Month: July 2017

About the freedom

 

 

＊　This sentence is a republishing one that was written on June 23 2013.

 

A. Freedom and society

 

1. The concept (the meaning and the contents which the word contains) of the freedom is the concept which is higher than the concept of the socialism or the communism which appeared so far in the history.

 

2. In the freedom society, the human beings have higher sociality than the socialism society and the communism society which have been professed by it-self and which appeared so far in the history, and the freedom society develops into the more higher level.

 

B. The moral and the good which the freedom societies have.

 

1. In the concept of the freedom contains the concept of the moral and the good. Also in the concept of the socialism and the communism too contain the concept of the moral and the good. However, the concept of the moral and the good in the concept of the freedom make a difference from each concept of the socialism and communism.

 

2. The forming of the moral and the good in the freedom societies owes to individual human’s spontaneities of their societies. We call these individual human’s spontaneities the independent human beings’ lively activities. Society is formed not only the moral and the good but by the individual human’s spontaneities. And society will always try to open opportunities equally for these human being’s spontaneities (we must do so). We call this liberalism society.
3. The moral and the good of the freedom society are formed by the individual human’s spontaneities = the independent human beings’ lively activities. As for the freedom society, the general will of the independent human beings becomes a social moral and the good, and it takes effect on the independent human beings again and forms the morality “that should be in this way “. The freedom society is improved with the interaction of these independent human beings’ lively activities and the society, and moves forward.

 

C. The moral and the good which the socialism, the communism society, or the exclusionism society has.

 

1. The moral and the good which the socialism, the communism, or the exclusionism society has are made by a few members or one group in the society.

 

2. Their moral and good, in case of the nation, are forced to all the members in society by no passing through the procedure that get approval of social-composition member all the members, or by the suspected procedure.

 

3. In these nations , the liberty of the obtaining of information, the free speech, the freedom of academic are restricted, and generally, the opportunities for the voluntary desire of a human are not ” always equal “. We call these societies the society which closed one.

 

4. Also, when the moral and the good are done in the one group in the society, their self-identity often appears as aggression against the others, and this is called an exclusionism.

 

D. The requirements for the liberty

 

1. To be liberties, it develops democracy, and the enough discussions to reach an agreement are performed and the system that makes a decision must be always considered.

 

2. To avoid a solution of the problem by the violence, it is necessary to let be parliamentarism.

 

3. The people grow up, it avoids the politician whom rides populism, sensationalism and collects votes, and the politician who have good morality, who is able to trust to the nation’s fate must be chosen.

 

E. The one which the liberalism society aims at.

 

1. The people and the society move to head toward the beauty and good. In other words, “The way that the people and the society must be is beautiful and good “, this is the one which the liberalism society aims at.

 

2. In the realization of this “the people and the society are beautiful and good” society, the liberalism society is the higher society and moreover it is able to prove that it is the society which can aim at the high one more.

What is the self?

＊　This sentence is a republishing one that was written on October 5, 2013.  Here is description of self-conviction. I am excepting other contents.

 

 

A．What is the self ?

 

1. The self is a nature.

 

2. All right, the self that is a nature does self-conviction by what?

 

3. The self confronts the nature including cities. And by drawing the self explicitly in there and does it.

 

4. How does it do any way?

 

5. The self chooses the object world ( the field ) which tries to express the self from the inside of the nature that is the world including cities. And the self expresses itself to the world. We call this act an occupation or work. In this act, the self aims the object world at being the good, and at being the beauty. That is, the act of the self must be good.

 

6. The self is not only one person in the world. Similarly, there are living other selves. If this is called another person, only with the relation with other persons occurs the relation of the person and the person, and the community is born. In this case, the word of first saying ‘community’ cannot yet have its strict character’s rule, and it says the miscellaneous relation that self and other persons involve. Relationship with the self and other persons is held by mutual respect. The means of keeping this relation is a communication, that is, the dialog.

 

7. From here, the first community is reformed to a community that have a group character’s rule from a state that is called “crowd”, and next, it heads for the middle scale community and large community which is a gathering of small communities. And it establishes the nation.

 

8. The world is made in this way. The gathering of the self makes the world. And we call the self the independent constituent (= the entity) of the world.

 

9. Here, there is the self (the independent constituent=the entity) involved in the way how should be the community, the state, the world.

 

10. The system which guarantees this is the democracy. And, the system which guarantees to be being the freedom that human beings (=the independent constituents=the entities) are is the liberalism.

 

11. The democracy is a system. Even if a leader of one country, a mission statement of the party, a constitution, declares “Our country is a democracy”, it is not a thing guaranteeing that the country is a democracy nation.

