Sorry for the lack of precision. I meant value-based truth; “total” was just a way of phrasing it. The contradiction is that if a person is taught the value-truth and the person understands its meaning and correctness, then there is no possibility that he would not want to behave as that value-truth instructs. But if there is no possibility that he would not behave that way, then it would mean that his will is coerced by that recognition, and then there is not really free will.

You’ve made a logical leap. Even if he is compelled to want, that doesn’t mean he is compelled to act in practice. The choice is there. But he is also not compelled to want. At most, he is compelled to understand that this is the right thing to do. But he can still not want it, and certainly not carry it out. See columns 172–173 on weakness of will.

I remember reading the articles on weakness of will. And what you say I completely agree with, but I’m not sure Kant or Maimonides would recognize that. That is, as I understand it—and it’s entirely possible that I’m mistaken—they would not recognize the concept of weakness of will, but rather would hold that it is impossible not to act according to the truth if a person recognizes it, with God’s help, and therefore I saw a contradiction in their view.