A View of Society from Modern Philosophy: Only Conservative Thought is Unique and Special

A View of Society from Modern Philosophy: Only Conservative Thought is Unique and Special The Subject of Philosophy When we say "philosophy," it's acceptable to assume we are referring to Western philosophy. Philosophy ultimately comes down to ontology and epistemology. In the past, value judgments such as morality and the power of judgment were also within the scope of philosophy. When I studied about 30 years ago, it was written that philosophy had become a branch of ethics, but recent research shows that philosophy includes ethics. Well, from a traditional perspective, that is the traditional way of thinking. Given the breadth of the English word "philosophy," this might be a matter of course. As we move into the modern and contemporary eras, the idea that human life and death have no inherent meaning becomes dominant. Meaning is not something given; it is something you create for yourself. This tendency has been present since around the time of existentialist philosophy. The culmination of Nietzsche's philosophy is nihilism; the idea of the Übermensch is likely secondary. Sartre said that man is condemned to be free, and he dedicated his own choice of freedom to the realization of Marxism. Even in contemporary philosophy, such as post-structuralism, life is not given meaning by something else. If you need meaning, you create it or decide it for yourself. Based on this premise... If You Are Free to Decide, Only Conservatism is Special In the modern and contemporary eras, it has become commonplace that life and death have no inherent meaning, but this way of thinking existed even before then. For example, in the period between the Middle Ages and the modern era, there was the tabula rasa of British empiricism. The human mind is originally a blank slate, and experience creates perception and existence. The national character of the British is said to be conservative. If the world has no meaning and is free, then among the various possibilities and choices, only the existing state of "as-is" becomes special. Humans may have nothing certain in philosophical ontology or epistemology, but they live their daily lives as they are. That "as-is" daily life alone is special. Freedom might have meaning for the future. However, we live in a world where the present and the past cannot be changed. The existential philosopher Heidegger, who I believe was also a conservative person, presented the concept of "Being-in-the-world." This is the idea that we live as beings who have been thrown, or "projected," into a given world. In English, this is "existence." The English word "existence" comes from ex- + sistence, so in a sense, it's a direct translation of "projection." If there is anything special, it is the world into which we have been thrown, and to protect that world as it is becomes conservatism. The main objective is to protect things that are irreversible—things that, once lost, can never be recovered. Conversely, things that are reversible can be changed as much as one likes. New cultures or artifacts can be introduced if desired, and existing things can be modified if they are restorable. This is the reason why it is said that "Japanese culture is a culture of selectively adopting and editing foreign cultures." I believe it was Lévi-Strauss who said something like this. Destroying the given world to an unrestorable extent for the sake of some ideal, Idea, or ideology is not favored in a conservative culture. In other words, revolution is not favored. However, restoration is acceptable. Broadly speaking, revolutions tend to fail. Japan's Meiji Restoration was a major reform greater than any clumsy revolution, but because it was an imperial restoration, it was relatively successful, wasn't it? Attachment and Affection I will summarize the relationship between faith, trust, confidence, and systems in another article soon. Trust is not a shadow player but rather the essence of a system, group, or organization. The point is that it is not limited to humans or living beings. To summarize briefly, "Trust is a social mechanism that makes a system (society, organization, human relationships, etc.) sustainable by reducing future uncertainty and enabling safe and predictable interactions." This could be extended beyond humans and society to other things. A more general definition could be: "Trust is a state where one element constituting a system can use the functions of other elements as expected. It is a mechanism that reduces the complexity of the entire system and enables more efficient operation." Be that as it may, when people live ordinary lives, a natural love for their hometown and country develops. Of course, there will be things they dislike about the country they were born and raised in. However, "basic trust" is like the origin of a human being in psychoanalytic developmental psychology. If one lives a natural life, it's not possible to be completely indifferent to or only dislike one's family, community, or country. This is true even for people who have been hurt by terrible circumstances, abuse, or adverse childhood experiences. They may develop mental health problems later in life, but the fact that these problems arise means that trust and attachment are necessary in childhood. This has been confirmed in animal experiments, and some species will die without trust or attachment. Experiments with primates have also confirmed that strange things happen. Therefore, conservatism, which preserves and protects the given world, is special. Besides conservatism, there may be various other directions, but they are all attempts, trials, or challenges to change the world. Changing something involves risk. A conservatism that changes nothing may also have risks, but there is a considerable, or rather fundamental, difference between having an existing foundation of trust and affection and destroying it. Therefore, Only Conservative Thought is in a Class of its Own I am not saying that conservative thought is great or superior. It is special. Changing or destroying things can be done at any time. Conversely, to have preserved, protected, and kept the past unchanged into the present is special. Major destruction usually leads to strange outcomes. Wasn't the golden age of France before the French Revolution? After the French Revolution, the country has never settled down, even to this day. The same goes for the Russian Revolution. The country still hasn't settled down. Revolutions may be important at times, but they should be carried out with the utmost care. Otherwise, the human and material damage tends to be severe.

