>You can do what you want but you can not will what you want
What did he mean by this?
You may approach an action anticipating a particular reaction, but it may not result in what you were expecting.
>>7618969
You can't choose what to want, but you may do what you want.
Seems perfectly clear to me.
>>7618984
That's because the first lad to reply hasn't read any Schopenhauer
>>7618975
No, you're stupid and you should kill yourself.
>>7618969
Our eventual drives are all causally determined. We do what we will and perceive that we do what we will because we think we want something, and are then able to achieve it (that's there the illusion of free will comes from) but our will traces itself back to a previous state of existence which also goes back to a previous state of existence which can be traced all the way back to our birth and the way our will was back them.
Keep in mind that 'willing' according to Schopenhauer can only be the will that shows itself through a concrete action. We can wish a whole lot of things just like water could theoretically be falling down, moving in waves or but when it comes to the concrete real world we're living in, we can only will the things we actually end up doing much like water in a puddle will only end up being stagnant water. The rest is just wishful hypothetical thinking.
Schopenhauer is unnecessarily biologically deterministic because he forgets that social influences can also work causally (remember, his philosophy is optimizing for despair and pessimism) but other than his point would still stand. We are shaped by our biological and social factors and history, those shape our will as it is right now, and therefore we can't will what we want because those shaping factors are not determinable by us.
>>7619379
>Schopenhauer is unnecessarily biologically deterministic because he forgets that social influences can also work causally
Despite your arrogance, this sentence tells me you either haven't read Schopie carefully or are just a dense cunt. I figure the latter is the case.
>>7619540
You do realise he makes a list of his assumptions in his treatise on the non-existence on free will and that that's one of them, right?
I remember that clearly because he explicitly mentions that and it's completely unnecessary and that's why it always struck me as odd.
