Posts by slymaker9

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

: blush 🙂 :

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

A resource would be any kind of value, capital, or energy one possesses.
Hmm, hm, laziness.
In my view, everyone is lazy.
Everyone has to be "pushed" into working; it just comes easier to some than others. It seems to me that will might be exactly that mechanism that shifts a person from a passive state to an active one.
Fine, let me try to broaden the scope a bit.
A human being is composed of particles with mass; therefore, we are inherently sluggish and inert. We naturally tend toward inertia, wanting to maintain our current state and direction.
So, if a human—essentially a system of particles with mass—is lying down, they naturally seek to remain in that state.
The will that arises in pursuit of a goal acts like a spark—a force that creates the psychological readiness to direct energy toward changing one's current state or direction. It is the transition into an active state, which, by the way, consumes more energy than is required to maintain homeostasis or a "cold" idle.
As for how much willpower an individual possesses, that likely depends on hormonal levels in the brain and, by extension, genetics.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

I fail to see how willpower relates to homeostasis.
Are you suggesting that willpower is a self-regulating subsystem within the human organism?
You mentioned greater efficiency.
But efficiency is defined as achieving maximum output with minimum work input.
The path of greater resistance requires more work.
Perhaps the crux lies in quality and the pursuit of excellence—a more brilliant objective.
From an evolutionary standpoint, it would actually be more advantageous to pursue a higher quantity of relationships, as more encounters increase the probability of producing new life. Evolution favors volume, allowing natural selection to act upon a larger pool.
On an individual level, however, a person strives for higher quality in relationships, both in terms of selecting a better partner and improving the nature of the connection itself.
If we find ourselves with partners who possess superior traits, strong genetics, and a commitment to monogamy, yet one individual is sterile, evolutionary biology views this as a total disaster. From a strictly biological standpoint, however, both individuals might still perceive this union as a success, aligning perfectly with their own personal desires and sense of fulfillment.

silentcyclist3 said:Earlier you mentioned that "... it doesn't happen just because will exists."

It looks like Olivia Evans8 might be on the right track. No matter how you look at it, you can't escape the concept of will. Using the term "will-less" probably just describes a tendency toward a task, but if you're being forced, you have to direct your will toward solving the problem itself.🙂

I view it this way: if I have the urge to urinate and I just start peeing right where I am—without moving or even taking off my clothes—there is no will involved. For instance, in people who cannot control urination due to illness, it becomes a purely instinctive occurrence.
An urge is, essentially, an instinctive, automatic behavior.
If I feel the urge to go and everything is fine, under normal circumstances, a psychological readiness will emerge to expend the necessary energy to get to a restroom, etc., all with the goal of not wetting myself.
In that scenario, there was a will to satisfy the urge and to avoid an accident.
Will is tied to the ability to control oneself and one's behavior, directing those actions toward a specific direction and goal.
If we are talking about coercion, I don't believe there is a will to perform the task itself, but rather a will to eliminate the threat. Performing the task is merely the means—a resource you invest. It's a slightly more complex distinction, but in my view, it is a resource.
If you are acting "will-lessly," a will still exists, but it is low.

N/A

dustyskipper3 said:Well, if we are going to look at this through a psychological lens, I guess you could view the human subject as being composed of the id (the pleasure principle), the ego (the reality principle), and the superego (representing laws, morality, and so on). The ego sort of balances things out within reality by trying to mediate those extremes... so, depending on that balance, I guess one might have more or less willpower.

However, what we are attempting to do here is examine the concept of will from a somewhat more metaphysical or philosophical perspective—something that perhaps includes the will of the universe, or a first mover, and things of that nature.

Freud viewed it that way, and while it was certainly one of the more developed theories of its era—quite groundbreaking at the time—it’s clear by today's standards that it falls significantly short.
The idea that willpower is merely a tug-of-war between the id and the superego doesn't hold water for me. Based on my own observations of people in the real world, that theory simply doesn't align with reality.

N/A

dustyskipper3 said:Well, if we are going to look at this through a psychological lens, I guess you could view the human subject as being composed of the id (the pleasure principle), the ego (the reality principle), and the superego (representing laws, morality, and so on). The ego sort of balances things out within reality by trying to mediate those extremes... so, depending on that balance, I guess one might have more or less willpower.

However, what we are attempting to do here is examine the concept of will from a somewhat more metaphysical or philosophical perspective—something that perhaps includes the will of the universe, or a first mover, and things of that nature.

Look, you could easily read this as: You think you're such a big shot, but maybe you should go take a little stroll over to psychology.🤣
You can't be serious about wanting to kill me. Willpower. What are your thoughts on participating in philosophy debates?🤣
What should I get myself?🙈 And what about Chicago?🙂

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that other members have been contributing alongside you and Cervantes. Besides, forum etiquette dictates that if you aren't replying directly to someone in the middle of a conversation, you address the original post. These discussions are public across all subforums, and anyone is free to jump in whenever they like. I didn't specifically intend to follow your or Cervantes' particular line of reasoning just so I could quote one of you and track your specific flow. To be honest, I didn't even have the patience or the inclination to read through it all. So, please, spare me the patronizing—or should I say, the "guidance." 😕
I personally favor a philosophy centered on the relentless pursuit of truth—a constant effort to uncover facts and calculate the reality of any given situation. To me, that is what true philosophy is all about.
In every direction. I understand it quite well—it’s light, flexible, and completely unburdened. If you want to put it simply, it's straightforward.😉

Look at that. Just look at how much I’ve overindulged, and what it's doing to my ego.🤣🤣🤣

silentcyclist3 said:The mind has to find a way to make the goal happen.

Sexual drive. Like, if a stranger catches your eye. Usually, you're much more willing to put effort into talking to someone like that than to people you aren't attracted to.

