[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1568328105388.jpg (203 KB, 2880x1800)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
Have any thinkers discussed the relation between will & will power in depth? And whether it's possible to gain complete control over one's will power and actions? All I find when I search is stuff about free will or Will to life/Will to power which are unrelated
>>
>>21569835
I think the reason why you are not getting as much engagement on this post is twofold:
1) You are asking a specific and interesting question, which automatically filters 95% of the board because this board is retarded
2) You have asked your question rather vaguely.
What exactly do you mean by will and will power, what problem exactly do you want examined, and what exactly do you mean by "in depth"?
The only thinker that I am familiar with who deals extensively with the idea of will, action and identity is Evola, whose views are hard to summarise in a single post. How you define will is important here because without definitions a lot of the things I can tell you about his ideas is pointless to say. For those with a general interest, I suppose Ride the Tiger would be a good introduction to the topic of will, specifically chapters six to twelve (including them too). The aim of these chapters is to give guidelines on how a man can identify his own nature, unify with it, and thereby stabilise and direct his will effectively.
The will conceived in a purely human sense, however, is a precarious thing, because it is tied to the moods, decisions and ideas of the human personality, which is always subject to change, to emotion and to outside pressures and influences. As a result, the will also ends up fragmented and fluctuating, unless it is harmonised with a clear and discernible character, principles and nature, that provide a superior direction "from above" that is not up to the individual to change or renegotiate at a whim. What makes the will constant and enduring is also what makes it constraining and limiting - no serious development can occur without a limitation in scope (also known as focus!)
>>
>>21571556
>Evola
Stopped reading right there.
>>
>>21571572
(You) never started reading, anon.
>>
>>21569835
>Parmenides
>Zeno of Elea
>Plato

You would learn about the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.
>>
>>21571572
>guy gives a serious thought-out answer for OP's question
>redditor sees a name of an author he doesn't like (probably without having even read him) and immediately starts foaming at the mouth
>just makes an effortless shitty post instead when he cannot find the downvote button
Why are these people like this?
>>
>>21572280
Downvoted.
>>
>>21572280
>>21572320
retweeted
>>
File: kant_3critiques_set_2.png (27 KB, 308x308)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
>>21569835
Literally critique of practical reason
>>
>>21572440
Retruthed



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.