Willpower - is it an energy thing?
If someone lacks willpower, does it mean they are weak-willed, have no self control or are they simply physically tired or emotionally drained ? All of the above ?
When we decide to do something and it fails, how harshly do we judge ourselves?
I know what I should do to improve my wellbeing, but...what is it that sometimes stops me ?
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
' Akrasia (/??kre?zi?/; Greek ???????, "lacking command"), occasionally transliterated as acrasia or Anglicised as acrasy or acracy, is described as a lack of self-control or the state of acting against one's better judgment.[1] The adjectival form is "akratic".
The problem goes back at least as far as Plato. In Plato's Protagoras Socrates asks precisely how it is possible that, if one judges action A to be the best course of action, one would do anything other than A?
In the dialogue Protagoras, Socrates attests that akrasia does not exist, claiming "No one goes willingly toward the bad" (358d). If a person examines a situation and decides to act in the way he determines to be best, he will pursue this action, as the best course is also the good course, i.e. man's natural goal. An all-things-considered assessment of the situation will bring full knowledge of a decision's outcome and worth linked to well-developed principles of the good. A person, according to Socrates, never chooses to act poorly or against his better judgment; and, therefore, actions that go against what is best are simply a product of being ignorant of facts or knowledge of what is best or good.'
'...Aristotle reasons that akrasia occurs as a result of opinion. Opinion is formulated mentally in a way that may or may not imitate truth, while appetites are merely desires of the body.'
I don't know how accurately this wiki article reflects the classical approach to willpower, or the lack of.
I would be interested to hear more about this. Some theory and a bit of practice.
How to make a success of any New Year's Resolutions....how does willpower work ?
Do we need to be charged up, or what ?
When we decide to do something and it fails, how harshly do we judge ourselves?
I know what I should do to improve my wellbeing, but...what is it that sometimes stops me ?
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
' Akrasia (/??kre?zi?/; Greek ???????, "lacking command"), occasionally transliterated as acrasia or Anglicised as acrasy or acracy, is described as a lack of self-control or the state of acting against one's better judgment.[1] The adjectival form is "akratic".
The problem goes back at least as far as Plato. In Plato's Protagoras Socrates asks precisely how it is possible that, if one judges action A to be the best course of action, one would do anything other than A?
In the dialogue Protagoras, Socrates attests that akrasia does not exist, claiming "No one goes willingly toward the bad" (358d). If a person examines a situation and decides to act in the way he determines to be best, he will pursue this action, as the best course is also the good course, i.e. man's natural goal. An all-things-considered assessment of the situation will bring full knowledge of a decision's outcome and worth linked to well-developed principles of the good. A person, according to Socrates, never chooses to act poorly or against his better judgment; and, therefore, actions that go against what is best are simply a product of being ignorant of facts or knowledge of what is best or good.'
'...Aristotle reasons that akrasia occurs as a result of opinion. Opinion is formulated mentally in a way that may or may not imitate truth, while appetites are merely desires of the body.'
I don't know how accurately this wiki article reflects the classical approach to willpower, or the lack of.
I would be interested to hear more about this. Some theory and a bit of practice.
How to make a success of any New Year's Resolutions....how does willpower work ?
Do we need to be charged up, or what ?
Comments (65)
It is reason that wants to stop smoking as a New Year's Resolution, because smoking is bad for your health, it costs money, it makes you smell etc. Reason therefore states that to stop smoking is Good. However, if reason isn't in control of the other to parts of our nature, it is a matter of time until desire or spirit (emotion) takes over and we start smoking again. Maybe because we crave the feeling of smoking (desire) or because we try to forget our wordly woes (spirit). These parts of our nature will therefore try to convince us that to start smoking again is actually Good, and if reason isn't firmly in control, they will eventually prevail.
So willpower seems to hold a close relation to reason and the degree to which it is able to control the other parts of our nature.
Quoting Tzeentch
Thanks for this and your practical elaboration. Real life examples help.
[ An aside: As someone who has started but not finished Plato's Republic, I understand that there are different translations and interpretations of his work.
May I ask if you have a favourite translator and have you read any of the commentaries ? ]
I have to say I was surprised to read that Socrates, in the play, denies the existence of weakness of will.
I will have to read Protagorus to examine the context.
However, from this SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/
'''No one,” he declared, “who either knows or believes that there is another possible course of action, better than the one he is following, will ever continue on his present course” (Protagoras 358b-c). And philosophers have been wrestling with the issue ever since. It is not surprising that weakness of will has such a long and distinguished pedigree as a topic of philosophical discussion: it is both an intrinsically interesting phenomenon and a topic rich in implications for our broader theories of action, practical reasoning, rationality, evaluative judgment, and the interrelations among these.