 

12. The democracy is, there are elections, multiple political parties and the Parliaments, the Cabinet is composed by members of Parliament that have been elected, is the system that is able to alternate the Cabinet which operates the Government by election. Japan is the State of the Cabinet by the Lawmakers System. There is the State of the Presidential System like the United States, too. The system is clearly stated in the law.

 

13. The modern law is made by dialogue and is reformed.

 

14. The parliament and elections are the places where the people each other dialogue about the way how should be the state and themselves, and determine it. Therefore, the people comply with these laws which are results of their dialogs, and the people will protect their State system strongly.

About the assertion

 

＊　This sentence is a republishing one that was written on September 1, 2013. In places which are mentioning in the sentence, it includes the sentence which are not yet translated into English.

 

Ａ. At beginning

1. Previously, I wrote about Kant on June 26, 2011. I will also make a subject the same problem today.
2. At its time (June 26, 2011), I took up “Critique of Practical Reason” and wrote as “the criticism of Hume” and “the view (explanation) of Kant”.
3. The historical fact that the first edition of “Critique of Pure Reason” of Kant had been published is Year 1781. The publishing of “Critique of Practical Reason” is Year 1788. Regarding Hume, the publishing of “A Treatise of Human Nature Vol. 1, About Intellect” is year 1739. And his survival year is from 1711 to 1776. In other words, Hume did not see the publication of Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.

 

4. However, saying about the living year of two philosophers, Hume is 1711 – 1776 and Kant is 1724 – 1804. A birth day of Hume and Kant is different of only about 13 years. Kant wrote “The first principle of metaphysical recognition” in 1755, and wrote “The only possible basis of the evidence on the existence of God” in 1763. The caused problem by Hume had impacted on Kant. Therefore, Kant wrote “Critique of Pure Reason”. This thing has a great meaning in the history of civilization of the human being.

＊ It is not certain when Kant read Hume. According by a translator commentary of Kant’s all book collections which is No 3 volume (Iwanami Shoten, October 2001), when Kant ‘s “First principle of metaphysical recognition” had been published in 1755, the translation of Hume’ s works that say “Investigation” ( original spelling of title is unspecific) was published in German. Kant wrote “the time which had interrupted of his own snooze by receiving influenced the method of Hume’s philosophy” as “vor vielen Jahren”. And he confessed this in “Prolegomena”. Depending on how reading “vor vielen Jahren”, Hume’s method existed in Kant’s consciousness relatively early, it seems.

 

5. In other words, the problem that Hume and Kant in the 18th century had grappled with is meaningful, even if in today too, and this blog is thinking that it is the theme which must be repeatedly asked. In this sense, what this blog wrote as “the criticism of Hume” and “the assertion of Kant” shows the attitude that will be going to try and treat the theme which Hume and Kant thought about, as a human problem in the history of civilization. Together with the sincerity that Kant showed to Hume, this blog thinks that it would want to say this thing.

 

Ｂ.  Re-posting of “the criticism of Hume” and “the assertion of Kant”

Hume: The combination of someone A and some other thing B is given by the perception, the logical right, and the experience. In the combination of “A and B” that doesn’t experience this recognition process, for example when it is declared A is B, even though there is no things which mediates the cause or subject A and the contents of assertion or predicate B, if the inevitable combination of A and B, or a-priori (transcendental) recognition of A is told, the concept itself of this A is a falsehood and is a deception and is an illusion.

Source: Kant ‘ Critique of Practical Reason’ Part 1, First part, Chapter 1, Section 8-2

 

Kant: Speaking of the concept of the Being who would be owned pure will (free will), it is the concept of the cause such as Noumenon (Being who create the Existence and the Nature=Universe). Moreover, the concept of this cause, if considering its origin, does not concern any emotional conditions at all. In addition, such method cannot corroborate by the intuition that is possible only to be emotional always. Therefore, the cause such as Noumenon, even if it is possible about the theoretical use of the reason, and even if the concept that it can be thought, it is nothing but the concept that is emptiness (no contents). However, besides, as far as a certain Rational Being has pure will, more than this, in the other words, I ‘m not asking that I know theoretically what this Being is. As for me, it merely display such Being as such a thing by this concept, and therefore it is enough that tie a concept of the causativeness to a concept of the freedom, that is, the moral law as rule basis of the causativeness, and this cannot separate from the concept of the freedom. And I am surely being given the competency to dare to do such a causal coupling.

Source: Kant ‘ Critique of Practical Reason’ Part 1, First part, Chapter 1, Section 8-2

 

1. Here, Kant describes about the existence of God as the basis that he and a human being are moral. A difficult problem occurs here. That is, it is the problem that says whether or not the human assertion grounded on God is able to establish without the proof. Jesus is so. I would say sincerely so that there would be no misunderstanding, what I’m saying here is not about a miracle.

