Being of a philosophical bent, I am about to toss a big one at you and hope you can take it home for me, but I will be surprised if you can in that it is such a conundrum. Well, here goes anyway. Arthur Schopenhauer, the early 19th century German thinker and lederhosen salesperson, held that will and being were opposed but identical. In other words, death is just a continuation of life. Now, how on earth could he ink that in? Thanks for trying.
You are right that philosophers tend to say things they have no way of knowing. It is as if they will mention to themselves, “I think I will say this… and then people will have to disprove it and won’t that look good on my resumé?” Thing is they often get famous saying what they do and people end up writing to advice columnists to determine whether the philosopher was correct.
In this instance, it is my contention that will and being cannot be both opposed and identical. It is like saying that night is really day in another form. Well, why the harry did you call them different things then? If things are the same they should be spelled the same, that is obvious. If I call you George and your name is Bob, can you tell me that Bob is just another way to say George? Who ever heard of a guy called Bob answering to the name George? Unlikely.
Same thing about will and being. Will is future and being is present. You can’t tell me the present and the future are the same thing or I would be in Toledo right now. I hope this straightens it out for you.