My own feeling is that I would love for akrasia not to exist because then who could then judge another for it ! Perhaps they would just call it by another name. Stupidity ? Irrational ?
Here's another view from the SEP article:
'Michael Bratman, for instance, introduces us to Sam, who, in a depressed state, is deep into a bottle of wine, despite his acknowledged need for an early wake-up and a clear head tomorrow. Sam's friend, stopping by, says:
“Look here. Your reasons for abstaining seem clearly stronger than your reasons for drinking. So how can you have thought that it would be best to drink?” To which Sam replies: “I don't think it would be best to drink. Do you think I'm stupid enough to think that, given how strong my reasons for abstaining are? I think it would be best to abstain. Still, I'm drinking.” (1979, p. 156)'
Plato's Republic as the Allegory for the Training of the Soul
If you're interested in Plato, as you seem to be, I would recommend taking a look at the channel. There is an absolute wealth of knowledge there.
Something else that ties into this discussion which I find interesting, is the fact that Plato speaks of the Good, but never of evil. There is no evil, only degrees to which people are wrong about the Good. Similarly I think that what we perceive as someone being 'driven towards something that is bad for him', like drinking, is someone who in that moment believes (perhaps wrongly) that drinking is good for him. Such judgements, which reason knows to be wrong, may be perceived as right by the desire or spirit. In your example, Sam is depressed. Such a state of mind can only be ruled by spirit (emotion), and it is in all likelihood his spirit that is convincing him to drink. Reason is not in control, thus Sam is driven towards things that are bad for him, though his spirit is telling him otherwise.
So I think the reason Socrates states ??????? cannot exist, is because one is not acting against their better judgement, but their judgement was simply wrong, likely due to the fact that the wrong part of their nature was in control when the judgement was passed.
Yes well I suppose all ideas are useful in some respect in a philosophy discussion.
What do you think of the idea of 'ego depletion ?
From your linked wiki article:
'Ego depletion refers to the idea that self-control or willpower draws upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be used up.[1] When the energy for mental activity is low, self-control is typically impaired, which would be considered a state of ego depletion.'
The ego here is used in the psychological sense.
Again using wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
' The id, ego, and super-ego are three distinct, yet interacting agents in the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche.
The three parts are the theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction our mental life is described. According to this Freudian model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego.'
Interesting to consider. If there is a limited supply of mental energy apparently resulting in impaired self control which is then termed a state of ego depletion...then does this also apply to the id or superego ?
Id depletion - now there's a thought...
I don't even know how such theoretical constructs can even be measured....far less fill up the tank ?
The id would correspond I suppose to following our passions without rhyme or reason. Perhaps the lack of willpower...?
The ego our higher self - the reasoning part. This is the right and rational thing to do.
The superego - our conscience. The judgmental. Evaluative judgment ?
So all 3 parts will be continuously interacting. No wonder we get tired...
Going round in virtuous or vicious circles...
Ego depletion doesn't really require the Freudian notion of the ego to get going. As a phenomenon, all it requires is that people exhibit less self control when they're in states of fatigue, especially when that fatigue is induced by concentration or tasks which otherwise require self control.
I think it's a reasonable idea that's fraught with problems when trying to experimentally verify it.
I think we are in agreement. The psychological concept is fraught with problems and is currently being debunked. I wonder at it taking so long...
It is clear to most people that conscious decision-making and behaviour can be affected by various factors, tiredness being one of them. Drinking a glass of lemonade ( as per experiment) might give a quick boost to the system but what has this to do with self-control or even willpower.
I don't see willpower as being a finite or quantifiable resource. We might compare people who we think have more or less self control than others but that can be variable and context dependent.
I found this article useful re the concept of willpower. There is an argument for getting rid of it.
http://m.nautil.us/issue/45/power/against-willpower
What are Socrates's premises on the subject of willpower ?
Can you tell me which arguments with Socrates you are talking about ?
There is a lot to digest in your last post.
I will have a look at Pierre Crimes.
Will respond when I can...thanks.
So, I see nothing great in willpower and those who have it. It's just one of those mind hacks people write books about. They sell well. I'm at a loss why.
If you think that willpower is needed to overcome any obstacle in the path to achieving some goal, then it seems a contradiction for you to 'see nothing great' in it. Can you explain further ?
Why would you be puzzled if people look to outside resources to help overcome any difficulties or problems in their lives ?
The primary motive for Socrates not accepting the "lack of command" argument is that he is holding out for a certain way to understand understanding as a form of agency. That part of the soul struggles against the appetitive for directing the whole as described in the Republic starting at 439c. But a third element is introduced there as well, namely, thumos, which gets translated as anger or "high spiritedness", depending on the context. Now in the argument going forward, Socrates sees thumos as able to ally itself with reason but not with the appetites:
[i]"And do we not, said I, on many other occasions observe when his desires constrain a man contrary to his reason that he reviles himself and is angry with that within which masters him, and that as it were in a faction of two parties the high spirit of such a man becomes the ally of his reason? But its making common cause with the desires against the reason when reason whispers low, Thou must not---that, I think, is a kind of thing you would not affirm ever to have perceived in yourself, nor I fancy, in anybody else either.
