Our freedom

 If I notice it, I will take the opposite position to the other party. It's not a clear conflict, but a question about the other person's story. Even if you stand in a position that you would never normally take, you would argue in a straightforward manner. Is this because I don't understand myself, or do I just want to argue? @Reunion

A philosopher named Hegel in 19th century Germany says this in a book called "The Phenomenology of Spirit".

Everyone wants to be a "valued existence". But it's not that easy. That's why we struggle in various ways to become "valued beings."

There are many patterns in the "how to get up", one of which is "always criticize people".

In short, by always criticizing people, we try to show both people and ourselves that we have an advantage.

I don't know if Reunion has that kind of desire, but if so, Hegel says this is a bit of a painful way of life.

People who always criticize people are estranged, and above all, they don't even know if they are really better than their opponents. "In the end, I'm just criticizing people and not saying anything constructive ..."


Hegel says there. The important thing is not just to deny the other person, but to always ask whether your idea is really convincing and approved by many people.

In the process of that effort, if we get approval from others, we will have some idea that we are "valued". If you don't get approval, try to get it.

As long as we continue to deny and criticize, we will never consider ourselves to be "valued". My value is only to continue aiming for "mutual recognition".


7. Is there anything that high school students can do to utilize their knowledge of "mutual recognition of freedom" and "principles of general welfare" after becoming a teacher? @ Masahiro Ikeda

I am glad that you know about "mutual recognition of freedom" and "general welfare". Is Masahiro a high school student? I feel hope for the future of Japan (laughs).


The principle of "mutual recognition of freedom" is "the idea that our society must cherish most".

We all want to live "freely", that is, as we want to live. But that's why they argue for each other's "freedom" and fight each other ... This is what humanity has been repeating endlessly.

The most important thing is war. Mankind has been competing for life for a long time because everyone wants to live "freely."

So how can we end the war and create a free and peaceful society?

At the end of the history of war over 10,000 years, the answer that philosophers found only 200 and several decades ago was the principle of "mutual recognition of freedom".

If we want to live peacefully and freely, we have no choice but to acknowledge each other that everyone wants to live freely. And on top of that, there is no choice but to coordinate with each other.

This is the principle of "mutual recognition of freedom". For more information, please refer to "First Philosophical Thinking".


Another principle of "general welfare" is a restatement of the principle of "mutual recognition of freedom" from an administrative point of view.

The administration should not realize only the "freedom" of some people, but should realize the "freedom" of all people (good life = welfare). This is the principle of "general welfare".

It is a matter of course, but it is an important principle that is often forgotten.


What can high school students do to really make these ideas their own?

I would like you to jump out of school more and more. That means jumping into diversity.


In the first year of college, I often said, "Until high school, I might have been able to have a conversation with just'dangerous', but I can't do that from now on."

"Isn't that dangerous?" "Wow, do it."

Among high school students, such conversations within the group may be valid. But when you go out into society, it's a world of people of different ages, cultures, and ways of thinking. You must be able to put into words what is wrong and how it is.

And above all, we must be able to recognize each other's diversity as much as possible.

Otherwise, we cannot avoid a fierce battle.


I'm not saying that you have to admit everything about the other party. Even if the values ​​and sensitivities do not match, I admit only the existence for the time being. Even if the other person's values ​​are not accepted, if it does not significantly hurt one's freedom, I will admit it for the time being. That kind of "mutual recognition" spirit and way of life is, after all, the way of life that makes us the most "free".

Nietzsche has left the saying, "If you can't love it, pass by", but that is also one way of mutual recognition.

Do not attack just because you can't love it, just admit its existence and pass by. We sometimes need that kind of wisdom.

Anyway, I would like you to gain the experience of continuing to aim for the difficulty of mutual recognition, even when you are young, because of the diversity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Tax increase" called cost-push inflation

 According to the principle of GDP three-sided equivalence (production = expenditure = income), when the production (* value-added production) price rises, the income also increases.   The problem is that if the goods and services we spend are imported from abroad, the "domestic income" will not increase. In fact, imports are a deduction for GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Imports increase the income of foreign producers. This means that even if the domestic inflation rate rises due to the influence of import prices, the "income of domestic producers" will not be affected. Of course, in ordinary countries, the income of domestic producers is also rising, so there is no problem even if import prices rise a little.   On the other hand, in Japan, instead of increasing income, it is "decreasing", and cost-push inflation, in which only "income of foreign producers" rises, has begun. According to the principle of GDP three-sided equivalence (production =
Read more

Conflict over "facts"

 Last time, I talked about the difference between philosophy and science. In a word, philosophy explores the essence of the human "world of meaning". One science reveals the mechanism of the "world of facts". Contrary to what many believe, the "world of meaning" actually precedes the "world of facts". There is an objective "world of facts", and humans do not attach "meaning" to it. On the contrary, the "world of facts" can exist for us only when we are caught in the antenna of our "world of meaning". In that sense, philosophy supports science from its roots. Unless we understand the essence of the "world of meaning," we cannot know the "world of facts" in depth. Conflict over "facts" However, science usually does not have to think about such troublesome things. For the time being, all of us recognize (believe) that things will fall if we let go, or that the earth is orbiting th
Read more

How do you live now?

 Philosophical words are like vaccinations. Occasionally, I think about that. I feel that it is not a clever word that penetrates the body like a bullet, but a word that gradually spreads throughout the body without knowing it. "Philosophy life counseling" is not such a bad thing, but I think it would be nice if I could spun such a word like a vaccine below. It may not always have immediate effect. But in the long run, I'm sure that your immunity will be improved, and I hope that you will have such a life consultation. This time, the first time, we will answer four consultations. 1. 1. What on earth am I living now !? @Masaki Why do we live when we die anyway? @ Milk green juice The 19th century German philosopher Nietzsche said this (a little erratic). There is no ready-made correct answer in the meaning of living. Create it yourself!  When. The meaning of life is not something that is "preliminarily" rolling somewhere in the sky beyond the mountains, in the ho
Read more