" as exceeding time and space because it defies the nature of causality, and violates the law of sufficient reason. Taken further in my own reflection, I'm left to consider the possibilities for which it may in fact be predicated, whether we consider psychology, evolution, or any other matter which may have produced the inclinations we might define to be "Will", conscious or unconscious.
Unfortunately, I fall into these problems when applying criticism:
A. The will is predicated by something determined prior to the origin of my will, but is nonetheless predicated by some other will - transcendent, evolutionary, or otherwise. This, of course, begets circular reasoning.
B. The will is predicated by an urge provided by nature, and is caused by a strain of evolution for which no predicate of origin seems to be within reach. This train of thought seems to lead towards causation ad infinitum.
C. The will merely is a product of something, though we know not what. Obviously, this is only hypothetical.
In my attempts to conceive of a will that is caused, I seem to have fallen short. Even so, I can't help but to imagine that, though it seems no cause can be verified to exist to produce will, that perhaps Schopenhauer may be appealing to ignorance in assuming that it is acausal, and thus directly the "thing in itself".
Is this criticism justified and/or tenable?
Is there something I haven't thought of?
Is it possible that Schopenhauer really had something here that isn't given sufficient credit?
What do you think of "Will" itself, and it's relation to Being?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: January 4th, 2014, 2:52 am
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
- Although evolution seems to be an inevitable process that could explain the current status of humanity, we must remember that it suffers from radical shortcomings. According to the basis of this theory, living creatures constantly shape their physiology to environmental factors, “to prolong their survival.” Just think about the human infant: perhaps it’s even less defenseless than an insect. It needs nurturing, education and language to survive, along with physiological elements. Meanwhile, humans are getting less “adaptable” to the natural environment. How can we explain survival in a space which does not directly represent “natural selection”?
- Even if we assume that “will” is a product of evolution, then we have to answer the question why “animal willfulness” is so difficult to prove. Maybe what you try to conceptualize as “acausal will” can be found in animals. That is, their actions and their “mental” processing arise from the same thing (instinct).
- As for Being, Heidegger believes that humans are the only (known) beings that can ask questions about their existence. We definitely need a theory of “consciousness” here. You may want to frame the process based on casualty (Being -> will), but this existential understanding seems to be more comprehensive than other views; it can include perception of ethics, art, skill, and identity development. At least, I am certain that evolution has trouble justifying these things.
So, I agree with your hypothetical possibility (C).
- Radulon40crotch
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: December 11th, 2013, 1:43 pm
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
I think the biggest difficulty I face here is in understanding what exactly Schopenhauer means by "Will" any more than as a hypothetical term, or something which can be verified by reason or otherwise.
" We definitely need a theory of “consciousness” here."
Schopenhauer seems to define Will in such a way that doesn't necessarily denote "consciousness" in any deliberate manner, but implies that it functions both unconsciously and is the "thing in itself" of ALL phenomenal reality. Of course, my attempts to criticize taking its existence for granted seems to focus on something defined by biological life and consciousness, it doesn't seem to be limited to it.
To clarify more , I think it's completely compatible with animals and inanimate objects as well, but I can't find any legitimate argument to deny or confirm it.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
I'd want a clear definition of what's meant by 'Will' here, its proposed properties, to start to make sense of it.What do you think of "Will" itself, and it's relation to Being?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: January 4th, 2014, 2:52 am
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
Your perception theory of Schopenhauer’s Will is true and is in line with my second point (acausal will and animality). Schopenhauer recognizes Will exactly as I mentioned: “[animals’] actions and their “mental” processing arise from the same thing (instinct).” Interestingly, he even talks about instinctual tendencies. It is also true that in his understanding there is not sequencing between mentality, Will, and action, although he believes in the abstract representations of the world in the human mind (e.g. perception of time).
