|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:52 am
We are all said to possess an individual will. Some would say that our decisions, from major to minute, from conscious to sub-conscious, are all checks run against this will.
None can doubt that the human mind is based on some sort of will that calculates all of our decisions. The easiest explanation for this is the spiritual synonym for the self: The soul. However, as I am not a spiritual person, and as spirituality and scientific analyzation have a poor habit of contradicting each other, I will leave the concept of soul out of this.
What does that leave us?
If we all agree that the human does have some sort of consciousness (this term used to encompass both the traditional conscious and sub-conscious, we can likewise agree that the human has a will. This is a strong premise for my conjecture and I believe it to be true, and I believe most people to believe that it to be true. All I say here is that humanity has a will.
But, almost all aspects of sociological discussion relate only to individual will. What is individual will? The concept that we all have unique, internal will that exists outside of external stimuli? Yes, this is the talk of British and English scholars, but I don't believe it to be true.
To believe in individual will is to assume that humans, at some point in their development, are untainted by societal will. As almost anyone of any sense can say that society affects us all, to believe in an individual will is to believe that the human consciousness operates simultaneously on an individual will, and a societal will.
But what if individual will WAS societal will?
If we treat genealogy (genes which constitute all development), environment (meaning everything around us except for humans), and human relations (contact with all humans) as functions of society, we can see that society has a profound effect on all of us. The most important realization here, to me, is that if we classify genealogy as a function of society, then it is clear that our primary will can not possibly be an individual will, since any will must be preceded by societal influence; individual will cannot precede societal will. Since, in the very start of our development, we are constituted of the genes of our respective ancestors, and genes are a tool of society, we see that our individual will derives itself from societal will. By way of logic, this tells us that our individual will is societal will.
And, since we can say that all interactions to environment and relationships are also functions of society, we can furthermore say that all information collected and stacked upon the will via consciousness, as it is merely response to external stimuli, is furthermore nothing more than societal will.
Based on the hitherto information mentioned above, I conjecture that the consciousness is not the tool of individual will, but of societal will, and societal will alone. That is, if one does logically believe that humans are instruments of individual will, one must see that, as individual will is a function of societal will, and that societal will precedes individual will, that individual will is merely an extension of societal will.
What is will exactly? Will, in my mind, is the verb-form of the self. Will is the self in action. Your self may desire something to occur, your self wills it to occur. When we discuss emotion we are said to discuss the self, when we discuss the ends that emotion propels us to, we are discussing the will.
I do not believe that the will is an extension of the self but that the will is the self extended into action; it is the self in the form of an event, it is the aftermath to consciousness.
This in mind, since we can now understand individual will to be a form of societal will, we can also determine individual self to be a form of societal self. We are who we think we are, we are that person exactly, but we are think we are that person because of societal influence, and we are that person because of societal influence.
Since we, ourselves, are only extensions of society and not our own individuality (being individuals only in the sense that our exposure to society is individually unique but beyond our control), we see easily that concepts such as pride and shame are nothing more than constructs of society and our societal selves. The only pride and shame is what we invent for ourselves. The only self is what society invents for us and our only ability to examine and recognize is only what society gives us because our self is societal self and, since consciousness is an extension and a function of the self, it stands to reason that our consciousness is a societal consciousness!
Please note that this is only a conjecture, but one that I believe is logically sound. Since it is impossible at this date to note the exact nature of the self, it is nessecary for philosophy and sociology to make the best guesses it can and this is my best guess.
Other discussion threads:
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27489343&
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27417827&
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:10 am
I don't know...I think the will of society has influence with us but isn't the same as our individual will. Heh, this sounds like something Friedrich Nietzsche would like to argue about. Anyways, I think societial will defines the boundaries in which how we see or will ourselves to be. EIther way though, humans are social creature and it only makes sense that the opinion and views of society would have some kind of effect of our choices, though in the end, it is up to us to make the choice of picking the path that is presented to us. So I think Social Will is related to our Individual Will in the sense it provides us with options on how we may act, behave, etc. but our Individual Will is what in the end defines us and allows to make a choice, which may or may not be different from another. *shrugs* But that's my view in it and at anytime will probably change smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