現代哲学から見た社会観、保守思想だけ特殊、特別

現代哲学から見た社会観、保守思想だけ特殊、特別 ・哲学の対象 　哲学というと西洋哲学のことをさすとしていいです。 　哲学は結局存在論と認識論になります。 　道徳とか判断力などの価値判断も昔は哲学の範疇でした。 　私が昔勉強した30年ほど前は哲学は倫理学の一分野になったようなことを書いていましたが最近調べると哲学が倫理学を含むそうです。 　まあ伝統的にみればそれが伝統的な考え方です。 　英語のphilosophyの意味の広さから言えば当然かもしれません。 　近現代になるにつれて人間の生死には意味がないという考え方が支配的になっていきます。 　意味は与えられるものではなく自分で作るものです。 　実存主義哲学くらいからその傾向があります。 　ニーチェの哲学の到達点はニヒリズムであって超人思想は二次的なものでしょう。 　サルトルは人間は自由の刑に生きていると言いましたが自分はその自由の選択としてマルクス主義の実現に尽くしました。 　現代哲学でもポスト構造主義では生に何かが意味を与えてくれるものではありません。 　必要なら自分で作ったり決めたりするのです。 　これを前提とすると… ・自由に決めていいのなら保守主義だけ特別 　近現代には生死に意味はないというのは当たり前のようになっていますがそれ以前にもそういう考え方があります。 　例えば中世と近代の間の時代、イギリス経験論のタブララサです。 　人間の精神はもともとまっさらで経験が認識や存在を作っていきます。 　そのイギリス人の国民性は保守的と言われます。 　世の中何の意味もなく自由であればいろいろな可能性や選択肢の中で今あるあるがままのみが特別なものになります。 　人間は哲学的な存在論や認識論で確かなものは何もないかもしれませんが日々あるがままの日常を生活しています。 　そのあるままの日常のみが特別です。 　自由は未来に対しては意味があるかもしれません。 　しかし今や過去は変えられない世界を我々は生きています。 実存哲学者のハイデガーも保守的な人だったと思いますが世界内存在という概念を提示しています。 我々は与えられた世界の中に投げ入れられた、投企された存在として生きているという考え方です。 英語でexistenceです。 実存の英語はex＋sistenceですからある意味投企の直訳です。 　特別があるとすれば投げ入れられた世界そのものでその世界をそのまま守っていくのが保守になります。 　特に失うと二度と元に戻らないもの、不可逆なものは守ることが眼目です。 　逆に可逆なものはいくらでも変えていいということになります。 　新しい文化や文物でも導入したければしてもいいですし、今あるものでも復元可能であれば改造していいということになります。 　これが「日本の文化は外の文化を選択的に取り入れて編集する文化」と言われるゆえんになります。 　たしかレヴィ＝ストロースがこういうことを言っています。 　何かの理想、イデア、イデオロギーで復元不可能なほどに与えられた世界を壊すのは保守的な文化では好まれません。 　つかり革命は好まれません。 　しかし復古はありです。 　大まかにいうと革命は失敗する傾向があります。 　日本の明治維新は下手な革命以上の大改革でしたが王政復古であったため比較的うまくいった方ではないでしょうか。 ・愛着と愛情 　信・信頼・信用とシステムの関係については別の文章で近々まとめます。 　信頼というのは影の黒子ではなくむしろシステムや集団や組織の本質というものです。 　ポイントは人間とか生物に限らないということです。 　簡単にまとめると「信頼とは、あるシステム（社会、組織、人間関係など）を持続可能にするために、未来の不確実性を低減させ、安全で予測可能な相互作用を可能にする社会的な仕組み」 　みたいに表すことができます。 　これは人間や社会だけにとどまらずもっと別の物にも拡張できるかもしれません。 　より一般的な定義として、 「信頼とは、あるシステムを構成する一つの要素が、他の要素の機能を想定通りに利用できる状態。これにより、システム全体の複雑性を縮減し、より効率的な運用を可能にする仕組み」 と言えます。 　それはともかくとして普通に人間生きていると自然な愛郷心、愛国心が芽生えます。 　もちろん自分の生まれ育った国に嫌いなところはあるでしょう。 　ただ原始的信頼というのは精神分析学的発達心理学では人間の原点のようなものです。 　自然に生きていれば全く家族や地域や国に無関心であったり嫌いだけということはないです。 　これはひどい境遇、虐待、幼児期からの逆境体験で痛めつけられた人でもそうです。 　それなりにメンタルの問題を長じて後に生じることがありますが生じるということは幼児期には信頼とか愛着とかが必要なのです。 　これは動物実験でも確認されていてある種の生物では信頼だか愛着がないと死んでしまいます。 　霊長類の実験でもやはりおかしなことになることが確認されています。 　だから与えられた世界を保ち守る保守は特別です。 　保守以外はいろいろな方向があるかもしれませんが世界を変えてしまおうとする試みというかトライアルというかチャレンジになります。 　何かを変えるのはリスクを伴います。 　何も変えない保守もリスクはあるかもしれませんがすでにある信頼や愛情の土台があるのと壊すのとではかなりというか根本的に違うことをすることになります。 ・というわけで保守思想だけは別格 　保守思想が偉いとか優れているとか言っているのではありません。 　特別なのです。 　変えたり壊したりするのはいつでもできます。 　逆に過去を現在に変えずに保ち守り変えないできたということは特別です。 　大きく壊すと大抵おかしくなります。 　フランスの全盛期はフランス革命の前ではないでしょうか？ 　フランス革命後は今に至るまでいつまでたっても国が落ち着きません。 　ロシア革命もそうです。 　いまだに国が落ち着きません。 　別に革命も大切な時はあるのかもしれませんが細心に行うべきです。 　でないと大体人的、物的損害が酷いことになりがちです。

In Buddhism, the Middle Way is More Important Than Emptiness; In Philosophy, Post-structuralism is More Important Than Structuralism A Misunderstanding In Buddhism, the most important thing is firstly "the Middle" (Chū, Middle Way, Madhyamaka), and secondly "Emptiness" (Kū, Dependent Origination). This is a point that is easily misunderstood.

In Buddhism, the Middle Way is More Important Than Emptiness; In Philosophy, Post-structuralism is More Important Than Structuralism A Misunderstanding In Buddhism, the most important thing is firstly "the Middle" (Chū, Middle Way, Madhyamaka), and secondly "Emptiness" (Kū, Dependent Origination). This is a point that is easily misunderstood. I was watching a YouTube video explaining the Heart Sutra, and it was explaining it as "everything is emptiness." The Heart Sutra is said to be a summary of the essence of Buddhism. If so, it should mention emptiness, which it does, but the Heart Sutra is also at fault. The words "middle," "Madhyamaka," or "Middle Way" are not written in it. Upon checking, the character for "middle" (中) was used only once in the sutra, in the phrase "kō ze kū chū" (好是空中). However, the "middle" in this phrase is not the "middle" of the Middle Way or Madhyamaka. It is used to convey the content and nature of emptiness, as in "Therefore, in emptiness..." While concepts of Madhyamaka or the Middle Way are included in phrases like "Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form," upon rereading, it is written in a way that is very susceptible to misunderstanding. The beginning is fine, but from the middle to the end, it contains many misleading or irrelevant things. Upon reflection, I wonder if the person who created the Heart Sutra didn't understand Buddhism very well. Buddhism has aspects that are very easily misunderstood. Previously, I was asked about Buddhism by someone from a branding company, wondering if modern philosophy or Buddhism could be branded. The story was that they had some personal issues and had become a Catholic or Protestant Christian. At that time, I was asked if it was true that Buddhism preaches emptiness, and I remember being met with anger when I answered something like, "Well, yes." I didn't quite understand why, but perhaps it was because the idea of emptiness would mean that God doesn't exist, and that somehow offended them. Indeed, his concern is valid. As a Christian, the spread of Buddhism would be problematic. He probably thought that emptiness was the same as nothingness and that God does not exist. That is essentially correct. If you apply the theory of emptiness to God, God ceases to be necessary. Though not a god, when Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, the content of his enlightenment was emptiness, and he used emptiness in that way. Shakyamuni's use of emptiness, as also found in the Heart Sutra, is that the five aggregates (skandhas) are all empty. If a human being is nothing more than the five aggregates, and the components of those aggregates are also empty, the conclusion is that there is no reincarnation. Shakyamuni's existential suffering was not that there is suffering in life, but that if the world and beings such as humans reincarnate, there is a possibility of being reborn after death and suffering again. If it were finite suffering or suffering that ends with death, it would not have been a problem for Shakyamuni, although he would have disliked suffering. The problem was a more general one: the possibility of being reborn again and again after death and continuing to suffer. In this sense, Buddhism is a religion, the birth of a new religion in response to the existing religions of India. Depending on one's perspective, it can also be seen as the creation of a new philosophical theory of ontology and epistemology, so both views are possible, and one can choose which to emphasize depending on the occasion. However, emptiness is not the core of Buddhism. For Shakyamuni, Nagarjuna, and Tiantai Zhiyi, in Mahayana Buddhism, the most important concept in Buddhism is the Middle Way, Madhyamaka, the Middle. Emptiness is Merely a Tool Nagarjuna, the founder of Mahayana Buddhism who created the theory of emptiness, said that "emptiness is just a tool." He also said that "emptiness is a medicine." He also said something to the effect that "those who cling to emptiness are incorrigible." In Buddhism, this is called kūshū or kūken (attachment to emptiness). For someone who doesn't know about emptiness, it's a concept with such an impact