Work #1542 · Middle period
On the Will in Nature
Schopenhauer's 1836 'Über den Willen in der Natur' — empirical confirmations of the World-as-Will
Arthur Schopenhauer
· 1836 (2nd ed. 1854)
· German
· Philosophical-scientific essay
Tradition: Post-Kantian metaphysics / Schopenhauerian Wille-philosophy / philosophy of biology
Schopenhauer's 1836 'On the Will in Nature' — empirical-scientific corroborations of the World as Will
Published in 1836 (sixteen years after 'The World as Will and Representation' had been almost universally ignored), 'Über den Willen in der Natur' is Schopenhauer's most explicitly empirical-scientific defence of his metaphysics. The book draws on contemporary developments in physiology (esp. Marshall Hall's work on reflex action, Charles Bell's on the nerves), comparative anatomy (Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire), magnetism (Faraday), plant physiology (Goethe's morphology, the contemporary phyto-physiologists), astronomy (Herschel and the contemporary cosmogony), and Chinese philosophy (via Robert Morrison's Chinese Repository — Schopenhauer was an early European reader of Chinese sources). His argument: the empirical sciences themselves point toward Schopenhauer's metaphysics of Will. Every empirical phenomenon — from the unconscious vegetative functions of the body, to the goal-directed structure of organisms, to the goal-directed-seeming behaviour of plants and even of magnets, to the cosmic-scale order of the heavens — manifests an unconscious-purposive activity that, on Schopenhauerian analysis, is the noumenal Will appearing under empirical conditions. The book is the empirical companion to WWR; Schopenhauer's renewed reception after 1851 (when his 'Parerga und Paralipomena' finally found a wide readership) brought the Will in Nature into renewed attention as the scientific-philosophical companion to the metaphysical magnum opus.
Author
Editions cited
- Über den Willen in der Natur (Joh. Christ. Hermann, Frankfurt, 1836; 2nd ed. with substantial additions, 1854; 3rd ed. 1867)
- Sämtliche Werke, ed. A. Hübscher (Brockhaus, 1937-41, 7 vols), vol. 4
- English trans. K. Hillebrand, On the Will in Nature (Bohn's Philosophical Library, 1889)
- Modern English trans. E. F. J. Payne, On the Will in Nature (Berg Publishers, 1992)
- Critical commentary: David E. Cartwright, Schopenhauer: A Biography (Cambridge, 2010); Christopher Janaway, Self and World in Schopenhauer's Philosophy (Oxford, 1989)
School Embodiments
Idealism
20%
Empirical defence of Schopenhauerian metaphysics.
"The empirical sciences themselves point to the Will as the inner nature of the world." (On the Will in Nature, introduction)
Naturalism
20%
Major philosophy-of-biology in the German tradition.
"Physiology and anatomy disclose the Will in the animal organism." (On the Will in Nature, physiology section)
Schopenhauerian-pessimist Will-philosophy.
"The blind striving of the Will appears throughout nature." (On the Will in Nature)
Vitalist-biological framework of the Will-in-nature thesis.
"The Will is the vital principle." (On the Will in Nature, on physiology)
Engagement with Chinese, Hindu, and other non-European philosophical sources.
"Confirmation from Sinology." (On the Will in Nature, on Chinese sources)
Internal Tensions
Schopenhauer's most explicitly empirical-scientific book; the empirical companion to The World as Will and Representation. The book's empirical claims have been variously assessed — most are no longer scientifically accepted in detail (the reflex-action argument and the plant-physiology argument especially) — but the philosophical thesis (that empirical science discloses what philosophy concludes about the underlying Will-character of reality) has remained influential, especially in the post-Bergsonian and post-Whiteheadian process traditions.
⧖
I. Time
1836 first edition; 1854 substantial second edition with chapters on physiology, comparative anatomy, plant physiology, the Yale 'Anglo-Saxon question' on linguistic-cultural diffusion, and Chinese philosophy.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Emergent
Grain: Continuous
Freedom: Deterministic
Traversability: Linear
Direction: Uni-directional
Dimensionality: One
✦
II. Space
Frankfurt — Schopenhauer's residence from 1833 until his 1860 death. The intellectual space is post-Hegelian Germany, in which Schopenhauer was a marginal figure but increasingly engaged with contemporary science.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Emergent
Curvature: Flat
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Local
◉
III. Matter
Single philosophical-scientific essay (~150 pages in first edition; ~250 in second). The book's distinctive force is its detailed engagement with contemporary scientific literature — Schopenhauer read the scientific journals carefully and cites them extensively.
Attributes
Extent: Finite
Ontological Status: Emergent
Conservation: Conserved
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Local
◎
IV. Observer
Middle Schopenhauer. The observer-philosopher is positioned at the intersection of post-Kantian metaphysics and contemporary natural science, arguing that the two converge on the Will-doctrine.
