Month: Jan 2024

3.6.2 Reality

With regard to the aspect described in the previous part, in relation to correctability, the standpoint that one looks at the human history at one point of history and another standpoint which is several decades later which is that one looks at the human history with several decades added are different in what elements of history should be emphasised. In individual case, one can recognise the past doing differently. For example, at the age of 18 years old, recognising and interpreting what one does and re-recognising and re-interpreting it at the age of 28 years old could be different as the perspective and objective of one’s life could differ, even if looking at the same action, it can be reasoned different way.

The importance of philosophy, or thinking rests in the condition that at least time and place are limited from humans’ standpoint. That limitation is strong, even if AI or that sort of technology enabled the wider possibility of the world, what humans can listen to and watch are limited. In order to go beyond this limitation imposed on humans, they try to rely on technology, but as far as humans need to make decisions on their societies by meta-recognition, humans require philosophy as philosophy is to recognise the important perspectives to the human beings. Also, by this condition, each person has their own preferences and intimacy towards certain kinds. And each has their uniqueness as they cannot be born and raised in the complete sameness.

It is difficult for human beings to always face the reality. That is why they need to believe in things, which means that they need something they can rely on. The future is unpredictable, and believing in things is in some sense is different from continuously facing the reality. Thinking is related to an inner sphere to which one can try to keep the secure paths to survive the world. That is to say, they make attempts to cope with the harsh reality, in other words it often predeals with difficulties. Without that process of thinking, always accepting realities cannot be endured by the human beings. One example is that people create rules to be put in practice in their community. Its objective is often to make it possible that people of different interests or background can live together. Rule is to limiting the unlimited paths into the more or less limited paths of the future reality. Limiting the possibility of what one wants not to happen. The kinds of things people believe in their life are explained with examples below. For instance, the products that enterprises sell often have some warning or disclaimer on their products to avoid the miscommunication with or potential complaints from their customers. Secondly, traffic light is often installed in intersection which is to avoid car crush, human beings has taken consideration in the past so that they can avoid the crush. However, it is not guaranteed that it doesn’t happen, in reality even if intersection has installed it, it sadly happens with probably decreased possibility. Another case is the train and its timetable. If it doesn’t have timetable, people do not know when it is going to come, the reality of that uncertainty is not what people can endure, that is because they do create the timetable to believe in when it comes, but in the reality it is not guaranteed that train comes on time with its timetable as it delays or stops due to unexpected events. Adding to the above, in a similar way, it could be applied to marriage and eternal love. It has supportive functioning to people’s life.

As for the relationship between reality and trust, if one washes one’s hands to clean in the situation that it is not because one’s hands became visibly unclean but for the sake of sanitation, the hand before and after being washed doesn’t look different. At home, for example, the person doesn’t usually use their mechanical device to check the difference of before and after. What makes difference in being convinced if one has washed their hands or not is their trust towards the world.

Conspiracy arises when mistrust towards the world is accumulated. People cannot look back exactly and precisely what happened in each moment of everywhere around the world. Since it is not possible for persons to know everything happening in the world, their scepticism towards the world dangers the community itself. If they don’t have trust towards the world, trust in a community is a matter of degree, their scepticism grows.

Being completely neutral doesn’t exist, this is because one cannot put an object in the same place of another. If one removes the one put on a table for example and try to put an object on the same place with the removed one, the order of placing affects the neutrality. In addition, placing those two in the nearly same place doesn’t work as it is seen as upper or lower, or right or left, from the perspective of viewer. What is recognised as neutral in a topic a few agents involve, the neutrality is different from the perspective of the outer agent.

To recognise and to give a name on an object loses its neutrality. This is particularly applied to the name of a place. One calls a place by what name is political as the place is called differently by country A and country B(1).

Rightness is consisted of a wider variety of perspectives that always question whether it is right or not while sometimes it corrects itself. President or representatives don’t necessarily make right judgement, additionally saying, just because many, for example citizens, have the same opinion that doesn’t guarantee it is right. In other words, majority rule is not ensured to be right on the one hand, and decision in oligarchy is also not on the other hand.

Rightness can be maintained by always being questioned. When beaten by other arguments, that wasn’t right enough to be maintained. This argument for rightness is closer to the concept of falsifiability. Hiroki Azuma, by referring to Karl Popper’s falsifiability, described that unless a theory proposed in the domain of natural sciences is not proved its falseness by a case, it maintains its theoretical consistency, however it continues to have it opened to the future possibility that it could be demonstrated as false theory by other coming cases that undermine the consistency of the current theory(2).

Whether the community goes to a right direction is partly involved in the leader, given the structure of community where president, prime minister, or any other position is put in place of higher position which has to do with decision-making of community.

This reality can be connected with risks in our life. The newer transportation means such as car enabled persons to move from one place to another conveniently. In the meantime, the invention contains the risk of traffic accident(3).

(1) There are at least several cases of this naming issue in the real geopolitical situations, but a writing by which I came to consciously recognise the perspective was the one written by Hiroki Azuma. 東, 浩紀. 2020. 悪の愚かさについて２、あるいは原発事故と中動態の記憶. in 東, 浩紀(ed.). ゲンロン11. 2020. 東京: ゲンロン. Specifically it is written in p.027.