and emotional appeal that they might want to absolutize it upon learning of it. However, in Buddhism, there is a higher concept than emptiness. That is what is called the Middle, Madhyamaka, the Middle Way. Why Was Emptiness Created in the First Place? Wasn't the creation of emptiness somewhat accidental? Or perhaps it was influenced by the intellectual climate of the time and the places where he practiced immediately after leaving home. Shakyamuni's goal was to be permanently free from suffering. I don't think he was looking for a way to escape suffering in the short term. In the first place, I wonder if there were many cultures with the idea that "it's all over when you die." I think it's possible that some Japanese samurai and a part of the world's intellectual class had a partial belief that "it's all over when you die," but even so, I think there was an awareness of, and sometimes a conflict or tension with, the different ideas of surrounding cultures. In India, then and now, reincarnation is the prevailing belief. Therefore, for Shakyamuni to find a solution, he had to achieve one of two things: ① to be eternally free from suffering while reincarnating, or ② for there to be no such thing as reincarnation at all, and preferably, if there is no reincarnation, for it to be replaced by the idea that it's all over when you die. Shakyamuni's enlightenment came from establishing a philosophy that was satisfied with ②, not ①. The method for this was the invention of emptiness (or in Shakyamuni's time, Dependent Origination). The problem in achieving Shakyamuni's strategy of ② is what is called realism in Western philosophy. I don't know what that concept was called in India at the time. Realism is something that one acquires naturally unless one has a very severe intellectual disability (the kind where it's uncertain if they have been conscious since birth, which could also be called a very severe mind-body disability, usually due to being immobile from brain damage). It's something that is automatically included in what we call humanity, intellect, or intelligence, even without our being conscious of it. It's something that we might not even notice exists because no one is conscious of it or problematizes it unless it is made conscious and problematized. Perhaps the one who made this clearest in Western philosophy was Plato. Shakyamuni's Enlightenment Shakyamuni's enlightenment was the discovery, the invention, of emptiness (Dependent Origination). In modern philosophy, this overlaps with deconstruction, the critique of metaphysics, postmodernism, and structuralism. Understanding emptiness or structuralism is a joyful thing. Humans are happy when they understand something, or when they discover or invent something. And sometimes they become attached to it. However, as time passes and one becomes calm and able to see things objectively, one notices something else. That is Madhyamaka and post-structuralism. "To absolutize emptiness or structuralism and to reject and exclude realism" is like an armchair theory. We live with realism. This is true even after enlightenment. Even if you know about emptiness or structuralism, you probably can't live or think in a way that completely abandons realism. It might be possible, but it's very inefficient. In developmental psychology, it is thought that intellectual development first goes through the sensorimotor stage in infancy, followed by a stage of intuitive thought, during which cognitive abilities to recognize things as real and substantial are developed. And