What is "the magic of questioning"?

 Is that right? Is this correct?

The beginning of philosophical thinking. The second point is that it does not get caught in the "magic of questioning".

"The magic of questioning" is a so-called binary opposition question.

For example, such a question.

"Is education for the happiness of children? Or is it for the survival and development of the nation?"

I myself don't like to mock people with this "magic of questioning", so when I talk about this in class or lectures, I don't ask them to raise their hand which one they think is right.

However, if you ask "Yes, who you think is for your child?" And then ask "Who do you think it is for your country?", "Magic" will be even more effective.

Yes, when asked, "Which is right over there or here?", We tend to wonder which one is right.

Many readers may have thought, "Hmm, maybe it's for children?" "No, it's for the country."

However, this is literally "magic".

In this world, it is rare that either here or there is absolutely correct. Especially when it comes to meaning and value.

Nevertheless, "the magic of questioning" deceives people as if either one is the correct answer. And it drives our thoughts in the wrong direction.

Education is neither "only" for children nor "only" for society. If anything, it's for both. So we really need to change the above question to:

"In what sense is education for children, and in what sense is it for the country and society?"

With this question, it is possible to reach a certain "common understanding". At the very least, you should be able to find that possibility.

If you ask, it ’s a matter of course. But when we get caught up in the "magic of questioning", we don't even notice such a natural thing.

Let's find out the fake problem firmly

The "magic of questioning" is tediously flooded in everyday life, in the world of politics, and even in the world of scholarship.

Because it was a big deal, let's list some.

① "Are human beings naturally equal or unequal?"

It is still a problem that is often discussed. However, this is also a "fake problem" that was caught in the "magic of questioning".

Whether humans are equal or not. This is a problem that can be said to be anything from a viewpoint. For example, human beings as species are, in a sense, equal in a sense. If we were tossed naked into the African savanna, our chances of survival would be about the same.

However, on the other hand, it is difficult to say that we human beings living in economic society are equal in reality. As I said last time, in modern society, the family and region where you were born and raised will inevitably make a difference in the future, and your innate abilities are not completely equal.

In short, humans cannot give an absolute answer to the question of whether they are equal by nature. So, as long as we discuss this question in the yes / no dimension, we have no choice but to repeat a dignified tour that can't be found anywhere.

That's why we really need to change this question to the following one.

"What and how much should we recognize each other as equal?"

This is a constructive and meaningful question. It's worth thinking about.

There is also an even more silly "magic of asking". It looks like this.

② "Is the sand block consisting of 10,000 grains a" sand mountain "or not?"

It's a silly question, but in fact, there are philosophers who have been seriously discussing issues similar to this.

However, this is also a "fake problem" that was caught in the "magic of questioning".

There is no way to make such a strict definition of how many grains are sandy mountains. A lump of 10,000 grains of sand may be a sandy mountain for ants, and maybe even for a miniature gardener. But if it was right in front of me writing this manuscript, I would only see it as "dust".

Therefore, this question should actually be changed to the following question.

"When do we see a lump of sand as a" sand mountain "?"

If this is the case, it may be possible to arrive at an "answer" that many people can understand. Whether it's a question worth asking or not ...

Change "how to ask questions"

Finally, I would like to think about one more question like this.

③ "What is the reason why we humans live on this earth?"

I'm sure it's a question that many people have thought about.

The binary opposition "magic of questioning" is a question with a slightly different style. However, if this question asks the "absolute" reason why human beings live in this world, it must be said that it is a "fake problem".

That's because we don't know how we did our best.

All living things, including humans, live to leave genes. Some would argue that.

But can it be said that it is absolutely true?

The biological explanation is beyond the scope of a hypothesis for any answer. We are not genes, and we cannot ask them, so we can never know the truth.

It was God who created us, so the reason we live is all in the will of God. Some people will think so.

However, the religious explanation is also not an absolutely reliable answer. Faith should be respected, of course, but as I said before (Part 2), philosophically, it's an "impossible" story.

A person lives to love someone. Some would say that.

It's a beautiful answer. But that's not the absolute answer that applies to everyone.

We cannot know the absolute reason why people live. So as long as we're asking this question, our thoughts can't go anywhere.

However, if this question is changed as follows, it will be a question that is completely meaningful and that "answers" can be found.

"When can humans feel the meaning and reason for living?"

I think it's a question worth thinking about and hopeful.

Defeat the fake problem

In my opinion, about half of the essence of philosophy is to reconstruct the "fake problem" that we have seen above into a meaningful question.

The history of philosophy for 2500 years was also the history of the fight against the fake problem. The same is true of "how many grains of sand are sand mountains?" And "what is the absolute reason for living?"

Philosophers have been challenging these problems for hundreds of years, and as a result, they have come to realize that this is a fake problem that may not be answered. The great philosophers of the past are, almost without exception, those who have argued that the fake problem is a fake problem and have turned it into a question that deserves to be asked.

Next time, I would like to introduce the fake problem in the fake problem in the history of philosophy.

For a long time, it has plagued philosophers' heads without being noticed by many as a fake problem.

However, the great philosophers finally paved the way to defeat this through a long relay of thoughts. And that method of defeat is, in my opinion, the first "mystery" of philosophical thinking.

From the next time onward, I would like to finally break into the forest with deep philosophical thinking.