No, by heaven, he said."[/i] Republic 440b Paul Shorey translation
This conclusion does pertain to your observation that Plato is reluctant to consider evil as anything but the absence of good. But I am not sure I agree with Socrates here. In terms of thumos providing strength to achieve an end, I think I have seen "energetic" forms of self-destruction.
So I think if it takes a king's money to be able to reach ?????????, I am screwed. I find that self control is so much easier in some certain situations than others. Health, vocation, family support, financial security,etc. How many of us could ever be like Diogenes? Where life could hammer us and we still have the same steel will as before?
So I do believe ????????? and ??????? are byproducts of Fate. You may fight to preserve the one over the other for a while, and you may make it to the end! But, depending on where you live, the forces around you, etc etc etc......it seems more and more a crap shoot.
I thought I would tackle part of your substantial post.
[ A wise, empathic person once advised me when I bemoaned the fact that there was too much to take in when reading Plato.
'... it is a mistake to take in nothing because you will never be able to take in everything.' ]
So even if we feel overwhelmed at the enormity of any project, perhaps lacking in energy/motivation or willpower, we can take one step at a time.
First - I don't agree that a depressed state of mind can 'only be ruled by spirit (emotion)'.
Why do you think that?
What do you mean by 'Fate' ?
One dictionary meaning is: Fate is a power that some people believe controls and decides everything that happens, in a way that cannot be prevented or changed.
Do you believe that whether or not you have willpower or self- control is predetermined and cannot be changed by your own action ?
That sounds like a passive acceptance and an excuse not to try and improve your current situation.
First of all, I fully encourage you to continue studying Plato. Trying to understand his philosophy is a rewarding mental exercise of itself, and there will come a point where something will 'click' and his ideas will start to intuitively make sense to you.
Now, to your question: I think we can determine depression is the domain of spirit by process of elimination. Desire clearly does not qualify. All men desire the Good, thus no man desires to be depressed. To eliminate reason is a little more complicated, because we must firmly understand its meaning in Plato's works. Reason is that part of the mind which seeks truth and wisdom, and is interested in the nature of the reality. The highest expression of reality is the One or the Good. Therefore, reason must necessarily lead one to the Good. Whenever it doesn't, one is not being lead by reason, but being deceived by spirit or appetite. That leaves us with spirit. And can we not say that depression is the presence of profound sadness, or the absence of happiness, therefore the natural domain of spirit?
Agreed, Socrates clearly says that thumos is not always allied with reason. His argument that thumos does not ally with the appetitive, however, is asking for a distinction in how to look at "passion."
You can say that but I wouldn't. It is a generalisation and simplification.
Depression is more complex than that, as I think you probably know if you have read anything about it. Or even experienced it.
Varying degrees and causes require different strategies for coping or treatment.
Cognitive symptoms are perhaps less well known than those of low mood, fatigue and loss of interest.
For example, there are negative thought patterns. And various other cognitive distortions.
This is the province of reasoning. And can be alleviated by cognitive behavioural therapy ( CBT ) amongst other treatments.
Physical symptoms include a slowing down of movement and speech. And so on.
I am not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing in aspects of the Good, or even deception by spirit.
I am frankly uneasy with your understanding of depression. There seems to be a moral element creeping in. For example - if you are thinking of a spiritual depression, what do you consider would be the causes and cures ?
Well, there is the passage I just quoted from Republic 440b that you replied to. It is best understood reading a bit before and after those words.
There are discussions in Book 9 in the Republic that touch upon the same issue. There are passages in other dialogues that may help. I will try to pull together what I can over the next few days.
Quoting Amity
Is weakness of will is like physical weakness? Do you judge yourself for your physical limits or judge others for theirs? There are things I am not capable of no matter how much I train and try. In addition, my willingness to train and try may not be very great to begin with. Is that a lack of willpower or simply a limit of my will?
Or, it may be that the whole notion of willpower is wrong. There may only be various and sometimes competing desires. It is not weakness of will that fails to stop me from eating cake, but that at this moment the desire for cake is stronger than the desire to lose a few pounds. But this is too simplistic. The story of competing desires is not an accurate description of the complex physiological and psychological things going on within me.
I accept that judgment up to a point. I would not accept it as a final word on how the model is used to diagnose what is wrong. The premise of the Republic is how to not be overwhelmed by bad things. It respects the enemy as something that could win and is not triumphant in relation to the elements that might change the balance.
