Talk:Will (philosophy)

message: I noticed that someone put a tag so that the table of contents is on the right. Is there any reason for this? I've never seen that before. I think it should be moved to the normal position since it will make it look like a normal entry. Any objections or insight into why anyone would want the table of contents aligned right? - Jaymay (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents

message: Hello, everyone. I just wanted to know if it alright if I delete the first paragraph of "Kant" section since it does not pertain to Kant's idea of the will. Rather, as mentioned in my article (I'll post a link to it), there is much to Kant's idea of the will?
::"Kant's Transcendental Idealism claimed that "all objects are mere appearances [phenomena]."[18] He asserted that "nothing whatsoever can ever be said about the thing in itself that may be the basis of these appearances."[19] Kant's critics responded by saying that Kant had no right, therefore, to assume the existence of a thing in itself." (That is what I am thinking on getting rid of, at the consent of the editors of this article.)
: I just wanted to ask first, so I don't cause any issues amongst the editors of the article precedent to me. Christopher H. Moller (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Will (philosophy)" Amendments

message: This is a mess, isn't it? Even if the Britannica article were more readable, what I can glean from it suggests that it applies more to the religious "problem of free will" than to "will" alone. Not that I'm suggesting we move the great chunk to free will, mind you. Mswake 03:38 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
:I COuldnt read it all without drifting off into some dream land!  I want to know something about will!!!!!!   I would edit it but Im dumb Jaberwocky6669 01:02, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Still a mess. Not only needs rewriting, but there's stuff to be added. - a recent source of new insight (or minimally new directions) would be George Ainslie 2001 Breakdown of Will.BobKeim 12:59 June 29, 2005 (GMT)
The 1911 Brittanica article is horrible! I shall erase the article and try to provide the skeleton for a new article.
The Brittanica article cannot be salvaged. The ideas are unnecessarily abstruse and only seem to describe the subject obliquely. Rintrah 7 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
I am too lazy. Someone else can do it.
I will do it when I can summon the will. Rintrah 7 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
I think this should be reverted to a version that incorporates large parts of the 1911 Britannica article.  You might not have liked the style in which it was written, but it did, at least, have some content.
Most of the comments below seem to speak more to the character of a lazy readership and less to the defects of the 1911 Britannica author.
If you think it need to be updated, streamlined, or revisited, fine.  Stylistically it might have much to be desired.  But it at least has scholarly, encyclopedic content.   --Li3crmp 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: I threw out most of what was there already; it was basically a lot of peacock comments on how important will was and how it was a crucial problem in philosophy without explaining anything.  I've tried to make this be a brief overview of the types of will in philosophy along with prominent links to where you can find out more on each type, instead.
Note that the use of lower-level headers were an intentional choice; each meaning doesn't seem quite different enough for a top-level header, and it looks odd that way. SnowFire 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent shifts. 

message: Human spirit can be observed as the drive of intelligence to counter biological evolution. Groups and social organizations can express will, but we can only directly observe this trait of intelligence firsthand through our own exercise of will. Will is the perspective of the individual as intelligence housed in the human brain strives to overcome obstacles and dominate environments and boundaries. In a nutshell, will is the observation that choice is provided by intelligent thought. What the individual chooses is a measure of willpower. Cbeast (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, unless published in a refereed journal or monograph, original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will as the individuals observation of the drive of intelligence to adapt nature to the organism. 

message: I've removed the comment about Schopenhauer because it is false.
He may have said that the thing in itself is will, but this does not mean that the whole world is a product of each individual's volition (Willkuer). New thought ideas cannot be attributed to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.191.76 (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer 

message: There is no section See also, other wise I would have mentioned Viriya within the article.
: -- 88.75.94.0 (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Willpower'' in Buddhism 

message: The existing section 'Idealism: Will as all' appears to conflate idealism with the thought of Aleister Crowley.   Additionally, it is unsourced.  I will remove it. - Crosbie 16:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Idealism: Will as all

message: — Assignment last updated by AlexMHFD (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Library 100 - Critical Approaches to Information Research