On 9/3/2013 3:54 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei<do.infinit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a buddhist.
>you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself to want to
>want. you can have and act upon the desire to change your desires, but that
>doesn't constitute "willing" what you want. instead, this constitutes just
>another form of acting in accordance to one's wants
Ok. I was thinking about Schopenhauer's sentence on my bike ride to
work and I cannot decide if it's a deep insight or a language trick.
My problem is with the meaning of "want" and the possibility that by
applying the verb to itself we might just be breaking language
somehow. Sorry for the rambling.
I think it's the same insight that Hume expressed, "Reason is, and ought only to be the
slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.