A good model doesn't explain everything but does draw attention to what is lacking.
If there is a more accurate Platonic view of the soul, what is that?
What support do you have for that? The premise as stated is to defend justice against the argument put forward by Thrasymachus that whatever is beneficial to you.
Quoting Valentinus
The short answer is, no. There is no accurate view of the soul at all. What it is and what happens to it at death remains a mystery.
In the Phaedo Socrates makes the argument that what is composed of parts can be destroyed, and so, if the soul is immortal it cannot be composed of parts. Other arguments are put forth in the Phaedo to persuade his friends that the soul is immortal but they all fail. One argument is that Soul is imperishable, but this proves to be problematic for the soul of the individual and self-identity.
Thrasymachus also claimed that the powerful are always the last word about what is just. That puts the matter of opinion into a different register. The winners of political struggles get to say what is good and bad. Glaucon's desire to have that point contested is why anything after the first book happened. At least as far as the dialogue explains itself.
The immortality thing is an important argument that may or may not be connected to the other arguments.
Yes, I believe this is a good description of the tripartite soul. The spirit (sometimes translated as ambition), is like a medium between the mind and the body. It is how the two distinct categories, mind and body interact. Through the means of spirit or ambition, the mind may have control over the body. But in an ill-disposed, poorly tempered person, the opposite may be the case, and this is a corruption of the soul. It is suggested that we might be able to culture the proper balance, and in The Republic the suggested balance between training in gymnastic and music appears to be prominent towards this end.
Quoting Amity
Augustine considered this problem quite extensively. How is it possible that one can know what is good, and even decide to do the good action, yet still proceed to do the contrary? I believe that this is the root of his division of the human mind into three parts, memory, intellect, and will. It is an extension of Plato's tripartite soul. With this division, the will does not necessarily follow what the intellect. Later, Aquinas discusses the relation between intellect and will. Although the will is generally seen to follow the intellect, in the absolute sense will is prior to intellect. This is how we can uphold Augustine's conception of free will.
My point is willpower is a just a gimmick. There'a position A, where you are. Then there's position C, where you want to be. But there's this position B, which you have to cross to get to C.
If B is a pleasant place there is no need for willpower.
If B is an unpleasant place then we need willpower.
My point is all you wanted was to get to C and willpower is nothing more than an intermediary to achieve an objective. The goal-oriented nature of it diminishes its value. We have willpower only to achieve happiness or joy and that's something everyone wants. So, what's the difference between the strong-willed and weak-willed people?
I don't think people lack will-power per se, it's more that they do not possess the necessary degree of intent to cause certain activities. The capacity to will or to produce intent is present in everybody but, it is more or less progressed depending on how developed it is. I think, sometimes, it is developed by directly training it, other times it develops instinctively in response to circumstances. Therefore, the difference between strong and weak willed people is just the degree to which the capacity to will is developed.
With that in mind, I'd like to address your comment.
Quoting Amity
The word reason (?????) that Plato uses carries a significant meaning, of which you are perhaps unaware, and there is a very important distinction here. Reason can only lead to truth. To the degree that which it doesn't, it is being deceived by spirit or desire to make false conclusions. Cognitive distortions and negative thought patterns therefore, cannot fall under reason, because they are (I think by definition) not based in reality. Reasoning can be false, to the degree it is being mis(led) by spirit and desire. Reason can never be false.
Quoting Amity
The Good and the One should not be confused with morality. The concept of the Good and the One (they are the same) is fundamental to Plato's philosophies and if I were to try and explain it in a forum post I would not be doing it justice. Suffice it to say that Plato's 'the Good and the One' has nothing in common with the popular concepts of 'good and evil'. A simple, but insufficient explanation would describe the Good as 'that which is ultimately real'. It holds a very close connection to reason, which is why I brought it up.
I assumed you had studied Plato's idea of the Good and perhaps I have moved too fast in my explanations. It is quite fundamental to almost all of Plato's works and I would recommend studying it before moving on. The lecture I shared earlier is the first part of a two-part lecture on Plato's Republic. In the second part the Good and the One are explained. There are also lectures on commentaries on Plato by Proclus and Plotinus who go into greater detail, to which I can link you if you want.
Yes. There might be a case for another thread related specifically to Plato.
However, I am not concerned about following different strands of conversation. I am enjoying hearing about others' perspectives, views and reasons. It is refreshing and challenging.
And for a well- rounded discussion, including psychology, it is not necessary to study the Republic before 'moving on'.There is more than one approach.
Quoting Tzeentch
I wouldn't expect that of anyone. However, I think that in any discussion of ' Willpower - is it an energy thing ?', an increased understanding of depression is both pertinent and useful.
I have simply challenged your understanding of it.
