The nature of will. On the forces that drive.

I once wrote a post titled: ‘To live or not to live. That isn’t really a question’ for my old blog: http://oftheforge.blogspot.com. I dealt with the idea of the human desire to exist, live and fight for his or her life when all evidence points to the magnificent insignificantness of our existence. I came to the conclusion that we live simply because we want to live. And that those bloodlines who didn’t would quickly be weeded out by natural selection. Here I’m going to try and talk about the (related) idea of ‘will’.

The next few paragraphs will be dreary and serious. Bear with me. They are important.

As an added note: these are my ideas alone. I haven't taken the trouble to read through more than Wikipedia or talk to someone who’s devoted any amount of time and study to this. Well, here we go:

A person who chooses not to steal because the Ten Commandments said so would be exercising free will because it was their choice to follow the Ten Commandments Someone who independently forms their own moral system or who composes a musical composition pleasing to themselves. however, would be exercising an act of will. –Wikipedia, on Nietzsche’s perspective

Nietzsche clearly felt that will was something that made us act in a certain way. That something was his higher ‘an act of will’ when it was somehow internally motivated. I disagree. I believe that his perspective is an abstraction of my more general principle:

Will is the ability/practice to put/of putting a larger long term gain* ahead of a smaller short term gain*.

-*Gain is some tangible, visible or perceived benefit whether internal or external. It should be applied in the broadest sense possible, applying to both the trivial and the grand. Also, it is important that the idea of ‘larger’ and ‘longer term’ be applied very liberally. A situation where someone does B instead of A or C, where A is the most immediate and easiest option, B is the middle choice and C the ultimate ‘best choice’ is still exercising ‘will’ as defined above. In this case C is simply disregarded and B is taken as the more ‘difficult’ yet ‘better’ ‘longer term’ ‘gain’ according to that person’s inner reasoning when compared to A. – Me.

Starting with that first principle, we can derive Nietzsche as follows: In the 10 commandments case the smaller, short term gain was the wealth the theft would bring him. The longer term gains (of not doing so) are several – the internal tangible benefit of not having to deal with his conscience, the visible benefit of not being caught and punished and the perceived benefit of being admitted to heaven having lived a virtuous life. The second case is more interesting. For this we must analyse the concept of ‘pleasing to themselves’. I believe that the idea of satisfying oneself can be looked upon as a combination of a  sense of achievement, as simple pleasure and as a stepping stone to something bigger (such as acquiring a mate or future success). All these are, I believe, things our minds trick ourselves into doing as they increase the probability that our Genes will survive. In this sense, my definition holds as the composer is giving up the small gain of lazing around and having fun for the perceived greater, longer term goal of becoming a more eligible mate and more successful person in all. Do note that it is not required for this process to be carried out entirely consciously. Our minds trick us with abstractions. Thus, we simply note that an extra helping of Kesari (a sweet from south India, which you’ll love!) is ‘bad’ rather than trace its effects on our health and thus our eligibility as mates and our efficiency at doing other, advantageous things before denying ourselves it.

One important thing to note is exactly what I have intended to do with my definition of will. I wanted a definition that would apply to all scenarios, especially, situations where a person could be called ‘strong willed’ for doing something instead of some other thing. In the second case I have not actually reconciled Nietzsche's idea of free will with mine. I have simply explained how my definition satisfies an act of free will (i.e. the motivation to do something like that) but not the specifications of that free will itself. I am separating the concept of free-will, the idea of choice and non-determinism, from ‘will’, the somewhat abstract idea of force and power we associate with the word ‘will’.

Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. It is defined as purposive striving. – Wikipedia on ‘Volition’

Again, this straddles the line between my ‘will’ and the idea of free will. I have tried to define the kind of will it takes to drive a human against all perceived odds. The kind of will you find possessed by heroes ancient (Hector et all etc) and in modern graphic literature (Batman, say) as almost a power that is as important as super-strength or speed. ‘purposive striving’ is closer to what I’m getting at; obviously, it derives from my definition too – why would you sacrifice your immediate comfort to ‘strive’ unless some greater reward lay at the end?

At this point, having discussed several approaches to ‘the will that motivates’, I have hopefully convinced you that my definition of ‘will’ is a good basis for understanding that aspect of the human psyche. Before I get to the point of this post I’d like to address another point: My definition can act repetitively (recursively if you will… no pun intended). For example: in the example given as an addendum to my definition a person chose B out of A, B, C where they lie in increasing order of ‘gain’ and ‘long term-ness’. Here my definition is ideally applied twice. In the first B was chosen disregarding C. Here the person is ‘weak-willed’ as, in the act of deciding on the ultimate objective the ‘best’ one was given up for something easier. He, however, is still ‘strong-willed’ in pursuing B instead of the immediate comfort that A would provide. I am not specifying any limits to these ideas. A person who gets out of the way of a speeding car is still accounted for because he/she took the effort of moving (effort toward the longer term gain of staying alive) as opposed to the ‘easy’ option of simply staying put. This application might seem weird at first, but I feel that a certain amount of ‘will’ is built into our instincts. Doing something to avoid almost immediate pain and suffering instead of just sitting there and enjoying the even more immediate lack of exertion still counts!

And now to the point of it all- isn’t the idea of ‘will’ beautiful? It is so abstract, so belonging to the realm of grander things. But it is something we experience, within ourselves, every day of our lives. I am exercising my will when I write this. I could have simply slept or played another game of Quake. But I didn’t. Why? Well, I don’t really know. All I get from my head is that I’m doing something ‘good’. What my head thinks It’ll result in is beyond the ‘conscious me’. Doesn’t that intrigue you?

I simply want to peer into that great, dark mystery that is the human mind. And I don’t think that it is very complex in its basis at all. I believe that it is just a few rules (like this one) applied over and over again, in inconceivably complex ways. Each of those rules are simple products of natural selection (Indeed, the idea of ‘will’, especially as I have defined it, is an obvious aid to our survival) yet they have resulted in something so much more impressive than anything else around us. We build ships to the planets and cities that tower above all. Our nearest ancestors, who are supposedly, 98% like us would be lucky to build a misshapen club. How on earth is that possible? I refuse to subscribe to any of the silly ideas (read: supernatural explanations) that many rely to- they answer nothing. I yearn to answer that question; to understand ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘you’ and ‘I’. Because hopefully, one day, I’ll be able to improve upon it.