According to the Genki 2 Textbook 2nd Edition, volitional form＋ 思っています is used when we are talking about our determinations:
(e.g. from textbook): 毎日三時間日本語を勉強しようと思っています。(I've decided/I'm going to study Japanese for three hours everyday)
And a few lessons later, the book says that ことにします means "decide to do..."
(e.g. from textbook): 車を買うことにしました。(I/We have decided to buy a car.)
Are these grammar points interchangeable? Or is there a more nuanced difference that the book did not clarify? If I use ことにします in the first example instead, would it mean the same thing?
So suppose I accept that existence exists, that man is a thinking, volitional being, and that if I want to survive, it would be most effective to think and act rationally.
How does Rand or Peikoff go from there to an obligation to "act rationally" to my own benefit? It seems that Peikoff in OPAR chapter 7 conditions ethics on the context of a living thing that wants to survive. But once survival, or even a degree of flourishing, has been attained, where is the basis for morally requiring me to "act rationally" as she defines it? I might accept that egoism and selfishness are best for my survival, but why ought not I act "irrationally" if I have some community-oriented ideals that contradict unbridled selfishness?
Note I am not for the moment disputing that a drop of altruism is actually rational, but rather why ought I act according to my own survival and flourishing as the primary value? Once I achieve a degree of flourishing, can't I then move my emphasis to other values? And if so, aren't I acting irrationally? If you say, "no, that too can be integrated into a more holistic sense of rationality", then don't we risk just making "selfish rationality" a goalpost-moving euphemism for whatever ethical standards we deem proper?
EDIT: Perhaps this phrasing is clearer: Why is my life absolutely and always the proper standard for my ethics, as opposed to my life as a high value, but a value that might be subordinated in some limited situations and to some extent? Why couldn't others' lives, or some other concept, be considered of higher value in some narrow context?
Sorry if this is a dumb question. The sentence that contains the two phrases is the following from Tommie Shelby's "Is Racism in the Heart?"--
"It is perhaps also worth pointing out that Garcia’s talk of making distinctions “within one’s heart” is quite misleading, for surely our ability to discriminate on “racial” grounds is a cognitive capacity, and not a purely volitional one."
I'm not too familiar with philosophical terminology and was hoping for some help. Thanks!
someone told this to me and im a little confused. can't i still be free even if i can't own anything?
They kind of have the same energy...or is it just me? 🤔
I was reading a transcription of something Pokémon-related, and I came across two very weird sentences.
(For my attempted English translations, I will use the dub names for both the Pokémon and the humans.)
The first sentence:
I understand it to mean:
"In Episode 1, there is a scene where Pikachu, moved by Ash's attempt to protect him by standing in front of a flock of Spearows, lets out a blast of lightning."
Am I correct in interpreting 「心動かされた」to mean "to be moved emotionally," and is my overall interpretation of the sentence correct? (For context, it refers to this scene.)
The next one is this:
I understand it to mean:
"In Episode 19, Misty calms a giant, raging Tentacruel down."
Am I correct in interpreting 「怒りを沈めようと説得する」as "talked (someone) into calming down?" I understand [A-volitional] + と + [B-action] to mean "to do B-action in such a way that they will want to do A." For example, [A-volitional] + と説得する would be "to talk someone into doing A." (As before, here is the visual context from the show itself, taken from a review of the episode.)
As my text book is really vague and tight lipped about this, I've been trying to figure out what the verbs are that can't be conjugated into the above forms, or at least commonly aren't.
At first it seemed there were only a few handful that I simply needed to know - like わかる having no Potential Form. Or the fact that する just becomes できる.
But then I discovered that there are a lot more. For instance, intransitive verbs such as 開く (あく), 閉まる, こわる, etc. also don't seem to be used in their Potential Form, ever.
In trying to find a pattern or group these verbs together somehow, I got into various models of classifying all Japanese verbs.
In one book, called "Basic Japanese - A Grammer and Workbook", verbs are classified as Action, State, and Change of State Verbs. The book explained that State (ある, わかる,...) and intransitive Change of State (開く (あく), 閉まる, こわる,...) Verbs were the ones that would not go Potential. Very useful if true. I'm trying to verify this with a second source.
In various forums I have since read that this extends to the Volitional, Imperative and たい Forms as well, which makes a certain degree of sense I suppose. After all, a machine cannot WANT to break down or suggest to break. And from what I gather something like "this food can spoil" using the potential form of くさる (to spoil) is also not permitted in Japanese, or at least handled differently.
This brought me to another way of classifying verbs, as Volitional and Non-Volitional.
In the middle of this article you can see a neat little table, that, as far as understand, seems to indicate that so-called Non-Volitional Verbs are the group of verbs I'm after, i.e. verbs that don't have a willing subject and cannot be conjugated into the above forms.
These kinds of verbs all seem to be intransitive (but not all intransitive verbs are non-volitional of course).
I don't know if they encompass ALL state and change-of-state verbs (as classified by my book) and if certain action verbs can also be in this group.
Right now I'm going by feeling, but I wanted to ask if anyone had any hard info on what verbs are excluded from these conjugations. Because I can't seem to find any webpages that detail this matter as thoroughly as I'd like.
i’m wondering if the volitional form can ever be used to express something that you WILL do? not just “let’s do x”
i know there’s no true future tense in japanese and that it’s usually just the plain form. but does the volitional ever carry this meaning?
is つもり a better way to express that?
