Will (philosophy)

Aristotle also addresses a few questions raised earlier, on the basis of what he has explained: Inspired by Islamic philosophers Avicenna and Averroes, Aristotelian philosophy became part of a standard approach to all legal and ethical discussion in Europe by the time of Thomas Aquinas[1] His philosophy can be seen as a synthesis of Aristotle and early Christian doctrine as formulated by Boethius and Augustine of Hippo, although sources such as Maimonides and Plato and the aforementioned Muslim scholars are also cited.

With the use of Scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica makes a structured treatment of the concept of will.

[4] Under the influence of Bacon and Descartes, Thomas Hobbes made one of the first attempts to systematically analyze ethical and political matters in a modern way.

Lastly, from the use of the word free-will, no liberty can be inferred of the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do.."[5]Spinoza argues that seemingly "free" actions aren't actually free, or that the entire concept is a chimera because "internal" beliefs are necessarily caused by earlier external events.

The appearance of the internal is a mistake rooted in ignorance of causes, not in an actual volition, and therefore the will is always determined.

Some generations later, David Hume made a very similar point to Hobbes in other words: But to proceed in this reconciling project with regard to the question of liberty and necessity; the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science; it will not require many words to prove, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of liberty as well as in that of necessity, and that the whole dispute, in this respect also, has been hitherto merely verbal.

We cannot surely mean that actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations, and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can conclude the existence of the other.

This concept developed from Rousseau's considerations on the social contract theory of Hobbes, and describes the shared will of a whole citizenry, whose agreement is understood to exist in discussions about the legitimacy of governments and laws.

[7] In this group, people maintain their autonomy to think and act for themselves—to much concern of libertarians, including "John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant,"[9] who proclaim an emphasis of individuality and a separation between "public and private spheres of life.

[11] This, in other words, makes the general will consistent amongst the members of the state, implying that every single one of them have citizenship and have freedom[7] as long as they are consenting to a set of norms and beliefs that promote equality, the common welfare, and lack servitude.

[18] Universality in societies' institutions is found via reflecting on historical progress and that the general will at present is a part of the development from history in its continuation and improvement.

[19] The people of the general will see themselves as superior to their antecedents who have or have not done what they are doing, and judge themselves in retrospect of what has happened in the course of occurrences in the present in order to from an equal community with others that is not ruled arbitrarily.

"[21] Also, Cicero mentioned how every person is unique in a special way; therefore, people should "accept and tolerate these differences, treating all with consideration and upholding the [dignity]... of each.

Locke started to believe, and then spread, the ideas of "freedom of thought and expression" and having "a... questioning attitude towards authority"[21] one is under and opinions one receives[21] because of Sir Francis Bacon.

"[23] In Locke's Second Treatise, the purpose of government was to protect its citizens' "life, liberty, and property[23][22]-- these he conceived as people's natural rights.

[21] Furthermore, Locke advocated for freedom of expression and thought and religious toleration as a result of that allowing for commerce and economy to prosper.

[21] In other words, Locke believed in the common good of society, but there are also certain natural rights that a government is bound to protect, in the course of maintaining law and order-- these were the mentioned: life, liberty, and property.

[25][26] In other words, Kant's belief in the a priori proposes that the will is subject to a before-experience practical law—this is, according to Kant in the Critique of Practical Reason, when the law is seen as "valid for the will of every rational being",[27] which is also termed as "universal laws"[28] Nonetheless, there is a hierarchy of what covers a person individually versus a group of people.

Specifically, laws determine the will to conform to the maxims before experience is had on behalf of the subject in question.

[30] This hierarchy exists as a result of a universal law constituted of multi-faceted parts from various individuals (people's maxims) not being feasible.

[32] On the other hand, Kant's categorical imperative provides "objective oughts",[33] which exert influence over us a priori if we have the power to accept or defy them.

"[37]Besides the objections in Kohl's essay, John Stuart Mill had another version of the will, as written in his Utilitarianism book.

When we become conscious of ourself, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and desiring.

It appears in every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of man...."[40] Schopenhauer said that his predecessors mistakenly thought that the will depends on knowledge.

[43][44] They also study the phenomenon of Akrasia, wherein people seemingly act against their best interests and know that they are doing so (for instance, restarting cigarette smoking after having intellectually decided to quit).

Advocates of Sigmund Freud's psychology stress the importance of the influence of the unconscious mind upon the apparent conscious exercise of will.

Abraham Low, a critic of psychoanalysis,[45] stressed the importance of will, the ability to control thoughts and impulses, as fundamental for achieving mental health.