Your response avoids my question about your thoughts on any spiritual depression - potential causes and cures. Instead you appeal to Plato...
Thank you,and anyone else I might have missed, for responses. I hope to reply later.
Next year perhaps :)
Of course I meant that I appreciate all responses. It's just that I haven't got round to those mentioned.
I can't keep up...
I need to backtrack a little. My original question was:
Quoting Amity
This was prompted by your statement that:
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't have a definition or understanding but I though you might have.
The question began with 'If'.
It appears that that is not what you were thinking of.
Thanks for all input. Will be taking some time out now.
I don’t see how this shows that the premise of the Republic is how to not be overwhelmed by bad things.
Quoting Valentinus
Right. The way he poses the problem is interesting. It seems as though he is familiar with Socrates notion of Forms:
"For I desire to hear what each is and what power it has all alone by itself when it is in the soul" (358b)
Quoting Valentinus
My point about that this particular argument for immortality is that it is based on a soul without parts. The tripartite soul of the Republic has three parts.
In addition, it puts bodily desires in the soul, but this is problematic considering what is said about the soul’s release from the body. If desire is in the soul rather than the body then there is no escape from bodily desire. We are tied to the body whether we have a body or not.
In the course of restating Thrasymachus' argument, Glaucon cites the story of the ring of Gyges which allows unjust actions to go unseen to introduce how "seeming to be just" can conceal crimes. Adimantus takes up the theme in regards to how that becomes an education of the young:
“Socrates, my friend,” he said, “when all these things of such a kind and in such quantity are said about virtue and vice, the sort of esteem in which human beings and gods hold them, what do we imagine it does to the souls of young people who hear them, all those with good natures and equal to the task, as if they were floating above all the things that are said in order to gather from them what sort of person [365B] to be and how to make one’s way through life so that one might go through it the best possible way? From what seems likely, that person would speak to himself as Pindar wrote, ‘Is it by justice or by crooked tricks that I make the wall rise higher’ so as to fortify myself to live my life? For the things that are said claim there’s no benefit for me to be just if I don’t also seem to be, but obvious burdens and penalties, while they describe a divine-sounding life for an unjust person provided with a reputation for justice. [365C] So, since, as those who’re wise show me, ‘the seeming overpowers even the truth’ and is what governs happiness, one should turn completely to that. It’s necessary for me to draw a two-dimensional illusion of virtue in a circle around myself as a front and a show, but drag along behind it the cunning and many-sided fox of the most wise Archilochus.14 “‘But,’ someone says, ‘it’s not easy always to go undetected in being evil.’ Well, we’ll tell him that no other great thing falls into one’s lap either, but [365D] still, if we’re going to be happy, this is the direction we’ve got to go, where the tracks of the argument take us. To go undetected, we’ll band together in conspiracies and secret brotherhoods, and there are teachers of persuasion who impart, for money, skill at speaking to assemblies and law courts, by means of which we’ll use persuasion about some things, but we’ll use force about others, so as to get more than our share of things without paying the penalty.
Plato. Republic (Focus Philosophical Library) 365a Translated by Joe Sachs
The need to find an understanding of justice that is truly beneficial to a person is the only way to counter this form of instruction and way of life.
Regarding the immortal soul, it is spoken of as living in bodies. In Phaedrus, it is put this way:
"And now that we have seen that that which is moved by itself is immortal, we shall feel no scruple in affirming that precisely that is the the essence and definition of soul, to wit, self-motion. Any body that has an external source of motion is soulless, but a body deriving its motion from a source within itself is animate or besouled, which implies that the nature of the soul is what has been said." 245e
This prefaces a discussion of the soul's nature that also uses "parts", namely, the analogy of the winged chariot made up of charioteer and two steeds:
"With us men, in the first place, it is a pair of steeds that the charioteer controls, moreover one of them is noble and good, and of good stock, while the other has the opposite character, and his stock is the opposite. Hence the task of our charioteer is difficult and troublesome." 246b Translated by R Hackworth.
The nature of the soul in someone who is alive is different than what it is in itself. The separability from the body is what is discussed in Phaedo.
I am not saying that they cannot be a destructive duo. The disinclination of thumos to ally with desires in opposition to reason is one of the ways that we can see that it remains a separate agency. A little further on, Socrates makes your point and mine together:
[440E] “That it’s looking the opposite of the way it did to us just now with the spirited part, because then we imagined it was something having to do with desire, but now we’re claiming that far from that, it’s much more inclined in the faction within the soul to take arms on the side of the reasoning part.” “Absolutely,” he said. “Then is it different from that too, or some form of the reasoning part, so that there aren’t three but two forms in the soul, a reasoning one and a desiring one? Or just as, in the city, there were three classes [441A] that held it together, moneymaking, auxiliary, and deliberative, so too in the soul is there this third, spirited part, which is by nature an auxiliary to the reasoning part, unless it’s corrupted by a bad upbringing?” “It’s necessarily a third part,” he said.
