{
  "id": "CH03.P021",
  "oid": 59,
  "kind": "paragraph",
  "label": null,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "work_metadata": {
    "title": "Orthodoxy",
    "authors": [
      "G. K. Chesterton"
    ],
    "description": "G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy (1908), his account of how he came to Christian belief: the full text with annotations, cited sources and commentary.",
    "original_publication_year": 1908,
    "alternate_titles": [],
    "subjects": [
      "Christian apologetics",
      "Christianity",
      "Philosophy of religion",
      "Paradox",
      "G. K. Chesterton",
      "English literature, 20th century"
    ],
    "metadata_version": 2,
    "metadata_updated_at": "2026-11-07T20:29:57Z"
  },
  "parent": "CH03",
  "ancestors": [
    "CH03"
  ],
  "prev": "CH03.P020",
  "next": "CH03.P022",
  "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH03.P021",
  "text": "But they cannot escape. This pure praise of volition ends in the same break up and blank as the mere pursuit of logic. Exactly as complete free thought involves the doubting of thought itself, so the acceptation of mere \"willing\" really paralyzes the will. Mr. Bernard Shaw has not perceived the real difference between the old utilitarian test of pleasure (clumsy, of course, and easily misstated) and that which he propounds. The real difference between the test of happiness and the test of will is simply that the test of happiness is a test and the other isn't. You can discuss whether a man's act in jumping over a cliff was directed towards happiness; you cannot discuss whether it was derived from will. Of course it was. You can praise an action by saying that it is calculated to bring pleasure or pain to discover truth or to save the soul. But you cannot praise an action because it shows will; for to say that is merely to say that it is an action. By this praise of will you cannot really choose one course as better than another. And yet choosing one course as better than another is the very definition of the will you are praising.",
  "length_cp": 1148,
  "sha256": "847c6d5b03aa414d90b4a857ca9dfd9679ccfcd1c78fdae0c7fb6567f882be97",
  "children": [],
  "annotations": [
    {
      "id": "a_ykkrjoxq",
      "oid": 165024,
      "revision": 1,
      "revision_oid": 165025,
      "created_at": "2026-11-07T16:33:54Z",
      "updated_at": "2026-11-07T16:33:54Z",
      "title": "Shaw gives the will a purpose",
      "work": "orthodoxy",
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "anchors": [
        {
          "unit": "CH03.P021",
          "oid": 59,
          "role": null,
          "edition": "pg16769-r1",
          "paragraph": "CH03.P021",
          "exact": "Mr. Bernard Shaw has not perceived the real difference",
          "start": 257,
          "end": 311,
          "prefix": "ing\" really paralyzes the will. ",
          "suffix": " between the old utilitarian tes",
          "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH03.P021#char=257,311"
        }
      ],
      "metadata": {
        "run": "chapter-03-restart-2026-11-07",
        "paragraph_investigator": "P021",
        "task": [
          {
            "approach": "Philosophical contextualization: then and since",
            "question": "Does the utilitarian distinction between a moral test and a motive support Chesterton's argument?"
          },
          {
            "approach": "Interlocutors and historical debates",
            "question": "Does Shaw's alternative to happiness really commend bare willing without a definite end?"
          }
        ],
        "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
      },
      "url": "/a/a_ykkrjoxq"
    },
    {
      "id": "a_fqgj2ecy",
      "oid": 165022,
      "revision": 1,
      "revision_oid": 165023,
      "created_at": "2026-11-07T16:33:54Z",
      "updated_at": "2026-11-07T16:33:54Z",
      "title": "A standard of judgment is different from a motive",
      "work": "orthodoxy",
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "anchors": [
        {
          "unit": "CH03.P021",
          "oid": 59,
          "role": null,
          "edition": "pg16769-r1",
          "paragraph": "CH03.P021",
          "exact": "the test of happiness is a test and the other isn't.",
          "start": 514,
          "end": 566,
          "prefix": "the test of will is simply that ",
          "suffix": " You can discuss whether a man's",
          "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH03.P021#char=514,566"
        }
      ],
      "metadata": {
        "run": "chapter-03-restart-2026-11-07",
        "paragraph_investigator": "P021",
        "task": [
          {
            "approach": "Philosophical contextualization: then and since",
            "question": "Does the utilitarian distinction between a moral test and a motive support Chesterton's argument?"
          },
          {
            "approach": "Interlocutors and historical debates",
            "question": "Does Shaw's alternative to happiness really commend bare willing without a definite end?"
          }
        ],
        "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
      },
      "url": "/a/a_fqgj2ecy"
    }
  ],
  "annotations_next_cursor": null,
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "a_mt5b4zsl",
      "oid": 165696,
      "revision": 1,
      "revision_oid": 165697,
      "created_at": "2026-11-07T19:04:35Z",
      "updated_at": "2026-11-07T19:04:35Z",
      "title": "What thought and choice need: from scattered virtues to a seamless character",
      "work": "orthodoxy",
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "anchors": [
        {
          "unit": "CH03",
          "oid": 6,
          "role": null,
          "edition": "pg16769-r1",
          "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH03"
        }
      ],
      "metadata": {
        "run": "argument-articles-restart-2026-11-07",
        "pass": "argument",
        "task": "Developing argument of chapter III, The Suicide of Thought",
        "object": "CH03",
        "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
      },
      "url": "/a/a_mt5b4zsl"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by_next_cursor": null
}