The attitude of people towards nature is different in the occident and the orient. Particularly oriental thought could propose the idea of coexistence with nature. Human beings rules the nature, especially European countries pioneerly developed their civilizations progressing together with natural science[1]. Following the similar paths, oriental countries developed themselves.

Prior to diving into the deeper parts, we need to think about what the nature is. It could be the whole system of the earth (or could be extended to outer space) in which human beings is included. The nature cannot be controlled, even it could be thought that human beings is part of nature as well as virus is. The nature signifies the system in which everything is connected and self-adapts.

Regarding pandemic and the confusion caused by it, virus is not what we can eliminate from our society even after the vaccine is invented. Vaccine isn’t a perfect product to fight against virus, just because we took vaccines doesn’t mean that we will not be infected 100%, and the virus mutates as well. Though, I admit, it has the benefit of having people less harmed. Eventually herd immunity would be necesarry to go through pandemic, helped by the product called as vaccine.

Coexistence with virus is the essential way of life in original state, not to mention. It is uncontrable, not contrable, regarding pandemic in the first place. If human beings controls the pandemic, the thought and the realization of ruling the nature is more embodied. Since Decartes, the of human-central ideology have been influencing the world immensely[2].

Before Plate and Socrates, Ionian philosophy was focusing on nature[3]. For example, forest had been in the state of being natural before Socrates and Plate, but then it was deforested once which was one of the reasons that Greek civilization collapsed, it was recreated artificially later by human hands[4]. Especially, Decartes, Bacon, and Spinoza are those who strengthened the notion of controlling nature[5]. Contrarily, human’s rule on nature has been criticized since 18th century that involves, to some extent, the current environmentalism[6].

In terms of dominance over nature, nuclear issues including nuclear power plant fall into this topic. For instance, nuclear power plant has a thought of controlling nature and the realization of the thought should be in dispute whether we should move in that direction or not. There would be an opinion that human-central ideology is arrogant given the wide range of creatures living on the earth.

Take a look at the actual incidents happened, nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima need enormous time to be recovered. Often said that the half-life of plutonium 239 which is more than 20,000 years[7], it is difficult for human race to recover the environment affected by nuclear disaster. Implementing nuclear power plant for generation of electricity in policy of a country has the thought of governing the nature since they need to consider the case of dealing with the catastrophy. Its nuclear powering model looks controlling the nature. In the perspective of avoiding any accident, the system has to be controllable by human beings, in nuclear power generation human beings is required to comprehend how things work that is to say, trying to have the structure of nature in our hands. The ideology of ruling the nature is human’s trying to getting the perspective outside the whole and grasping the mechanism.

Science is based on human’s arbitrariness in a sense that human beings has been building our world on what we can see. Even we say the word scientific, it doesn’t connotate the complete ojbectiveness and should be taken into account that it has human bias and thought. Science is founded on top of them.

People cannot live in the world only based on scientific reasonableness. Scientifically or medically it would be correct to minimize the meetings of people in pandemic so as not to spread the virus, but even if it is correct, such scientific correctness cannot be implemented in society in a complete sense. Such discipline should not eliminate all other social values but persist in the preventing since we cannot live only based on scientific reasonability. The lifestyle of each person living in a nation is too different to put them into certain categories.

We cannot always prioritize the preventiveness of spreading disease in every dimension of our life. Even this pandemic isn’t the worst case in history. Every time when pandemic happens we cannot put our societies in hold which tricle down the downsides of lockdown. What we should do is to lessen the social negatives as much as possible caring the high risk people.

Putting lockdown or state of emergeny in place when the number of infecton surges, and when getting calmed lifting it up take place. Restrictions are in place depending on the statistics of each moment. Coexistence with nature isn’t to put distinction between nature and human beings. It is adjusting the balance between them considering the capacity of a society.

Social distance would be slightly integrated into our society as custom. Tiredness of staying at home in private and business life led to the situation that people gradually started to go out. Citizen’s reaction toward the number of people contract COVID-19 on weekly or monthly basis is different from the beginning of pandemic. They are more accustomed to the numbers which surprised them at first. Think of the beginning of this pandemic when coronavirus hit over not just Asia but a while later western countries, people were getting tense to stay home, take social distancing, to be in lockdown. But now, people’s attitude to the virus seems loosened. It is partly because we cannot constantly put lockdown in place to minimize the number of the infected. Drastic change on lifestyle of people impacts on businesses, especially not being adaptable to working at home. It puts people’s life at risk. Even if it is correct for infectious disease, it doen’t necessarily mean that it is correct for society, let alone in the perspective of social justice.