Plato. Republic 440d Translated by Joe Sachs
The importance of seeing them separately comes up in other discussions and I need to pull those elements back together into my tiny mind.
That is the challenge as it is put to him, but how well did it work out for Socrates? Is it only in the just city that does not exist anywhere that justice is truly beneficial to the person who is always just? If justice is understood as the proper balance and harmony of the soul, that is, as the health of the soul, then just as physical health is preferable to illness, the health of the psyche too is preferable. But is that the case when dealing with people who are unjust? Quoting Valentinus
The two depictions of the soul in the Republic and the Phaedrus do not match up. Different stories for different occasions. Socrates says the he speaks differently to different men depending on their needs.
Quoting Fooloso4
That is a good question. I think the dialogue wrestled with it in Book Nine where the diagnosis of various polities are compared with states in the soul. The matter is all mixed up with how you live in a particular place. I hear you questioning how complete the Socratic/Plato answer may be to the questions it presents. I don't read it as a last word. Socrates was able to survive his interlocutors, that time. So, in that sense, he did not end the discussion for all time in the fashion Glaucon asked for in Book Two.
Quoting Fooloso4
Noted, the depictions do not match up. The difference points to the way the use of allegory and metaphor are put together with observations of what can be observed "psychologically" as matters of experience with no concern whether the different models are congruent to some overriding principle. As a reader, one has a choice. Either what is being presented fits into a particular argument or there is another element, that is skeptical of the idea that one argument can just replace another.
If one held to the latter point of view, how would that be expressed using the logic that only one or another thing can be true at the same time?
I am not sure I understand your question. I don’t think that either depiction is intended to be an accurate depiction of actual souls.
If this is right then the notion of reason ruling the soul should not be taken at face value. The idea that the soul is ruled by reason is a noble lie.
The erotic nature of the soul should not be overlooked or minimized. The philosophical soul that desires wisdom is the most immoderately erotic.
Some do see willpower as a muscle which can be trained so as to enhance self control and get things done that have to be done even though you don't want to or can't be bothered.
Apparently the first known use of the word 'willpower' was in 1859 - perhaps as a way to encourage strong character and attain success ( not sure of this but it seems aligned with Victorian moral concerns and virtue ).
This meant that people perceived as lacking in willpower e.g. the poor were judged as bad.
Even if is true that there was a lack of willlower, this is not to say that there was a lack of will or desire to improve their circumstances.
I think it human nature to judge - constant evaluation of self and others, comparisons made.
Unfortunately our perceptions and assumptions can be wrong.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. There is this view that the concept of willpower is not a helpful one. However, even if it were to be eliminated there is still the reality of how we manage our competing desires. It is a matter of priority.
And how motivated we are. Our decision making processes can be simple or complex. Depending.
So you think willpower a gimmick, nothing more than an intermediary to achieve an objective.
How do you see it mediating ? As some kind of a force or emotion ?
I agree we don't need willpower when things are going well but perhaps we need it to get there in the first place. Also some might be comfortable in their unpleasant place and don't need or want willpower to go anywhere.
How does the goal oriented nature of it diminish its value ?
Not everyone wants happiness or joy. There are different, more specific goals or objectives that might require willpower. So that we can push through our own obstacles of tiredness or apathy.
Having willpower does not necessarily equate with strong-willed.
A child can be strong-willed in desire to eat a bucket of chocolate. Willpower won't stop this but being sick will.
Being strong-willed can be seen in certain world leaders. Not always a sign of strong character.
Power can be about strength, or ability, capacity to do something or act in a certain way.
I think you are right in that it requires an energetic determination.
I also think it related to motivation.
How much our various intentions are relegated according to our actual desires rather than those we or others might impose.
Thanks for this. I have not studied Augustine. I think dividing the human mind into parts - it always seems to be three - is quite problematic. That one follows or rules another...
Some people value intellect more than emotion or desire in behaviour, life-style or the decision-making process. And vice versa. I think it depends on the task at hand.
Some think we should do away with the concept of willpower altogether. Instead of focusing on it, we should be examining the power of will. Basically, I think we give up on projects that don't engage us.
That's interesting.
I like that image.
It seems to be very like how current 'talking' therapies work.
No set answers but examining self and beliefs as in CBT ?
Cognitive stuff....
Socrates called himself a physician of the soul. The first psychologist?
As per the discussion in this thread, it is a complicated relationship and we cannot say that one follows or rules the other. This is why we can talk about things like training the will in good habits, and training to be strong willed.
Quoting Amity
I don't understand this statement. What would be the difference between "will power" and "the power of the will"?