 

2. The Jesus would be done many assertions by the basis of this God. Enlil of Sumer has the old proto-form of this God. About this, please refer to an article of July 31, 2011 of this blog (Japanese version), “Moses’ Ten Commandments”.

 

3. In association with this, I looked over Max Weber’s “Ancient Judaism”. Although I did not care at that time, in his description there is a place that must read carefully compared to the scripture of the Bible.

 

4. Weber wrote, “When this God was accepted by Israel, it had been already worshiped outside Israel. The tribes that had worshiped this God by organized manner were Bedouin tribes and several tribes of the oasis that bordered Israel in the south.” (” Ancient Judaism Ⅰ” Misuzu Syobou 1962 P196 ) However, we can see that it is not so, if we read the Bible. When Terra, the father of Abraham, had left from Ur, there was already a God in the clan, and the saying that same God would be been appeared as Yahweh at the time of Moses is the correct context of history.

 

5. Today’s theme is about “the assertion”. However, the subject of today is not the question to say whether or not the human assertion grounded on God is able to establish without the proof. The main subject is the assertion that the human being does. However, I think before that, about the assertion which bases on God, and want to put to touch a little. The branch point of permission of this assertion is whether it makes alive all human beings and creatures or it is the one which is going to destroy human beings and creatures. I would be thinking so.

 

Ｂ. The assertion in today

 

1. Today’s assertion has not its number limit. There are assertions both always where there is conflict.

 

2. The modern world is established on the historical accumulation of human daily acts.

 

3. Wittgenstein says, “1. The world is a sum of the facts in logical space. The world is the whole of an established matter.” (“Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung” 1921 Germany), (Japanese version: Hosei University Publication Bureau 1968).

 

4. The basis of judgment to say that the assertion is true or false, and that we adopt it or abandon it, it is whether the assertion is able to contribute to development of the freedom and democracy of human beings. And it is whether its assertion is able to give hope and backbone to live to people or not. In this way, history is stacked, and advances forward.

 

5. Freedom and democracy are one set of value judgments. If it is only democracy, any dictatorship states always assert that own country is a democracy state.

About the hope

＊ This sentence is part of the Japanese version “nichinichiro” on November 20, 2013. Here is writing about that equality of opportunities of education and occupation which is basic rights of human beings and the basis for society’s development.

 

A. About the hope

 

1. What is the one that is called the hope? If thinking it, in the case of a human being, it seems like saying a purpose that a human being produces a good outcome that is different from a state that is now today, at later time of after a state that is now.

 

2. I want to do it this way tomorrow. I will do it this way tomorrow. This is the will. And the continuation of this intention, and the continuation and accumulation of action by will is made toward the achievement of hope. The hope of this case is also called a goal. Then, when we achieved our hopes, we picture a next new hope in our minds. And we will continue to walk.

 

3. What are hopes of society? A birth of a new life (baby) in society becomes a hope of the society. If it is the ancient times, its child grows up and may go to journey of the founding of a new country with leading his clan. If it is modern or recent ages, its baby does new invention or discovery and may change the society until then. Its baby has the possibility that may build a new system like the United Nations and EU, and build a new social frame like TPP. However, there is also the opposite case. Its child becomes a dictator and delate the people’s vigor and may annihilate a country. Its baby may degenerate to the bad guy. This parable is not a fictitious story. Rather it is the reality of our world.

 

4. However, the future of children who are born is the same in that their children’s future possibility is infinite if the society in which their children were born is a society with homogeneous ethical norms. How its child grows depends on what its child encounters in the process of growth and how its child digests social norms and how its child is aware of responsibility for the future of society. It is the persons and education that teaches them social norms in their youth. And in there, the principle that students and learning children that have not enough learning financial resources are given the opportunity to receive scholarships and are given the opportunity to learn and to challenge equally is necessary.

 

5. The society is unequal. From the time that children were born, depending on their parents’ financial strength and status, the range of that children’s choices, it is wide or narrow, is already different. The principle which corrects this unequalness is the principle of equal opportunity of society. And it is the principle of equal opportunity of occupations which all opportunities that can get all professions are being given to every human beings. We can call the society in which this principle is consistent as a society where we can have hope.

 

6. Shall the hope of society that this equality of opportunity penetrates overlap our hope? It is overlapping. The world is, the hope of the people have been coming to pull the society. And there is current now. Hope has been changing the world.

 

B. People with hope change the world.

 

1. The human beings are always together with the hope. And, people with hope will change the world and society.