Is the Will real?

Define "will". And for that matter, define "real" as it relates to abstract concepts.

>>550371
>define will
schopehaurian definition of Will
>real
existing

>>550379
Then the answer you are looking for is embedded already in the question.

Thanks for playing.

>>550383
I didn't understand. Do you mean that something becomes real as soon as we intellectually grasp it? I don't mean to offend mate, but do you also belief waifus to be real?

>>550387
Is math real, by the definition you are using? Is the concept of freedom real? Fiat currency?

>Schopenhauerian definition of Will
Then just read Schopenhauer and have his answer packaged for you.

>>550398

Don't play with definitions you atheist. Is the Will real or not?

Schopenhauer's capital W "Will" is about as real as Feuerbach's capital M "Man". That is to say, not at all.

Yes, schopehnahuers assessment of existence's thirst for existence is essentially correct, though it's up to you if you want see it as an intrinsically malignant force or just what is and that's that


Christ I'm sorry for the autists itt who can't give you a straight fucking answer like a normal human being. I hope that helps

>>550398
Why won't you just answer his question?

Why do you have to be such a condescending autist?

Schopenhauer's will to life?
Yeah,it's real.

File: 1431746029723.jpg (689KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 2448x3264px

>>550362

File: 1436974000607.jpg (531KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 2448x3264px

>>551023

File: image.jpg (265KB, 736x964px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 736x964px

>>550362

Nah - the Will is more fundamental than the outer world of physical beings we call empirical "reality." Even the contents of our inner memories, concepts, and imaginings, though "real," are not of the most fundamental level of being. To be "real" is to be mere appearance, phenomena. Reality is only a manifestation of what's ultimate: being-in-itself.

The regular, law-like order of appearances is imposed by the forms of space, time, and causality, which are simply the functions by which our mind operates in processing raw sense data; the word for a priori forms like these is "ideal," and they are the conditions that are required for the "real" world to be generated by, and thus known by, our minds. What appears clothed in these forms is being-in-itself, which is therefore non-spatiotemporal, non-causal, and strictly speaking unknowable.

We call this ultimate being "Will," by that name thinking of a blind, impersonal, restless urge at the basis of all reality and ideality. We can discover that the thing-in-itself is, in fact, will-in-itself, because when by introspection we try to know our deepest inner self, we are only conscious of our own willing: the pain of not possessing that which we desire, the temporary satisfaction of possessing that which we wanted, and all varieties of our individual will's automatic attraction and repulsion from the objects that the world puts in front of it. But since we ourselves are part of the physical world, are individuals in the domain of mere appearance, whatever is the fundamental basis of our own existence is also the fundamental basis of all other objects comprising the universe. Careful introspection gives us privileged access to this fundamental basis in us - will - and if we could look into a lion, a tree, a rock in the same way we look into ourselves, we'd be conscious of each object's own inner will: individuated manifestations of the sole, metaphysically indentical will-in-itself.

(Fine print to follow.)

>>551792
>(Fine print to follow.)
pls

File: image.jpg (345KB, 1024x647px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1024x647px

>>550362
>>551792

Fine print:

Scopenhauer's terminology (in translation, at least) could sometimes make you think that the will-in-itself is within the domain of reality - for example, his essay "Sketch if a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and the Real," in which he uses the word "ideal" to mean everything that the human mind contributes to its own knowledge of (and even to the existence of) the world, while using the word "real" to mean the ultimate, primary being, the will-in-itself, in the sense of "that which is *really* real, not merely empirical appearance." But the context of the words usually makes Schopenhauer's meaning pretty clear, even when he's departing from the more technical meanings he employs in his main work.

What's more troublesome, I think, is his calling the thing-in-itself "Will," because I think he comes close to inconsistency. Central to his system is the thesis that space and time are not things-in-themselves, but merely the human mind's way of receiving sense data; apart from human minds, there is no space and time. Yet time is the form of inner sense; when we examine our own thought process or or introspect in any other way, what we are conscious of inner representations spread out across time. The same is true when we direct our consciousness to our own individual wills; we only feel the desires, satisfactions, and repulsions of our will as temporal occurences.

File: image.jpg (119KB, 551x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 551x800px

>>551966

>>550362
>>551792

Fine print:

Schopenhauer is careful to say that a person's inner consciousness of his/her own individual will is not consciousness of the fundamental being-in-itself, in which there is no differentiation. But he goes further, and suggests that the nature of our individual wills tells us something about what the being-in-itself is like: an ever-striving that, in its tireless thrust toward an endpoint that it isn't initially conscious of, gives rise to the phenomenal world. But he admits that since our own inner experience of willing is temporal, it can't show us with complete accuracy what the timeless being-in-itself is like; our own will is only the minimally veiled appearance of the thing-in-itself, but it is still veiled. So it seems that when Schopenhauer tells us about "the will-in-itself," "the will-to-live," he's using something like an analogy, but often without being obvious about it - and the question remains to what degree, if any, we can make sense of a Will without temporal determinations.

>>551985
good grief the man is so far ahead of his time

>>550362
Will is but a reformation of God, the alienation of Human spirit unto concept.

>>550362
It's literally the only thing that's real. You haven't read TWAWAR have you?

>>550792
Socratic method to harsh for your ego huh?

>>552426
It was too harsh for the Athenian Gym-masters. So why don't I show you who's the boss of this Gym and you make like Socrates with an overlocker and hemlock.

>>550398
literally this
if we can't agree on a definition of will, then the argument is moot

>>552426
You are no Socrates.

>>552426
>telling someone to read a book, rather then actually discussing personal conceptions, elucidating and correcting hypocritical notions

my friend, that isn't a Socratic dialogue

File: image.jpg (963KB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 2592x1936px

>>552021

>>553388
Whoa.

>>552551
That's why the op is a picture of the guy whose life work was to define the will you insufferable autist