Of at maximum we should take preventive measures like wearing mask or care those who are vulnerable to this virus. However we cannot prioritize always preventing the spread of this virus by constantly locking down with strictest condtions. Even temporary lockdown we put, burdens are accumulated to society, or certain vulnerable group of people. People of color tends to be front-line workers[8]. The infection rate has to do with the life conditions of community. It turned out that workers packed in insuffient-hygiene accommodations were vulnerable[9].

Something we can rely on may help. It could be sort of principles that people believe in, or I can say that it could be a wisdom that comes from our ancestors. In some cases, people might as well compromise in certain degrees.

[1] Influenced by Takeshi Umehara. For a philosophy of mankind. ISBN978-4-7571-4282-4. p.7.

[2] Influenced by Takeshi Umehara. For a philosophy of mankind. ISBN978-4-7571-4282-4. p.11-12.

[3] Takeshi Umehara. For a philosophy of mankind. ISBN978-4-7571-4282-4. p.18.

[4] Takeshi Umehara. For a philosophy of mankind. ISBN978-4-7571-4282-4. p.20.

[5] Francis Fukuyama. The end of history and the last man. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.72.

[6] Francis Fukuyama. The end of history and the last man. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.83-84.

[7] Hiroki Azuma. On the Foolishness of Evil, or the Problem of Nuclear Accident and its Mediopassive Memory. Genron 11. ISBN978-4-907188-38-2. p.19.

[8] BBC. Why did the first wave of COVID 19 disproportionately affect people of colour? – BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2iB6UXFDlk Accessed 29 April 2021.

[9] Maybe Racism Caused the Covid-19 Crisis. Cathy O’Neil. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ATFPV0aLyJM/catherine-h-oneil Accessed 1 May 2021.

The world seems haunted by the fear of coronavirus, weeping out all other values but preventing the spread of the virus. The severity of COVID-19 pandemic perceived among us doesn’t come only from that of the virus itself, but also from the fear intensified by citizens. It ended up imposing strict restrictions on our life as the dimension of preventing the virus has been top of the list and dominating our life. From the beginning of this pandemic people are scared of the virus, reports and posts from major media and on the Internet, particularly social media, came up every day. As for the mainstream media such as TV and newspapers, coronavirus cluster was frequently reported, because of it, people felt sensitive to the virus. People had to be imposed limitation on business activity worrying the risk of infection.

Due to the limitation on economic activity, people had to close business when the number of cases surged, and people were increasingly got unemployed. Even the labouring necessary to make ends meet had to be on hold which led to the situation that the unemployed people were put in more difficult situation. People had concern when they can reopen their businesses or anything that gather people which might cause cluster. Even in case they are in the state of emergency which is being requested to be closed — not mandatory —, it is difficult courageously to reopen because of the the pressure or possibility to cause cluster. We’ve often heard this sort of phrase “if not neccessary”, in order to minimize the spread of the virus, “not necessary” actions outside house were frequestly told to be refrained. There’s a case that during lockdown even people in a park in London were called on to be back home[1]. Also, in terms of necessary activity in our life, what about those who work in the cultural fields as their profession? The question rises whether the cultural activities are not necessary? Whether or not they get assistance from government to some extent, their activities are too restricted to maintain their life or to maintain our civilization itself.

Not just for labouring, other activities in our life were limited. Hospital visits were banned, which meant even family members couldn’t visit. In some places, virtual visits were adopted using the Internet. Because of visit banning, family members couldn’t be staying with their beloved ones in the hospitals and it is reported that without their family’s reaching to the place, patient passed away on a basis that we should minimize the risk of infecting the elderly as the virus has more severe harms to the elderly.

Society becomes confused in pandemic. For example, a letter threatening to burn a house was received in the situation that the owner of the house was holding a religious gathering and the grandmother of a writer who often walks in front of the house was infected with coronavirus in which a causality is not clear[2]. In facility where the elderly live in, worker feels powerlessness, when the elderly meet their visitors, it has to be a meeting through plastic wall[3]. In such situation of this pandemic, an elderly woman said that “It wasn’t a life”[4].

Government officials as well as its citizens had the perception of fear as they put down strict measures to societies. Mortality rate is different in country. In cities which have heavy traffic, government may have had to impose lockdown and it worked to decrease the potential number of people infected. In such occasions, it cannot be denied to place lockdown as a temporary option to minimize the infected. Of course in this worldwide pandemic people should take preventive care themselves. And people should refrain from going out if it is not necessary. Bun in the mean time we should not weep out all values that our society has but preventing the pandemic. Even this coronavirus has been told that the mortality isn’t so much higher compared with the historically catastrophic infectious diseases.

