Dear Rigel,

I don't like the way you frame your methodology. It's sloppy and weakly painted from a positivist view. And definitely written in a high-handed Eurocentric style. If you don't know what positivism is, look up on Comte. He's just a starter on that perspective, by the way...

The issue of self-control is better stated as "free-will" in terms of philosophy. In respect to my discipline, the social sciences, it's labeled as "agency" (free-will) vs. "structure" (control via one's society/culture).

First, I'd like for anyone to stand up and declare a solid definition what "freedom" actually is. I think you'll find it utterly impossible to do so without referencing your own culture (or set of belief systems, if you like to coalesce multiple cultural beliefs into your philosophical lifestyle). That is, our very thought processes and words we use to communicate are embedded in rules, and more rules that underlay even more rules! I feel that gives me enough room to put forth the claim that one cannot exist without one's structure.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't believe in free-will. In fact, I'll just jump the gun and say what I think before I set forth some proofs: we're both (controlled and free), and the ideal, for the most part is to live as free as possible.

Radical individualists such as Anthony Cohen will claim that: "I am I and no one but myself can claim and assert that I am I" He goes on for much longer, and it gets a lot more twisted, but he basically downplays the whole idea of a "you" since that references a person from the position of a judging stance, which to Cohen, can't exist, since no one can truly claim to know another as much as oneself. Further, to know oneself, or simply the "Self" is the matter of further discussion. He's popular for the whole "self-consciousness" thing.

In regards to structure, Durkheim theory would probably be the easiest way to start discussing things. Durkheim was a sociologist, famous for his idea of "social solidarity"

Here's a brief overview of it:

I got this from (solidarity) since I'm much too lazy to go digging through my closet of articles to find my own sources...

Durkheim structures his argument in a way to say that each individual has their place in society and to stray from it without the proper means (such as wealth, or prestige/power) will equate in disorder and just won't work (to oversimplify).

Free-will is the idea to act autonomously, of one's own accord. Tying this to "self-control" or the freedom to form thoughts unbounded by other thoughts is a skill I'd really like to see proven. You don't need to get into abstract love-affairs with Eastern philosophy, either. It's my line of study, and it's just as complimentary to structure as many Western philosophical arguments. Just to save time there. The real point that I'm aiming to draw is that one thought is always connected to another. In a sense, self-control is by its own nature always tied to another thought. An example: "I shouldn't eat that candy, it'll ruin my supper." That is, one cannot simply think that they should or should not eat the candy. The candy itself is objectified as being in a position of either "good" or "bad" (sixxx identified it as a moralistic position) in this case. Further, the act of either consuming or not consuming the candy is tied to a resultant state. Intrinsically, there's a structure tied to it. Kapish?

In that sense, where is your version of free-will? Again, I restate that I do believe in forms of free-will (I prefer the term "agency" since I belong to the social sciences, but it's the same thing, effectively) but I'd rather see responses before putting forth my claims on it.

Last thing, I restated a few of my views on purpose, just to drive my points home in your heads. In my experience here, a lot of people tend to get caught up in their own thoughts and rant ineffectively as such. If you respond to me, please try to argue with me, rather than just with yourself. In other words, I'm not trying to be a snob.