Attributes
Time Instance: Single
Space Instance: Single
Knowledge Extent: Immediate
Knowledge Retainment: Total
Physicality: Embodied
Agency: Passive
Number: Singular
Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering
⚡
V. Energy
Empirical-philosophical energies. The book's distinctive character is the explicit attempt to bring empirical-scientific data into philosophical argument — uncommon in early-nineteenth-century post-Kantian writing.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Substantival
Conservation: Conserved
Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉
VI. Information
Single short volume in two-then-three editions. The 1854 second edition's added chapters substantially extended the engagement with comparative philology, Sinology, and physiology.
Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent
Cosmic Conservation: Conserved
Personal Conservation: Non-conserved
Granularity: Continuous
Personas that cite this work
Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint
Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.
Computed school proximity
The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.
How On the Will in Nature resolves each dilemma
51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 32 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.
Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.
Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive
Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree
(20/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
On this view, the future is fixed by the present, and the observer is a recipient of causes rather than an originator of them. The sense of choosing is real — but what is being chosen is itself a consequence of brain states that were …
Roads not taken
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) ·
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites. (9%) ·
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree
(20/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
On this view, the addict's brain state, history, genetics, and circumstances jointly produce the behaviour, and there is nothing inside the person that could have produced anything else. Calling the addict responsible is at best a social tool — useful for the deterrent and rehabilitative …
Roads not taken
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) ·
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order. (9%) ·
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree
(20/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
On this view, the AI's output is a function of its training data, its architecture, and the input it received. There is no extra fact about the AI that could ground its responsibility, because there is no extra fact about the AI that could have …
Roads not taken
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) ·
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. (9%) ·
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
6 mainstream positions
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
47%
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
47%
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
47%
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
32%
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
32%
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
32%
Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(32/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it.
On this view, money is exactly what societies do that performs the monetary functions. There is no fact about whether something is 'really' money beyond whether it is used as money. A community that decides shell beads or carbon credits or proof-of-work hashes count as …
Roads not taken
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) ·
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (15%) ·
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(32/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
On this view, nations are made: by treaties, by wars, by deliberate institution-building, by the slow work of collective practice. There is nothing intrinsic about a national kind; what exists is the practice. What we owe the nation is what we owe any institution we …
Roads not taken
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) ·
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (15%) ·
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(32/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice.
On this view, while biological features exist, what they socially mean — what counts as a man or a woman, what roles attach, how the categories are policed and revised — is the work of social practice. The categories are real but constructed; revising them …
Roads not taken
Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) ·
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (15%) ·
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(32/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other.
On this view, biological facts about the genome exist, but what we count as 'human nature' is downstream of practice. The germline is one more thing humans now have technical access to; the question is not whether the practice transgresses an essence but whether the …
Roads not taken
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) ·
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (15%) ·
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree
(47/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) ·
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) ·
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree
(16/202)
What happens to "you" when you die?
Whether anything of you persists — and in what sense — depends on what you take a person to be.
Individuality dissolves into the One.
What we called "you" was an appearance — a wave shaped briefly out of a single deeper reality. Death is that wave settling. Nothing of importance is lost because the substrate was never the wave.
Roads not taken
A soul continues into another mode of being. (37%) ·
Death is genuinely the end. (30%) ·
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. (18%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree
(17/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
On non-dual views, the apparent distinction between human and non-human is itself a perspectival distinction within a single underlying reality. The work isn't to find our right relationship to a separate nature; it is to recognize that we were never separate. Climate harm, on this …
Roads not taken
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) ·
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) ·
Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree
(17/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
On non-dual views, the difference between Earth and elsewhere is conventional — particular locations within a single underlying reality. Space colonisation as escape is therefore incoherent; nothing is escaped because nothing was elsewhere to escape from.
Roads not taken
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) ·
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) ·
Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree
(17/202)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
On non-dual views, the appearance of distinct natural kinds is itself a perspectival distinction within a single underlying reality. Genetic modification shifts forms within the One; it does not cross a line that the One did not previously cross when differentiating into the apparent kinds …
Roads not taken
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (48%) ·
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) ·
Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree
(17/202)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
On non-dual views, the apparent distinctness of selves — and the apparent boundary between this-moment-you and next-moment-you — is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The question of whether the uploaded copy is you is malformed at the same level the question of …
Roads not taken
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) ·
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (29%) ·
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. (14%)
26 mainstream positions
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
8%
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
8%
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
8%
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
8%
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
8%
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
8%
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
8%
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
8%
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
8%
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
8%
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
8%
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
8%
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
8%
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
8%
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
8%
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
16%
What is marriage?
Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it.
16%
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
44%
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
44%
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
44%
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
32%
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
32%
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
32%
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
32%
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
32%
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
30%
6 unaligned
Does history have a direction or meaning?
Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19%
—
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13%
—
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4%
—
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10%
—
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14%
—
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14%
—
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
51%
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
51%
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
51%
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
51%