The idea of the will to live, which may be sensed and represented through our innate desires, was largely introduced in Schopenhauer’s second book, “The World as Will and Representation.” The Will exists and permeates through every second that the idea implements our sole existence (which is all the time). In the book Schopenhaur introduces that the Will is the drive that enforces us to have the drive to live. The resistance to suffocation, our bodies desiring a way out of not existing is the proof that the will is beyond us yet it is imbedded in us. As subjects, we can’t truly see the world as a whole despite the amount of self-awareness because representation of object goes through a filter of our minds. That same filter is also intertwined with the drive of the will.
He explains how our bodies’ physical makeup is a direct expression of this will in order to clarify this idea. He claims, for instance, that one’s “teeth, throat, and bowels are objectified hunger” (WWR, vol. 1, bk. 2, §20), implying that the purpose of these body parts is to satisfy the basic need to eat and survive. His theory highlights how closely our underlying will drives us and how our physical frameworks and operations are not merely coincidental or completely physiological. This will, which depicts a non-representational dimension that defines our existence, is manifested in our innate acts and wants. The want to survive can take many different forms, ranging from the basic need for sustenance and the continuation to more intricate wants and actions. Realizing this helps us to see that our physical selves and behaviors are not just mechanical; rather, they are manifestations of a deeper, underlying desire that exists inside all facets of existence.
As a Political Science minor, I have always been quite curious to learn more about the state of politics to truly understand the humanity of human nature as we see it and how consciousness and our lack of understanding of consciousness play out in the realm of morality, obedience, authority, law-making and being lawful citizens. A case that I thought of was Loving v. Virginia (1967) which legalized interracial marriage. In the landmark case, the Court held that the fourteenth Amendment prohibits government interference in the context of race. The ruling determined that laws made against interracial marriage violates the fourteenth Amendment.
The reason this peaked my interest is because Schopenhaur claims that the Will is evident in our sexual desires and desires of interest in romance. He states that the will is not necessarily in our best interest but rather just a driving force of and often will attract us to incompatibility. He explained this incompatibility by using physical characteristics such as; the tall man seeks the short woman, the blonde seeks the dark hair etc as opposed to arranged marriages which, at the time, was based on more logical and level headed context and therefore mostly contractual. This contract of marriage is seemingly out of the order of nature. Logical? Yes. But the Will does not care for much logic, does it? The case in which interracial marriage is legalized, we trace back to the years prior where this same attraction had been forbidden. The same way the arranged marriage may interfere with the threads of nature, often times, the law does the same. But then the question becomes: if such things reduce or suffocate the will in a way, is the law fair?