you did too tell him that. the consequentialist implications of your stance constitute an adequate disproof of it in your own model, since the will that believes in good will predictably outperform the will that does not in shaping the nature of the world. since you see only wills of varying efficacy, your philosophy will naturally outmode itself with demonstrably more efficacious will-shaping models, this process leading naturally to the result that your philosophy reintegrates factors other than the will despite your attempts to discard. to hold the primacy of the will in defiance of more effective will-shaping models is to say that your adherence to your perception of truth exceeds your adherence to your own philosophy. if your truth requires you to check the flow of your own philosophy either way, can your philosophy possibly be true?
United States