Can the idea of the Will be defended scientifically?

>Science is only concerned with Casuality
Not even that. It was Aristotelian science that truly embraced all four causes to usher in a much healthier and livelier science, whereas all causes including the material are absent from modern science, which reduces material to the motion of quantity on empty space, much as modern technology challenges forth while true techne brings forth a new product.

Thanks for your replies. I know this probably sounds silly, but how would I have my reductionist science-man friend grasp the idea of the Will as anything more than unscientific, and thus - in his view - just an educated guess, ramblings?

Meant to reply to this first

I think he would actually have to read Schopenhauer or Nietzsche or Spengler to really understand. But modern scientists are not philosophers, so you would be wasting your time trying to explain it to him.

Yeah, read his bit about electricity

Absolutely, firstly, to hyper-clarify; when schopenhauer talks of the will to life, he is not talking about personal will persay, as much as he is referring to a metaphysical force. This force is imperative in all life, and for schopenhauer, was the force that explained the 'why' behind kantian spontaneity. If you need 'scientific' evidence, you can make analogies with evolution via genetic drift and GS, or you can refer to the interchangeability of matter, and energy. Since schopenhauer himself actually argued that matter and energy are interchangable, in that they are both given impetus by the same metaphysical will to life (to exist). In simple terms, all existence must be guided by something which compells it to continue to exist, this includes both physical constructs of matter and energy, and the metaphysical groundwork to structures such as evolution. You cannot of course provide empirical evidence for this as your friend may feel is required for it to be 'science' but if he is legitimately a scientist then he will know that in truth, this is not required. I hope this helps, if any hardcore schop scholars think I have misrepresented please say, as I have only read world and will and parerga et paralipomena

Thanks, can you elaborate some more on the knowing that empirical evidence isn't required part?

Well, why do you want to?

I enjoy a good talk. Why would you ask this?

Of course and you are welcome. Ok so without going in to catastrophic detail into the philosophy of math and history of science ill try and wrap it up. Lets take a very basic scientific model of understanding, that is you speculate a hypothesis, you test it, if it is supported empirically it becomes a theory and is considered scientific evidence. However, this is actually not 'scientific' in the actual sense of the word, as for something to be truly scientific it must be supported by pure reason, that is it must be true before, and after empirical observation. Ways in which we can do this are typically only through pure mathematics, and highly complicated metaphysical justification. Take Evolution for example, a scientific fact. Evolution is not simply an idea or a behaviour which can be observed and that is it, it is a metaphysical idea that propells something to act a certain way when it is observed (e.g we know evolution is the axiomatic force which causes meiosis, we know this not because we observed meiosis but because evolution as an axiom was a scientific law clarified as mathematically sound before any experience was required). With more time and space I would like to go into a lot more detail but it would require a lot of historical context. In essence, a scientific proof that is based on empirical observation is actually highly insufficient to refer to something as scientific (true), this is due to the myriad of problems involving empirical observation, so for something to be truly considered scientific it must at the very least be true before empirical experience, and for most science (physics being the prime example) that is all that is actually needed, as the founding concept of quantum mechanics revolves around the problem of observation. See pic related if your friend is a fan of scientism, heisenberg is considered to be one of (if not) the greatest modern physicist to ever live.

Attached: quote-i-think-that-modern-physics-has-definitely-decided-in-favor-of-plato-in-fact-the-smallest-wern (850x400, 77K)

Because it's not necessarily conducive of being a good scientist to understand all philosophical concepts.

I see. Is there any book that you'd recommend on this relation between philosophy (metaphysics) and science?

Honestly, nothing that is directly correlated (heisenbergs physics and philosophy is ok). I would just read up on the history of science and see what it evolved out of. Kants first critique is the best text to understand metaphysics and its implications, but in terms of philosophy and science I would just read about pure mathematics. Frege's 'foundation of arithemtic' is good, as is 'on the previously undecidable propositions in the principia mathematica' by Kurt Godel. But both of these texts require good knowledge of the context in which they were made, sadly there are no short cuts if you are truly interested in the philosophy of science. (completely ignoring the analytic garbage that makes up the entire field of philosophy of science today, which is effectively either "dont use numbers on man, we are special!!" - people like Scruton or "science is just rational brooo dont start thinking about theory or truth, science is just using common sense" - Harris and the rest of the "intellectual dark web"). In general though my advice to you is this, if after explaining all this to your friend he says something like "and" or "why does it matter" just give up talking to him about philosophy. Some people just arent interested in these questions, or any kind of serious academic activity and that is fine. Ive found that with people like that its best to just leave it while your ahead.

Pseudery's correct here, idiot.

show him how science is nothing more than an educated guess as well

Just view will as the energy in thermodynamics and there you go

>Evolution is not simply an idea or a behaviour which can be observed and that is it, it is a metaphysical idea that propells something to act a certain way when it is observed (e.g we know evolution is the axiomatic force which causes meiosis, we know this not because we observed meiosis but because evolution as an axiom was a scientific law clarified as mathematically sound before any experience was required).
Your conclusion is fine but this argument is "literally what" tier.

Attached: 1443412414694.jpg (600x616, 52K)

How so?, my argument in simple terms is, evolution was already known as true before we observed meiosis, we did not observe meiosis then think evolution was true, therefore empirical observation was not required for its validity.

The empirical observation was Darwin's second voyage @ HMS Beagle. Evolution is not a theory of cell division and sexual reproduction was empirically observed well before meiosis.

Empirical observation is indispensable for a scientific theory's success and validity, an Einstein unable to make sense of the photoelectic effect under the earlier paradigm of classical electromagnetism and proposing a new hypothesis, however fascinating it may be, needs a Millikan experiment in support of it, otherwise the scientific community won't be as eager and uniform in declaring it "the truth" - never a capital T Truth but the truth of the current year, of course.

This is actually a common misconception, evolution as a concept existed long, long before darwin, take the work of russel-wallace as example. My point is not of course that empirical evidence is not useful, but that it is not required for a sufficient proof. To paraphrase two of the founders of modern mathematics, Frege and Cantor, any empirical proof for mathematics is insufficient, for something to be sufficiently logically grounded in truth, it must be proved a priori. I agree though, no serious scientist would use capital T truth, but I disagree that especially in physics case you require empirical observation. (although I hate talking about QM as it is completely bugman, it is a fantastic example where developments in the field happen purely through pure mathematics, not observation).

"On the Will in Nature" is Schopenhauer's explanation of the Will's "scientific" component, rather than its "artistic," which is its adequate objectification regardless of the matter or organism in which it appears. For instance, that an embryo "simply knows," or rather, doesn't even appear to know how to form itself, even according to the guidance of genes, and yet does anyway, would be an example of the will in nature. "As it is, so it does." Whereas a statuesque, imposing tree covered in mosses, the Grand Canyon, or, to use one of his examples, being on a ship in a powerful thunderstorm, are adequate objectifications of the Will inasmuch as they represent the "Idea" (he compares it to the Platonic) of the Will. They illuminate the eternal, universal, immanent nature of the Will decoupled from causal relations, "in themselves."

Attached: highway.jpg (800x533, 119K)

Howd it go explaining this to your friend OP?

No, science cannot touch the Will. The Will exists outside of the world of phenomena. If not from our ablility to intuitively know it on a personal level, we would be unaware. How our limbs work can be know by science (brain signals and muscle twitches), but the force behind that action that sets it in motion cannot.

Man: The world is my representation
God: The universe is our will

????? what

Life and death of the individual is of no consequence.