That makes sense.
''Know Thyself'.
How else do we understand and improve ?
How else do we make life worth living but by examining our life. In all its aspects.
Thanks for the question. Answering it might help clarify my thoughts. So far, here's what I've got.
Willpower as a concept meaning an energetic determination, a tool to develop habits of selfcontrol.
It seems to be moralistic in nature. If one doesn't have or employ it, they are judged as being weak willed. The person and character are denigrated. However, willpower is only part of a very complex whole.
The power of the will, or desire, operates within us all. If there is a lack, then it is more likely to be addressed sympathetically. The causes perhaps being physiological - postnatal depression for example.
The difference lies in that we don't need training to be strong-willed. A child is that.
Some might wish to train that out...
Likewise, willpower is, at its foundations, about achieving something and deriving satisfaction from it. Isn't that what everybody intends? There's no difference between one who has willpower and one who doesn't in that sense.
That said willpower is an ingredient to ''greater'' success because success isn't something you get right the first time. There will be many failures and you need willpower to sail you through the difficult times.
I understand you better now.
'Sailing through the difficult times'. Yes. We do need some kind of a power to see us through...from intentions to acts.
That reminded me of an Italian proverb :
Tra il dire e il fare c'e di mezzo il mare.
There is a sea between saying and doing.
Also, 'between saying and doing, many a pair of shoes is worn out'. Good news for the Italian footwear industry :)
Will and desire are not he same. The will is free, but desire is driven by some underlying condition. The will being free is what allows us to choose a course of action. But in order that the will may have the capacity to choose freely it must also be able to suppress impulsive actions. This is will power. Without will power we'd always be acting impulsively, and never capable of choosing freely. So will has two aspects, one being the capacity to resist actions, this being will power, and the other being the capacity to initiate actions, this being free choice, or free will. Will power is necessary in order that one may exercise freedom of choice.
Quoting Amity
Now I need to ask what you mean by "strong-willed". Assume that the will has two parts, two aspects like I described, will power and free choice. "Strong willed" ought to signify an appropriate balance between the two. Imagine if one's will power was very strong, so much so that the person always resisted actually doing anything. This would not be good. On the other hand, if "strong-willed" meant that the person would persist in a chosen activity, even when that person ought to use will power to resist from that activity, this would be bad as well. So "strong-willed" must mean a balance between will power and following one's free will.
It depends on what definitions are being used. There are various meanings according to context. In philosophy, there are opposing views on the concept. And free will. And so on.
When I wrote about the will, or desire, operating within us all, I was actually thinking of the verb.
To will. To want.
Where there's a will there's a way. Angela Merkel also added...' but the will should come from everybody'. The noun is about disposition. Where there is a desire...
As a verb it can express desire, choice. Or a customary habit, natural tendency.
You can call it what you will. You can think of the noun 'will' as you desire.
It might not be the right way, according to some traditionally philosophical way...but it's your way.
As a noun - a disposition to act according to principles or ends.
The act, process or experience of willing - volition. Appetite, passion. Choice, determination.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/will
So, in my example, I chose an example where there is a lowering of a desire, of will as volition.
That's all I have for now. I am using my willpower to come off the internet. Right away.
But do you see that what we call "will power" is opposed to this? Will power is what we use to resist the urge to act on what we want or desire. So the two are somewhat opposed to each other and need to be understood by distinct concepts, because a person can get conflicted within, torn up and undecided.
Quoting Fooloso4
I think different depictions are supposed to be accurate for the purposes undertaken in each case.
One of the elements that intrigues me about the Socrates/Plato work is, as you say, how it is different for different interlocutors.
In any case, it is rare to find metaphor and mythology mixed freely with observations of what "is" as is done with such abandon in the Republic. I don't think the "noble lie" applies to all the observations made in the Republic. But it influences it in every place.
There are so many indictments of character made in varying levels of subtlety that make me think I am not just being sold a bill of goods but am reading a diagnosis.
Indeed. And much more besides.
There are so many ambiguous terms, conflicting views and arguments in philosophy that we might never get off the merry-go-round.
I think what matters is how concepts are applied in real life.
Especially at this time of year when resolutions get broken as soon as they are made.
You got no willpower, babe !
This kind of negative message can stick in a person's head.
Sometimes aggravating an already poor self-image.
Philosophy as in questioning the 'diagnosis' might help if the person has the confidence, knowledge and experience so to do. Or access to external resources who aren't interested in playing word games just for the sake of it.
I wonder if you can show me any examples. I am interested in reading the Republic.
Also fascinating piece of serendipity that we both just talked of 'diagnosis'.
People who are experimental subjects in this area of study are often asked to use their not-best hand for routine tasks such as opening doors, for a week or two. Then when asked to perform some task in the lab they usually show far less patience than a control group. Experimental psychologists are ingenious.
