The universe is your will.

The universe is my will.

>>8504730
Then why is everything so shitty and why do I lack willpower?

>>8504804
You spend all the willpower supporting this shitty world. You didn't have much to begin with.

File: 1470820585442.jpg (96KB, 480x813px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 480x813px

I lack the willpower to leave my bed in the morning so I highly doubt that

>>8504804
>>8504813

The universe isn't shitty. This world, however...

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

265KB, 736x964px

>>8504730

And "my" will is the same being as "your" will.

>>8504804

> why is everything so shitty

Because to will is to be, and to will is to lack, and to lack is to suffer.

> and why do I lack willpower?

You don't - you lack the kind of will that *could* be attracted to those unobtained goals. But if you had such a different kind of will, you would be a different person - and you had, and have, no choice in the matter anyway.

- S

>philosophy is nerds trying to be cool

sounds about right

>>8506628
>Because to will is to be, and to will is to lack, and to lack is to suffer.

I get this but how does it relate to
>The universe is your will

File: Schopenhauer blues.jpg (239KB, 590x421px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 590x421px

>>8506860

First: Neither space nor time is a thing-in-itself; that is, neither exists apart from the mind(s) perceiving the spatiotemporal universe. Space and time are innate functions by which the mind organizes brute sensory input into orderly experience; pure space and pure time, without any colors or odors or tactile sensations or data of any kind, are pure forms of sensibility - all of our conscious experience is of some formed, intelligible sensation, and sensations are always and only formed in time or in time and space. They are pure a priori forms of cognition, and we can know they are a priori in at least two ways: we can imagine away everything from within space and time, but we can't imagine space and time themselves disappearing; and we can know with certainty the geometric properties of space in advance, non-empirically, as when we calculate and know the mathematical properties of angles and surfaces and structures even before we build a real, physical structure with those exact dimensions.


Getting there...

File: Schopenhauer Bust Relative.jpg (81KB, 373x559px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 373x559px

>>8506860
>>8508094

Second: There is one thing in the world that you have a double knowledge of; this kind of knowledge is unique, seemingly miraculous, and each individual mind has this double knowledge of only this one single thing: its own individual body. You can see your body, touch and taste and push and cut and care for your body just as you can for any other physical object in space - but you can also feel your embodiment, the what-it's-like-to-be of your body, in a way that you cannot feel for any other body, and in a way that no other mind can have access to. This can somewhat figuratively be called "knowledge from the inside," and it occurs only in time, as given in "inner sense," as opposed to outer sense, which is formally structured by space in addition to time. You perceive your body to move across areas and over durations, but you only know the correlate volitions/emotions/gratifications/revulsions temporally. When you direct your consciousness outwards, your encounters the objects and events of the physical universe; when you direct your consciousness inwards, you encounters the states of your individual will. Again, everything in space and time is known, is intelligible, only as the mind itself structures it into intelligibility - that is, as ordered by the mind's own innate spatiotemporal forming capacity. So everything known in space and time is only a representation in the mind, dependent on the operation of that mind; nothing in the physical universe is a thing-in-itself, since time and space are not things-in-themselves. Your whole body is just an outer representation of your inner will, and this inner willing is itself just an inner representation of some thing-in-itself that you have no immediate awareness of (and in fact could not ever have consciousness of). But since this inner representation lacks the form of space, and is only ordered across time, it more fully discloses the essence-in-itself of the thing-in-itself that your inner and outer senses represent to your consciousness. We can figuratively call the inner will the "minimally veiled" representation of your body, your willing, and your knowing.


Closer...

File: mictecacihuatl.jpg (34KB, 438x584px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 438x584px

>>8506860
>>8508094
>>8508467

Third: Your own self-consciousness has revealed that your deepest knowable being, your innermost accessible nature, is that of willing - desiring and fleeing and suffering and relief and enjoyment and boredom. Now, given the sameness of your body and behaviors to other bodies and behaviors, it is clear that some other living things have inner wills that attract them towards their own goals and drive them away from their own threats - other organisms like fellow humans, apes, and elephants behave in ways that objectify their own individual inner forces of willing that no other mind could have access to except their own. But upon closer examination, it's not only the behavior of highly intelligent animals that manifest willing; even animals with very simple neurological organs behave in ways that display attractions towards food and mates, repulsions from predators and hostile environments; even plants demonstrate attractions towards light and water, and repulsions from nutrient-weak soils and surfaces, though the movements of plants are unconscious reactions to mere stimuli; and even inorganic beings manifest their own inner wills, in the automatic unions and dissolutions of chemical compounds, in the gravitational attractions and repulsions of solidity that characterize rocks, and in the restless causal energy that comprises matter itself. All individual objects in the universe are best understood on the analogy of our own individual bodies and inner wills, such that if a rock had consciousness, it could desire to rest immobile. We can best decode the spectacle of nature by attributing an individual will, an individual drive to maintain existence, to each individual part of nature, and at whatever level we examine nature; the unending interactions of blind physical forces, the restlessness with which organisms are born and grow and struggle and die in countless numbers, the constant pressure of your needs and desires and the boring emptiness of stationary, idling consciousness. It paints the portrait of a simple, omnipotent urge at the basis of existence. And when we try to think of what nature is in-itself, apart from the forms of space *and* time - that is, when we think away all individual bodies in existence, *and* think away all of their correlated individual wills - we are left with the concept of being that is not spatial and not temporal, thus being that is totally un-individuated. One individual thing can only be distinct from another individual thing if it occupies some spatial location and/or some temporal duration that the other thing doesn't; one glass on the table is not the other glass because the matter of one takes up a different space beside the other, and one thought is distinct from another because it occurs at an earlier or later time. In-itself, we are all metaphysically one, and the closest knowledge we each have of this one thing-in-itself is our own knowledge of our individual inner willing.

>>8504730
More like we are the will's universe.