based on that foundation, various cognitive abilities, such as abstract thinking, are developed. To eliminate the foundational cognitive abilities and create new ones from scratch is a huge loss, even thinking about it simply. It is easier both sensorily and emotionally, and more economically or cognitively efficient, to use the thorough concepts of structuralism or emptiness as needed, while normally living with the realist cognitive abilities that one has acquired since before one can remember. In the first place, it would be great if one could create a structuralist cognitive system by completely denying realist cognitive abilities, but if that fails, the result is disastrous. One would be left with neither realist nor structuralist cognitive abilities. Some people call this the onset of mental illness. To use an analogy, it would be like someone who went to a foreign country to learn how to walk, failed to learn the new way of walking, but also forgot their original way of walking and had to crawl back home. Emptiness Can Deny Humans and Reincarnation, But That Doesn't Mean It Denies Realism Does a thorough application of emptiness or structuralist thinking naturally lead to the exclusion of realism? This is something we must think about carefully. In mathematics, this is expressed by the words "disjoint" and "independent," and if one doesn't understand these concepts, one can sometimes mix them up. Just because Shakyamuni came up with an innovative theory that denies humans—or rather, a soul-like entity as the subject of reincarnation—and reincarnation itself, that doesn't mean it proves that there is no soul or no reincarnation. Let's rephrase this in the language of modern science. What Shakyamuni came up with was a theory; he didn't prove anything. However, realism is also a theory. The existence of the theory of realism does not deny the theory of structuralism. Both are just theories. And they are not mutually exclusive theories. In other words, they are independent theories. Therefore, they can both coexist. In the first place, whether it's realism or structuralism, they are theories, so it's a separate issue from proof. Neither has been proven. In that sense, one cannot absolutize either of them, nor can one absolutize both. Perhaps there is a completely different theory, different from both realism and structuralism, that will be proven. If so, the very act of saying that realism is the truth of the world or that structuralism is the truth of the world becomes ridiculous. I, at least, often use concepts like "disjoint" and "independent" to explain the Middle Way, Madhyamaka, and the relativism of post-structuralism, but they may be central concepts necessary for organizing various ideas, thoughts, theories, and ideologies. We May Know Nothing, But We Can Become Richer In the end, we can't determine what is right or that one idea is correct and another is wrong, unless there are rules by which to judge, which there generally are not. Even if there are rules, those rules themselves are arbitrarily set by us, not because they are the truth or for any such reason. We can say that, in the end, we know nothing. On the other hand, we can also say that we are capable of knowing. If someone believes something with all their heart, it may be a known fact and the truth for them. But for others, it becomes a matter of, "If you think so, it must be right. But only for you." The important thing is that it's okay for us to have many different theories, ways of thinking, ideas, and ideologies. It gets