Yes. We have had quite an interesting discussion from various perspectives. A good summary might be useful at some point.
So, what is your view of 'willpower' both as a concept and how it operates in life ?
How do you understand it ?
Thanks.
Quoting Amity
I thought about different passages to quote but the quality I am singling out is a way to hear what is being said more than a thesis. I argued for a thesis in my previous citations because my interpretation was challenged. Fair enough. But I am more interested in the listening part of my own idea than ruling out other readings.
Rather than prove something, let me suggest the following.
Books 8 and 9 of the Republic address the tyrannical soul, both as something created by certain conditions and what being that kind of thing is like on the level of the individual. Socrates treats the emergence of the tyrant as a product of the Demos and that exposition fits with the "city of words" model that claims the Demos needs to be saved from itself. While reading Book 8, note how the argument is built upon the relationship between father and son. The political is tied with the most intimate relationship of parenting. (leaving aside, for the moment, the glaring lack of any recognition of the other parent).
In parallel to this idea, there are many places where Socrates criticized the plutocracy and much of it happened in fairly subtle ways but also became challenges of the kind that became an argument. One example can be found in Gorgias, especially starting around 517. So, I offer the following from Socrates at 521:
[i]"Socrates: Then distinguish for me what kind of care for the city you recommend to me , that of doing battle with the Athenians, like a doctor, to make them as good as possible, or to serve and minister to their pleasures? Tell me the truth, Callicles, for it is only fair that, as you spoke your mind frankly to me at first, you should continue to say what you think. And so speak up truly and bravely now.
Callicles: I say then, to serve and minister.
Socrates: Then you invite me to play the flatterer?
Callicles: Yes, if you prefer the most offensive term, for if you do not.....
Socrates: Please do not say what you have said so often---that anyone who wishes will slay me, only for me to repeat that, once he has robbed me, he will not know what to do with his spoil, but even as he robbed me unjustly, so too he will make an unjust use of it, and if unjust, shameful, and if shameful, wicked."[/i]
Translated by W.D. Woodhead
Anyway, this level of intimidation is also about fathers and sons. It is presented differently than the descriptions in Book 8 of the Republic. But it does connect to why Thrasymachus showed up at a rich man's party.
Quoting Valentinus
Quoting Valentinus
Thanks for taking time and trouble to find the part which would help me understand what you were meaning.The following is most helpful. I will take time out now to read.
'Books 8 and 9 of the Republic address the tyrannical soul, both as something created by certain conditions and what being that kind of thing is like on the level of the individual. Socrates treats the emergence of the tyrant as a product of the Demos and that exposition fits with the "city of words" model that claims the Demos needs to be saved from itself. While reading Book 8, note how the argument is built upon the relationship between father and son. The political is tied with the most intimate relationship of parenting. (leaving aside, for the moment, the glaring lack of any recognition of the other parent).
In parallel to this idea, there are many places where Socrates criticized the plutocracy and much of it happened in fairly subtle ways but also became challenges of the kind that became an argument. One example can be found in Gorgias, especially starting around 517. So, I offer the following from Socrates at 521...'
Valentinus:
' I thought about different passages to quote but the quality I am singling out is a way to hear what is being said more than a thesis. I argued for a thesis in my previous citations because my interpretation was challenged. Fair enough. But I am more interested in the listening part of my own idea than ruling out other readings.'
I understand that there are many different translations and interpretations of Plato. Ways of reading.
From the above, how does one 'hear what is being said' ( an evocative reading ?) without there being some kind of understanding of meaning ? So already there is some kind of a mental 'thesis' not necessarily to be proven, especially if subjective in nature. A theory. A view.
So, one might 'hear' a 'level of intimidation' and then make some references to the relationship between father and son. No doubt there are many ways this can be understood or spun. But what anyone 'hears'
or 'sees', regarding any connections, should be made explicit - that is a 'thesis' presented.
It isn't a matter of being more interested in one than the other. It's not either/or...but both.
That is my take on it.
An interesting aside to the discussion.
Your point is well taken. My reluctance is not an unwillingness to explain how I understand the writing. I just want to encourage reading without already having the topic bracketed between possible interpretations. There are all kinds of ways of reading and I believe it is helpful to learn about them. But I also think it is important to wrestle with works by yourself. Approaching it that way is different from checking if you agree with opinions already expressed by others before you read it. So, suggesting to take note of the interpersonal element in dialogues, both in the topics discussed and the interlocutors discussing stuff is a part of my "interpretation" but you have the opportunity to see it a different way. Many have.
Quoting Amity
Well, this is why I brought up the topic of thumos in the previous discussion. The closest parallel I can find between how it was discussed back then and later on is related to the experience of getting really pissed off.