"A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."
For this fascinating sentence, I immediately saw two interpretations; and then, after some further thought, two more interpretations.
On the first interpretation, Schopenhauer forbids us to build circular causal models of human psychology. The explanation for someone's current will cannot be their current will - though it can include their past will.
On the second interpretation, the sentence says that alternate choices are not reachable - that we couldn't have taken other options even "if we had wanted to do so".
On the third interpretation, the sentence says that we cannot control our own desires - that we are the prisoners of our own passions, even when we struggle against them.
On the fourth interpretation, the sentence says that we cannot control our own desires, because our desires themselves will determine which desires we want, and so protect themselves.
I count two true interpretations and two false interpretations. How about you?
My take is the more physical sense. A man who wills to build a house can do just that. He can perform the labor neccessary to physically build it into existence thereby doing as he willed. However, the same man cannot achieve the physical reality of the house simply by willing it into existence no matter how intensely he wills it to be.
To understand this further check also: Causa Sui, Origination, Prime Mover, they mean essentially the same thing!
I was obsessed with Free Will, after having an existential crisis. I came to this conclusion on my own, I don't even know how these deliberations ... (read more)
Followup to: Possibility and Could-ness
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) said:
For this fascinating sentence, I immediately saw two interpretations; and then, after some further thought, two more interpretations.
On the first interpretation, Schopenhauer forbids us to build circular causal models of human psychology. The explanation for someone's current will cannot be their current will - though it can include their past will.
On the second interpretation, the sentence says that alternate choices are not reachable - that we couldn't have taken other options even "if we had wanted to do so".
On the third interpretation, the sentence says that we cannot control our own desires - that we are the prisoners of our own passions, even when we struggle against them.
On the fourth interpretation, the sentence says that we cannot control our own desires, because our desires themselves will determine which desires we want, and so protect themselves.
I count two true interpretations and two false interpretations. How about you?