complicated when there are things like the Bible that have clauses excluding other ideas, but that may be both the stability and the vulnerability of the Bible. If there are no clauses excluding other ideas, like in Japanese Mahayana Buddhism, all ways of thinking can be accepted. This is a form of richness. We may, as Socrates said, know nothing for certain. We may, as Wittgenstein said, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." But perhaps that is as it should be. People who claim to know something, to be right about something, can be seen as arrogant and lacking in humility. Isn't it a common-sense and sensible view to think that we are, at most, thinking reeds, not beings who know or embody some truth? In human history, the absolutization of ideology sometimes becomes fashionable, and a way of thinking that one's own or one's group's ideas are absolutely correct, that others should absolutize the same ideas, and that society should be rebuilt accordingly, can sometimes erupt. But looking back, such things are like the cringeworthy "black history" of adolescence. Even in today's world of advanced civilization, science, and technology, we sometimes see such people. But after a while, they fall silent and seem to act as if that part of their past never happened. This cycle seems to be getting shorter year by year. Humans cannot live without air and water, but in the past, especially around the 20th century, it was an era where it was easy to create a certain atmosphere and difficult to throw cold water on it. Today, it is difficult to create an atmosphere, and how easy it has become to throw cold water on things is painfully clear to anyone who has become a YouTuber, tried to go viral, feared being flamed, or has had a terrible experience with it. The Importance of Madhyamaka Clinging to realism and clinging to structuralism are both like something a junior high school second-grader or an adolescent would do. It's green, immature, and not mature. When you become an adult to some extent, it becomes an embarrassing memory you want to erase, a part of yourself you wish would disappear. Madhyamaka, the Middle Way, the Middle, the relativism of post-structuralism are the ideas of an adult. If one could have this way of thinking from the beginning, neither emptiness nor structuralism would be necessary. But humans have weaknesses. Even at a mature age, they can sometimes insist that something is right, as if they were a god. People are prone to the sins of arrogance and self-righteousness. What they are particularly prone to are various things related to realism. This is, as I wrote earlier, unavoidable. It may not be innate, but in practice, it is almost as if it were programmed to be. In developmental psychology, if one does not reach the stage of intuitive cognition or recognition, one is considered to have an intellectual disability, or in English, mental retardation, and seen as a mentally delayed or slow child. I think it can be said to be a human universal, a common denominator that humans have regardless of culture or era. To understand various ways of thinking, ideas, and theories while being aware of such human nature—this can be called humanism, or it can be called intellect itself. Often, there are many people who are highly educated and have high specs, but whose way of looking at things is monotonous and easy to see through. It's a pattern where they are quick-witted, have a good memory, and a lot of knowledge, but have few methods of information processing, making them