There is, however, a problem about the biological and even cosmological underpinning of his thought. I believe, Schopenhauer, just like Heidegger, is advancing an existential theory, but in a very different direction. Far from a theory of Will at an extra-human level, his understanding of Will seems to be a projection of nihilism. He somehow generalizes the feebleness and powerlessness of humanity to the whole universe, as a lawless and meaningless entity.
So, scientifically speaking, Will could mean something like “energy” or “instinct” in his work. This could at least justify Will in inanimate creatures. The kind of energy, of course, constantly generates tension and destruction.
About approving/rejecting the theory, as you mention, we cannot really think of any observable data. Schopenhauer himself acknowledges our perception of the world is a result of Will representation. So how can we be sure that there is really purposelessness and tension in the universe? These ideas are just existential projections of the human condition onto the world.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
If no material explanation for Will can be found, as you suggested, than it is only acausal in the sense that it's cause is indeterminate, cannot be discerned. This does not imply that it is a "thing in itself," only that it's nature is unknown to us.Radulon40crotch: In my attempts to conceive of a will that is caused, I seem to have fallen short. Even so, I can't help but to imagine that, though it seems no cause can be verified to exist to produce will, that perhaps Schopenhauer may be appealing to ignorance in assuming that it is acausal, and thus directly the "thing in itself".
Movement or change (and perhaps progress) is a primal feature of the universe, as is individuation, and the combination of these two characteristics produces what could be called self-directed change, a.k.a., Will.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
I believe it is "C."Radulon40crotch wrote: ..
B. The will is predicated by an urge provided by nature, and is caused by a strain of evolution for which no predicate of origin seems to be within reach. This train of thought seems to lead towards causation ad infinitum.
..
Schopenhauer’s Will is reified out of human nature driven by the inherent existential crisis/dilemma and the resulting cognitive dissonance.
There is no such thing as thing-in-itself or Will-in-itself [Kant].
I would prefer Wittgenstein's
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
I think he meant not to pass judgment or jump into conclusion.
Nonetheless we must philosophize necessarily on terms like 'Will-in-itself' and 'thing-in-itself' [noumenon] to understand they are merely reified illusions to fill a conceptual vacuum and for other purposes.
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
-
- Posts: 231
- Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
We also have to consider the possibiliy that there is more than one source of will. I say this because of the followingL "We alway do what we want to do or what we perceive to be in our best interest." The source of want is thought. The source of what we perceive to be in our best interest is understanding which is different than thought.
- Radulon40crotch
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: December 11th, 2013, 1:43 pm
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
I've been reflecting a lot on this over the past few weeks, and am sorry to have been unable to thoroughly respond to any of these comments.Webplodder wrote:Perhaps we should consider 'Will' as being a non-personal phenomenon rather than being restricted to a personal 'individualistic' perspective.
I'd just like to say briefly that among all of these provocative responses, I think this one may be the most relevant to understanding Schopenhauer's Will.
Could this idea of "Will" coincide with the "universal unconscious" of Carl Jung, perhaps?
-
- Posts: 231
- Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
Is thought (the dialogue that takes place in our head) an individualistic perspective or a non-personal phenomenon? I ask that question because there is the will of thought. It is the will of thought which causes us to do what we think about. It is also thought’s will that defends its perception.Perhaps we should consider 'Will' as being a non-personal phenomenon rather than being restricted to a personal 'individualistic' perspective.
Is our understanding of something unique unto us or a non-personal phenomenon? I ask this question because we respond to this will whenever we are doing something we understand is in our best interest.
Then there is the will of that which created us. We wouldn’t exist without it. I am unable to determine if this is non-personal, personal, or both.
So is freedom of choice about choosing a Ford or Chevy. Or, is freedom of choice the freedom to choose one will over another? In other words, do you choose to purchase something you want, but cannot afford? Or, do you choose not to purchase what you want because you understand the consequences of purchasing something you cannot afford?
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Can we justify "Will" as acausal or noumenal?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023