I was doing an exercise (Genki II Workbook Chapter 23 Section 4) and my task was to complete the following sentence:
This is the sentence I came up with:
After writing this sentence (volitional form + 思っている), I realized that there is another form that seems like it would work as well (short form + ことにする).
Could someone point out the differences between the two forms/sentences (if there are any), as well as correct any grammar mistakes?
EDIT: After reading /u/ArigatoPotato's comment and some contemplation, I need some clarification for the conjugation type for 反対されて, as it appears that 両親が私の意見に might be erroneous
Thanks a lot for your responses; really appreciate it! I have decided to go for 両親に反対されても、日本に一人暮らしをすることにしました。since I feel that the passive form implies dissatisfaction, the decision must have been already made.
I have a quick question regarding this section of Tae Kim's guide. He gives a few examples of this—placing が after the volition verb, then が after the negative volitional verb to show that it doesn't matter whether something happens or not. Here are two examples:
>Whether there is time or not, there’s nothing to do but make it on time
The viruses lately have been strong and whether you run a program or not, I hear it will spread just by looking at the page
My question relates to the second example. 実行 is only typed out once instead of how ある is typed out both times in the first example. Is this because it's a する verb?
Does volitional form, or, ~ましょう form mean "I'm going to do X"? or "let's..." ?
I don't understand how that would mean I'm going to give you 10,000 en. Wouldn't that mean "Let's give 10,000 en" since it's in ~ましょう form?
First post. Go easy on me.
So like the rest of us, I dont own an electrooculogram measuring device (to record eye movement) so I cant have someone just sit there to observe and record my REM's and translate Morse-code-style what I'm trying to report through my LD, but its 2018 and I'm positive that someone out there knows of a method, organization, or series of events that I can perform to communicate from dream to reality.
I've tried everything I could think of including highly illogical tasks like texting myself in LD hoping it would appear on my phone when I wake up. I've tried visiting quacks like Gary Spivey and other mildly known psychics in LD. I've tried uploading pics, videos and audio recordings to my google+ in LD... Obviously those wont work but I have to rule everything out.
If anyone has any leads or knows something I dont, shoot me a PM. Or to make it fun, meet me at the US flag on the moon at 04:00 15-May-18.
. . . . . .
PS off topic the rules for not posting about astral projection/paranormal/time travel is absolutely naive and disrespectful. I have mastered 2nd level LD (forced false awakenings, NOT a dream about dreaming) numerous times. Once I got 3 white balls correct in Powerball for a whopping real life $7 prize. I saw Columbine and 9/11 before they happened. Most recently I traveled in my 2nd level to a location I have never been to in real life, sought out a new gym to raid in Pokemon Go, and actually knew where to drive in real life and it was there. Exact same environment. Even got a shiny Makuhita on my way out. Also I have great advice on how to rid yourself of SP and the ominous shadow people that taunt you. Dont look up to the sky, and dont look in the mirror and see those eyes. Sweet dreams fellow subbies
This is what's happening now. This back and forth between nondoing, and belief in doing something to exist more completely and abide with the nondoing Self.
Curious if anyone else is experiencing this, and whether, or how you've reconciled it.
So my 日本語の先生 corrected one of my sentences from:
([My] Translation: I hope [they] understood what I said)
Can someone help me understand this grammar change? (volitional form+とする)
Hello everyone. So, I have recently came to this topic and was quite confused in certain parts. I know that volitional + と思います/思っています shows intention of doing something and the difference between 思います and 思っています is that 思っています shows that the intention to do something is there since some time ago. The confusing part to me is their usage in a third person scenario, I read that when expressing the intention of someone else, we have to use と思っています, and that would imply that the third person has the intention since some time ago. So what if I want to express the intention of someone else which is not there since some time ago, like と思います in a first person scenario?
I didn't find anything on this.
I learned to say 食べようとする、for example when I attempt to eat sth., maybe healthy food lol. Can I also use 食べましょうとする？How would it sound like? Grammar guide didn't cover this aspect.
The renowned symmetry between mass and energy has an analogue in philosophy of mind. If matter inherently possesses conscious awareness (as postulated by David Chalmers' panpsychism), then shouldn't it follow that energy expenditures are volitional?
It seems to me that, however plausible or implausible the panpsychist hypothesis, it has two aspects. Either both are true or both are false.
The attention given to the awareness of matter but not volitionality of energy expenditures strikes me as a long-standing bias in philosophy of mind.
(I casually interchange MASS and MATTER in the foregoing. Technically, mass is the measurable quantity of matter.)
Hi everyone, I'm new to this subreddit.
I was reading a thread here earlier, I think this was the one:
And the idea was introduced that as long as there is the belief that there is volitional action, then karma is being created.
But, to escape from this kind of state, one cannot simply pretend that one believes that there is no volitional action. For instance, if I happen to believe I've acted volitionally, I cannot then choose to realize it had not been a volitional action, or else that very choice is my continued belief in volitional action.
It seems that it must be a pure seeing, a simple knowing, through experience, not something we can try to achieve in any way. And anyway the trying to achieve is just another attempt at volitional action.
This is the first time I've seen this particular thought, that the belief in volitional action is responsible for karma, so I'd like to know how widespread this is? Is this traditional advaita, or only found with Nisargadatta? It does make sense to me.
Just some thoughts and observations.
Does anyone know *why