I'm wondering...what is the essential difference between can't and won't?
The most obvious aspect, on the surface, might be volition.
But, pick either one and then move towards the other. In the end, how much volition is really involved?
Why does it feel easier for some to claim that someone won’t do something than it is to say they just can’t? For others, it seems easier to conclude someone just can’t, rather than that they just won’t.
We can't ponder this for too long without running into the question of capacity. What are we capable of? How much can we do?
We often love stories about people who pushed the boundaries of their capacity. Perhaps, we vicariously imagine that we could do the same, whenever we would want, too.
The truth is, though, that there are some things I literally cannot do...even while others actually can do them. Is that because of my genetic limitations (physical or otherwise)? In some cases, yes. In other cases, no.
I remember the first time I took a hike up Pike's Peak -— it was awful and I couldn't enjoy it at all. I was out of shape and unfamiliar with my surroundings. I decided at the point, that I wanted to enjoy things like this and that that meant I would have to do some things differently in my life to make it happen. In other words, I had some choices to make.
Tami and I now enjoy hiking in all kinds of places — at least in part, because of some of the choices we make that physically enable us to do so.
If I think you can, but you think you can't, where are we (even if I think it is because you won't)?
What about when it comes towards me, instead of from me?
If you think I can, but I think I can't, what then (even if you think it is because I won't)?
So, how far does choice push us either direction on the can't / won't continuum? Does it really matter?
What degree of agency is there on such matters — 10%, 100%?
And, what about other kinds of agency (below the surface) that at times is hard not to notice; the kind that is beyond the confines of my own choices?
