Who had the better idea in regards to the root of human action? Was it Freud (will to pleasure), Nietzsche/Adler (will to power), Frankl (will to meaning), or Schopenhauer (will to life)? Why do you think so? If you would like to bring up someone other than these, feel free to say so, but include a decent description of their ideas.
>Inb4 will to memes
>Inb4 will to my diary desuIf you think that I got something wrong please explain why you think so.
Things can have many causes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D
>>8242531
>>8242535These are not answers
>>8242501
>>8242577
You'd have to go the ontological route for this answer to have a good chance for validity. Heidegger, Hegel, Sartre.
Diogenes
>>8242501
Power is pleasure. Pleasure is meaning. Meaning is life.
So all of them t b h
>>8243467
you can´t just make stuff up, anon
>>8243488
So Freud, Nietzsche, Adler, Frankl and Schopenhauer can, but I can't? Explain yourself.
Also nice dubs
>answering wrong questions
>>8243496
they didn´t just make stuff up, they derived their philosophy and showed proof for their claims.
your stuff can easily be debunked
>Power is pleasure
not for everyone. power means responsibility. many people try to have as little responsibility as possible, because otherwise they would have to invest time and work when they´d rather sit on the sofa and watch telly
>Pleasure is meaning
only in hedonism. see>>8243500
>Meaning is life
lol nope, Camus would like a word with you
Pleasure is achieved through power.
Every other will can be described as will to power, because will (or more precisely the carrying out of that will, perhaps the will to carry out a will) is in and of itself is a form of power.
>>8242501
Waaah Umaru wa sooo cute!~
>>8243574
>Pleasure is achieved through power
Lol, you must be a sadist. Have you ever heard of masochism?
Nietzsche didn't deny the will to life; he that the will to life was subordinate to the will to power.
I think that the will to power finds its root in the will to life. The will to power is simply a manifestation of the more widely spread will to life, albeit the will to power is the stronger.
Think of the difference between ice and water. It takes a lot of water to kill a man , but with ice it only takes a sharpened icicle. Both the water and the ice are made of the same type of matter.
>>8244096
:3
>>8242501
The will of ''good'' i.e jumble up everything you have listed and even more. Whatever you do is good, you can not do bad things, and every act is selfish, pure selflessness is not possible. With enough analysis the root cause of any action or thought is that of self interest. Only external acts against you can be truly perceived as evil or bad.
>>8244171
That conflicts with moral/ethics. Most people will recognize that they made something wrong after a questionable act (killing someone is a basic example) and many people doesn't even do some acts for themselves (Kamikazes for example).
>>8244171
Why does a suicide bomber do it? In your example it is for honor. This makes him feel good, because the system he has been conditioned in says this is a good thing to do. By ending his life to help the war effort and get honor to his family name or whatever, he is benefiting even if he is dead, or so he thinks in his ideological framework. It is still an act of self interest.
>Most people will recognize that they made something wrong after a questionable act (killing someone is a basic example)
This depends on their social conditioning. Some people can kill and not regret it. To them this is good. Another person kills someone and regrets it, the regret itself is him rationalizing the killing and through feeling bad about it he has upheld his morality, therefore he is doing good.