Exactly. That involves a conscious investment of personal resources. Essentially, you are investing energy, because everything ultimately boils down to energy—whether that’s labor, effort, or anything else.
It works like this: you have a drive, you want to satisfy it, and that's where willpower enters the equation.
But look, I have sexual drives, and I can satisfy them through either easy or difficult means, involving varying levels of energy expenditure. Why would I choose the harder path? Why would I invest more energy when the most natural thing to do is act economically and follow the path of least resistance?
I feel like there's a missing link here.
Where does the motivation come from to consciously pursue a more attractive goal at a higher energy cost? Because that is what true willpower actually looks like.🤷

silentcyclist3 said:Your definition of will seems to include all the same elements present when someone is acting against their own volition.

I think impulses actually drive the will. 🙂 Maybe I got that wrong.😁

My view is that when a person acts against their will, they lack the psychological readiness to commit their resources.

Which impulse, for example?

silentcyclist3 said:But what about those moments when you do something without any will at all, or maybe even against your own will?

If a person acts against their will, it implies some form of external coercion or an outside threat.
Beyond that, action doesn't seem to require conscious intent; one can also act simply to satisfy an impulse without any external pressure involved.

Willpower is essentially the psychological readiness of an individual to commit specific personal resources—namely energy, effort, and time—toward achieving a particular objective.
Something along those lines.
But if the goal is clearly defined, why does willpower fluctuate so inconsistently?
Is it a conflict between competing objectives, or simply following the path of least resistance?

swiftcobra71 said:Man, it's pretty tough to pin down exactly how your coworker was feeling in that moment because, besides just the words, you'd need a bit more like their body language, eye contact, facial expressions, and all that stuff to really know. No one can give you a perfect read based on just a sentence, but looking at what you wrote, here's my take. It sounds most likely like an insecure outburst from someone who, for reasons only you know, feels lesser than when they're around you. It’s hard to judge much from just a couple of posts, but the way you framed this question makes it feel like you really know/think this colleague is insecure—probably because you've picked up on it in other situations too. Honestly, by asking for advice on a psychology forum like this, it feels a little bit like you might be looking for validation of your own upper hand over them, and maybe even getting a little kick out of it. Hang in there!

Larry Peterson30 said:Okay, at first glance, it sounds like a 'realistic' and 'honest' statement. But that word 'even' really bugs me. To me, it suggests that this person doesn't just have a high opinion of themselves (which they admitted), but they’re positioning themselves far above everyone else (which is what they implied). They frame it that way so people won't see them as selfish or arrogant, but rather as being honest and grounded.
In my opinion, we're looking at an intelligent, cunning, and calculating individual dealing with a massive ego. But that's just how I see it.

Ah, everything clicks now. These two posts helped me piece it all together.
The statement itself is exactly what anonymus described: the words of someone who views themselves as superior to others—someone intelligent and shrewd, but possessing a very inflated ego.
That is essentially who he is, which I have gathered from other situations as well.
However, for some reason, I still perceive him as insecure, which I also know from past experiences. Because of that, I viewed his statement through that lens, which is why my initial impression was so muddled. My primary feeling was that he was using that comment to convince me that I should hold him in high regard and recognize his intelligence, while simultaneously implying that even he can't be perfect at everything.

Jerry Martinez5 said:I agree with this. Why are you so desperate for us to confirm his insecurity?

I simply want to verify my own interpretation and impression.
Does this strike others the same way it did me, or do people perceive those words differently?
The sentence itself felt odd to me—almost redundant and quite absurd—but I was clearly struck by the fact that he delivered it with total sincerity. It caught me off guard, which is why I felt the need to comment.
In a professional setting, most people wouldn't say something like that to a colleague they maintain a strictly formal relationship with, even if they privately believed they were geniuses.
My friends and inner circle have told me I'm smart before, sure, but saying it in such a formal context comes across as eccentric at best.
To me, it's strange; to someone else, it might seem perfectly normal.🤷

There was a misunderstanding here. I wasn't entirely clear in my previous message. I didn't actually ask him a question, so he didn't realize that; that's why he responded the way he did. It was just a standard sentence where he was repeating what I had already stated, followed by something I neglected to mention: "...that I would have time to read it all."
He could have simply said, "I won't be able to get through all of this," without bringing his own opinions or personal capabilities into the conversation.

To me, that whole self-reflective intro felt awkward and completely irrelevant to the point.

Sandra Parker3 said:You can't really determine if someone is being sincere just based on a single statement

Honestly, it’s usually just a way of being condescending, if you ask me
Instead of saying, "I have a pretty high opinion of myself, but I honestly don't think I'm capable enough to handle..."
They just opt for a vague "I don't know" or "That's a tough question" or whatever else...

I didn't want to go into too much detail in my opening post, but he was essentially trying to tell me how highly he thinks of himself, and to me, it just came off as pathetic and insecure.
It wasn't even arrogant; it was just laughable.

So, was his goal to be repulsive, or is he just genuinely thick or dim-witted?
I wouldn't go so far as to call him stupid, though I can't deny he made some professional blunders—mistakes I actually warned him about.
But he is certainly odd and hard to read.

Hi everyone!

During a recent business meeting, someone dropped this line on me with a completely straight face: "I hold myself in very high regard, but I don't even think I have the capacity to..."
For some reason, it didn't strike me as confidence. To me, it sounded more like: "Don't go thinking I'm not smart; I'm actually quite brilliant."
It felt like they were trying too hard to convince me of their intelligence, which usually points toward deep-seated insecurity.🤷
What’s your take? Are these the words of an arrogant, confident person, or someone who is fundamentally insecure?
What kind of personality says something like that, and what is their actual goal?

He’s crazy, and there’s no denying it.