As a factor that multiplied the fear among citizens, we should note the loss of the public sphere. Public space should be maintained or ameriorated so that our civilization or human beings can advance our history as the new ones are born to the world, not to repeat the same mistakes without learning history. Public space is the sphere that individuals whose life is limited can leave history for the future generations. Without having such sphere, people would spend time wastefully, and the wrong doings similar or identical to the past would be more likely to occur. Also, in the sphere, “rank”, “prestige”, “power”, “economic dependencies”, “Laws of the market”, and “laws of the state” didn’t have influence[5]. The existence of the sphere has to do with a question that whether history is directional, or cyclical or random[6]. In a sense that our civilization progresses, it would be more working if it is directional. However, not always our world can avoid delay as the limitation of our each life, for example, involves.

An example of representing the loss of the public sphere is that the 45th President of the United States made an decision to leave the Paris agreement, several years later 46th President decided to join again, this is sort of delaying international cooperation . In that sense, the election in which the former was elected needs a careful reconsideration on our history and its advancement. He used social media and got his influence around the world, not just himself but it echoed worldwide. The expectations one had in the earlier period when the Internet emerged ended up quite opposite as it shows the negative outcome. A question is whether the Internet could be a public space. This has to do with infodemic which led the world to be more chaotic, and people being feared by the virus. Infodemic is harmful to society in which people consumes huge amount of information everyday. It feels like the safetyness coming from vaccine that would lessen the tension in community and fear. If people behave like in this pandemic it would collapse society every time contagious virus appears.

[1] Guardian News. ‘It’s not a holiday’: police disperse sunbathers in London during coronavirus lockdown. Description section of the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9aCKX6awHg. Accessed 21 March 2021.

[2] Le 5 sur 5 ! – C à Vous – 14/05/2020. C à vous. Starts at 6:48 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6VWR6uKcnI. Accessed 11 February 2021.

[3] Le 5 sur 5 ! – C à Vous – 20/05/2020/. C à vous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHEN3t4pKG8. Accessed 11 February 2021.

[4] Le 5 sur 5 ! – C à Vous – 20/05/2020/. C à vous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHEN3t4pKG8. 4:20-. Accessed 11 February 2021.

[5] Jürgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. p.36. ISBN 978-0-7456-1077-1.

[6] Francis Fukuyama. The end of history and the last man. p.71. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4.

Posted on 28 February 2021, Updated on 3 January 2022

Enthusiasm doesn’t come if they obey rules. It is based on people’s autonomy. In their mind, something passionate arise and it motivates people. Occasionally, it leads people to their actions.

It isn’t obeying society’s rules but it is closer to citizens’ spontaneous motivation. To explain it in terms of rule, in an event which gathers people, for example, if one leaves the place because of train schedule or other reasons, it doesn’t have the enthusiasm. If having it, it has sort of power that can push back obstacles which hinders the vector.

Potentially it may be related to thymos in a sense that exists in people’s deeper part.

Published 3 January 2021, Last updated 11 January 2021

Politics became violent, one cannot say that it is logically and constructively discussed.

Particularly, after social media caused the chaos and the social negatives.

In January 2020, Twitter decided to permanently suspend the account of US President Donald Trump. According to their website, “the risk of further incitement of violence”[1] was mentioned as a reason in the context of the violent storming on 6th the same month at the US Capitol[2].

As for social media, people have been focusing too much on the present without having a wider view on our history while not remembering even what had happened a while ago.

In the earlier stage of the Internet or when Joi Ito published a paper Emergent Democracy[3] in 2004, some people were having expectations on the Internet which might encourage the development of democracy. The paper mentions the possibility of the Internet as well as the potential negative outcomes from it.

[1] Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html Accessed 9 January 2021.

[2] America shaken after pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYzsukyYgC4 Accessed 9 January 2021.

[3] Joi Ito. Emergent Democracy. Edited by Jon Lebkowsky. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.06953.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2021.

Published on 31 December 2020, Last updated on 3 January 2022

It might not be proper to use the word “barrier”, but, I would say that how we put barriers matters. Putting barriers in social sense is to put obstacles, restrictions, and so forth. It is not like that everything is borderless in our society. In order to reach to something, we need to accomplish prerequisites. If we try to go to a concert of favourite musician, we need to get a ticket, go to a city in which it is held, and arrive in the place on time. Likewise, many barriers exist in daily life. Government puts restrictions in citizens’ life.

In geographical sense, nation-states put borders in between their neighboring countries.

Where and what sort of barrier is put matters. It is a architectural issue which is worth being paid attention to.