(2) 東, 浩紀., 2023. 訂正可能性の哲学. 東京: ゲンロン. pp.29-31. He describes the Popper’s falsifiability in the footnote.

(3) 大山, 顕., 2020. 新写真論: スマホと顔. 東京: ゲンロン. p.28.

3.5 Truth

What has been believed true would remain in society whereas it would disappear from the line of being true once the idea is defeated by another. As far as it can demonstrate its rightfulness to others, it would remain as true. There are times in which what has been believed is reversed by another such as heliocentrism. Objects in the world are constantly subject to the risk of its survival. One may come up with the better idea against the conventional one which is in practice, once one’s new idea is spread among the community, it is subject to the competition of ideas. In which, the winning maintains the true than the older one. It is repetition of this cycle in which the older may come up to the society again by the next generation, but would be effective until when it becomes defeated by another by which it may not appear again as true in the world. This potential reappearance of concepts is believed to be applied frequently to humanities when a certain set of conditions comes up to the world which the ancient ideas could be believed to work with the mixture of the present conditions, and to be less applied to natural sciences as the new discovery would prevail against the consistency of the previous truth in that domain. A set of conditions could be technological aspect that new technology enables people to implement what could not have been in the real world or it could be correction of the definition of a concept whose elements were, precisely saying, not totally the same as used before. This correction is close to, or I would say that it is, the correctability(1). By these processes, human beings continue to revalue the concepts which survive through different ages.

In relation to truth, this writing would like to look at the ability to think. It is recognised that “Since Plato, and probably since Socrates, thinking was understood as the inner dialogue in which one speaks with himself (eme emautō, to recall the idiom current in Plato’s dialogues)”(2). The ability to think is thought that “It has, after all, been that ability to think which, when translated to physical terms, has enabled us to transcend our physical limitations and which has seemed to set us above our fellow creatures in achievement”(3).

The true requires thinking as “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think”(4). Thinking maintains “active state” in the inner and “Its outward inactivity is clearly separated from the passivity, the complete stillness, in which truth is finally revealed to man”(5). Truth has resilience and becomes robust through the thinking in oneself and society.

The true arguments would be likely to prevail. Even if they are not recognised by some people, they are foundations of further development unless those ideas are defeated by others. The right argument would overcome others even if others many times try to be against it(6). That is why discussion among citizens can enhance the outcome. Discussion can convince people before it is implemented and it can inform citizens of its policy beforehand. It can avoid somewhat the probability of social unrest, even if not completely. Democratic discourse can vitalise the society as a whole if the discourse works. Even after the generation changes, that can help the community not lose their vitality.

If a specific person plays the really large role, it is more likely to face trouble in the period of succession(7). Incorporating the democratic process of deliberation is one way to share the knowledge among the people. Discussion makes the community solid, that can be a factor which can connect people and even if they disagree in certain topics, in other topics they may have somewhat of agreement in opinions. In a situation that they are completely different opinions, as far as their fundamental values such as their benefits are shared it works. Discussion is a way to get a community deeper into thoughts, and it is not limited to the time in which it occurred. It has extensive character of making a habit for people to search more think more for a topic they will encounter next time. Even if not strongly rooted as a habit for people, slightly the experience affects people and have community more intelligent. That can let one know what didn’t come up with one’s mind. Democracy is inefficient and it takes time to come to consensus, however it also has the benefit of trying to create the culture by which one gets accustomed to thinking. This voluntary process of thinking in oneself is a fundamental condition in democratic politics. The culture creates the ecosystem in which people of the next generation can get the advantage of it. Since persons are mortal, the advancement of their ecosystem is the one that give benefits to the next generations.

The problem at around the beginning of 21st century lies in the persons’ tendency to take less time in thinking, and takes the form of language as what it means. To the argument of saying that it is not what he meant, one would show the evidence of the sentence that the person has written before. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean what one takes literally, the intended meaning often differs from what that literally means.

One can show himself to another as a different way from what one thinks in his mind. As persons are able not to explicitly show what they truly had thought at the time of publicly disclosing, the emphasis on what’s not visible matters. This could be applied to the cases that the person in power of a country call for the public for their support in a way that is more likely to convince the public although they may not truly believe in what they say. The public requires the judgement by themselves on what politicians say towards them. It is also a matter of what one says is related to one’s position in society. If a politician needs to get support from the public to win next election, the mindset of hoping to get more votes incentivise their speech more or less towards their purpose. Also, people in a public gathering would behave in a different way from the ordinary self. They do not behave as they are with their friends in a place where they need to socialise with others they meet for the first time. In case of socialising, people are to show their good aspects of themselves in many cases to the ones they talk with. It is not only those obvious examples, but applies to those who appear on TV shows, their way of talking has a sort of similar ways that makes their speech easier to be communicated to their audience.

(1) Correctability is explained in the book titled Philosophy of Correctability by Hiroki Azuma. As of 1 October 2023, available in Japanese as follows: 東, 浩紀., 2023. 訂正可能性の哲学. 東京: ゲンロン.

(2) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(3) Penrose, R., 2016. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3.

(4) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 41.

(5) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(6) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 26.

(7) Buterin, V., 2022. DAOs are not corporations: where decentralization in autonomous organizations matters. [Online] Available at: https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/09/20/daos.html [Accessed 5 November 2022].