MY WILL CAN ONLY BE YOUR WILL IF IT IS YOUR WILL

I believe what I want to believe.

The will is basically above everything. No matter what life is about, a person's basic conviction is inevitably linked to his or her will.

No court, no punishment, no denunciation can force the human will to want something other than what the human wills. Whether we consciously hear this will and act according to it or whether we repress or even despise this will, it is still there.

That we believe what we believe remains so even when we use other verbs, such as "know".

The listing of knowledge is often nothing more for the will than a trick to influence the will or even to eliminate it.

Those who don't will something find reasons, those who will something find ways.

The reproach of the wayfinders to the reasonfinders is always that they only talk but do not act. That is both true and untrue. Depending on whether one regards talking as acting. Just think of words being called swords. In contrast to "empty words".

Where one's own will rubs up against the will of others, people lie to each other when they ask "If it is as you claim, then prove it to me!"

But the very demand for proof to refute what the willer believes is a refusal to question one's own will. The other person is supposed to do the questioning, he is supposed to give arguments, proofs, sources and so on.

But in truth, the one who demands it is not interested in it at all. Why do I say this? Because the person making the demand saves himself the work of researching, questioning and reading what he has yet to learn to understand.

It is easy to notice when that is the case, isn't it?
No matter what approach the willing person takes with another willing person, it remains the case that no one will turn away from his will where the inner willingness to first of all mentally destroy one's own willing, to smash it beyond recognition (metaphorically speaking), in order to ask questions of oneself in this gap that now arises.

Why do you think people keep citing the example of the heliocentric world view,

which had replaced the previous one - planet Earth at the centre of galactic events?

Only the problem with this example is that from today's point of view we have accepted it almost worldwide and it is precisely this acceptance and self-evidence that no longer corresponds with the infamous sentiment that must have gone along with it at the time. Although it is probably the most catchy of all examples, it has at the same time become the most banal.

Many hundreds of years later, therefore, what was considered heresy at the time has become normality and thus somewhat unremarkable. But it is precisely this circumstance of a matter of course, of a subject that is not open to further questioning, that those who first saw this self-understanding of the image of a world severely shaken in themselves. Where there has been no shaking at all, why else would anyone be so crazy as to set themselves against the entire world in which they live? Not only must there have been a shaking, it is tantamount to destruction.

So the madmen of the past are the sane ones of the present, aren't they?

What is then, I ask you, the madmen of the now?

For the basic will, it really does not matter (in the literal sense) what detail you pick out in order to back itself up.

So philosophers of all times try to brake it up to the essentials by saying that "man has divided himself into a materialistic and a spiritualistic view of the world." And ever since this division itself can be seen in the resulting conflicts.

From this statement, in turn, a young philosophy seemed to emerge that says that the very premise in and of itself of accepting this division as a given is irrelevant. I agree with this. The irrelevance lies in the impossibility of anything proving this division. No matter how eloquently or aggressively the disputants in this try to convince each other that they have a relevant matter before them, it is not the matter that is true or not true, but the will that says such.

If I seek to prove my assumption about the world by my assumption about this world, I will produce circular arguments.

So it is quite appropriate to ask whether I am ready to destroy my will, to put myself in uncertain and dangerous abysses that have the potential to express the strongest of doubts to oneself. My instinctive recoiling from the danger of going mad, my inkling of dropping out of the community that gives me security, keeps me from doing so.

But if that is the case, the question remains whether all my questions so far have not been rather pseudo-questions?

Whether I am just all too quick to say "If you can give me sources and names and places that can explain my view of a phenomenon differently from how I explain it to myself, I am willing to question my view of the world."

To this you might reply: I will not be the one for you who spares you to go through the trouble of researching, questioning, reading and wanting to understand.

Nothing of what I have spent as my effort will be worth your effort to go the same way.
Since you will use my arguments to avoid doing just that and engage me in debates about how nothing I say to you will convince you. Not only will you continue to insist on dishonest conversations, you will see me as a competitor and an enemy who seeks to outdo you verbally because you yourself have not yet grown beyond conducting a conversation in such a way that your doubter must not be the other person but yourself.

No matter how eloquent or how aggressive I appear to you, my answers to your questions will not lead to the result that they seem right to you. You will have new questions. And new questions. And further demands. Because none of the answers will satisfy you.

The satisfier can only be you. By your will, not mine.

Circular reasoning
A circular argument is a logical fallacy.

Definition-1: An argument is called circular if it contains at least one premise that can only be believed if one is already convinced of the conclusion.

Translated from this source: https://www.philoclopedia.de/2019/06/15/zirkelschluss/

---