monotonous. Conversely, even if the hardware specs are poor and can't even run something like Windows, only an OS like Linux, if the software is excellent, it can often cover for the low specs. Conclusion The conclusion of Mahayana Buddhism and modern philosophy is that it is enough for humans to have Madhyamaka, the Middle, the Middle Way, the relativism of post-structuralism. However, there is something that stands in the way. That is realism. Realism is an invisible structure that almost all humans have, almost innately or fatedly, and are controlled by without knowing it. Because there is an invisible structure, structuralism is needed to expose and deconstruct that structure. If one were so inclined, the only ideas that could completely eliminate and replace realism were the Middle (Dependent Origination) of Mahayana Buddhism in the East and structuralism in Western thought. This is why emptiness and structuralism are said to be tools and medicine.

仏教で一番大切なのは空ではなく中道、哲学で一番大切なのは構造主義でなくポスト構造主義

仏教で一番大切なのは空ではなく中道、哲学で一番大切なのは構造主義でなくポスト構造主義 ・誤解がある 　仏教で大切なのは一に「中（中道、中観）」、２に「空（縁起）」です。 　これは誤解されやすい部分です。 　般若心経解説のYouTube見ていたら「全ては空」みたいな解説をしていました。 　般若心境は仏教のエッセンスをまとめたものとか言われます。 　とすれば般若心経にも空のことを書いているはずでこれは書いていると言えますが般若心経も悪いです。 　中とか中観とか中道という言葉が書いていません。 　確認してみると経典中1字だけ「中」という言葉が使われていました。 　「好是空中」です。 　ただこの言葉の中は中道や中観論の中ではありません。 　「これ故に空の中には」と空の中身や性質を伝えるためのものです。 　「色不異空　空不異色　色即是空　空即是色」とか中観とか中道の考え方は含まれていますが読み直してみると非常に誤解を受けやすい書き方をしています。 　最初はいいのですが中盤かあら後半にかけては誤解の多いことやどうでもいいことが書かれています。 　ちょっとかんがみるに般若心経と作った人は仏教をよくわかっていなかったのではないでしょうか？ 　仏教は非常に誤解を受けやすい面があります。 　前に現代哲学や仏教をブランディングできないかなとブランディング会社の人に仏教のことを聞かれました。 何か心に問題があってカソリックだかプロテスタントのクリスチャンになったとかいう話でした。 その時に仏教は空を唱えているが本当かとか尋ねられて、まあそうだ、みたいに答えると怒られた記憶があります。 何かよく分かりませんでしたが空なら神はいないということになってしまうということになるということで何かそういったことが気に障ったのかもしれません。 まあ確かに彼の懸念はそうです。 クリスチャンとしては仏教なんか広がってしまったら困るでしょう。 彼は空は無と同じで神は存在しないという風に思ったのではないでしょうか。 それはまあそうです。 　空論を神に適用すれば神は存在する必要がなくなります。 　神ではありませんが釈迦が悟った時も悟った内容は空で空をそのように使いました。 　お釈迦様の使い方は般若心経にもあるように五蘊皆空で人間が五蘊にすぎずに五蘊の構成要素も空であれば輪廻転生もないという結論になります。 　お釈迦様の実存的悩みは人生には苦しみがあるということではなく世界と人間などの存在が輪廻転生するのであれば死んでも生まれ変わってまた苦しむ可能性があるということでした。 　有限の苦しみや死ねば解決する苦しみならお釈迦様にはまあ苦しいのは嫌でしょうけども問題はなかったはずです。 　問題なのはもっと一般的な問題で死んだ後も生まれかわって生まれ変わって苦しむ可能性があるということです。 　こういう意味では仏教は宗教であり既存のインドの仏教に対する新しい宗教の誕生でもあります。 　見方によっては新しい哲学の存在論や認識論の理論の創造とも言えるのでどっちの見方もできますしどっちを取り上げるかはその時々で変えればいいでしょう。 　ただ空は仏教の核心ではありません。 　お釈迦様も龍樹も天台智顗も大乗仏教系では仏教の最も大切な考え方は中道であり中観であり中です。 ・空は道具に過ぎない 　「空はただの道具に過ぎない」ということを空論を作った大乗仏教の創始者龍樹（ナーガールジュナ）は言っています。 　「空は薬である」ということも龍樹は言っています。 　「空にこだわる人は手に負えない」みたいなことも言っています。 　これを仏教では空執や空見と言います。 　空を知らない人が空を知ると絶対化したくなるようなインパクトと感動がある考え方です。 　ただ仏教には空以上の上位概念があります。 　それが中、中観、中道とよばれるものです。 　 ・そもそも空は何のために作ったのか？ 　空を作ったのはある程度たまたまではないでしょうか。 あるいは当時の思想状況や出家直後に修業したところの影響があるのかもしれません。 お釈迦様の目標は苦痛から永遠に離れることです。 多分ですが短期的に苦痛から逃れる方法を求めていたわけではないと思います。 そもそも死ねばおしまいみたいな思想を持っていた文化圏はあまりないのではないでしょうか。 若干日本の侍や世界の知識階級の一部には「死ねばおしまい」という考え方を一部に持っていた可能性があると思いますがかと言っても周囲の文化圏とのそれとは異なる思想に対する意識や時に対立や緊張の感覚があったのではないかと思います。 当時も今でもインドでは輪廻転生です。 ですからお釈迦様が解決をはかるなら２つ、①輪廻転生しながら永遠に苦痛がない、②輪廻転生というものがそもそもない、かつできれば輪廻転生がないならかわりにあるのは死んだら終わり、のどちらかを達成することです。 お釈迦様が悟ったのは①でははく②で納得する思想を確立したためです。 そのための方法が空（お釈迦様の時代では縁起）の発明でした。 ②のお釈迦様の戦略を達成するために問題になるのは西洋哲学でいう実在論です。 当時のインドでその考え方をどう言っていたのかは分かりません。 実在論は超重度知的障害（生まれたときから意識があるかどうかも分からないレベルで超重度心身障害とも言える、普通脳障害で動けないから）があるとかそういうのがなければ普通は勝手に身についてしまうものです。 私たちが人間性とか知性とか知能というものには意識しなくても勝手に普通に含まれてしまっているものです。 意識化しない、問題化しないとだれも意識も問題にもしないのでそれがあることに気が付かないかもしれないものです。 そこら辺を一番はっきりさせたのが西洋哲学ではプラトンかもしれません。 ・お釈迦様の悟り 　お釈迦様の悟りは空（縁起）の発見、発明です。 　これは現代哲学においては脱構築とか形而上学批判とかポストモダニズムとかと構造主義と重なるものです。 　空なり構造主義なりを理解すればそれはうれしいものです。 　人間は何かを理解したり、何かを発見、発明すればうれしいものです。 　そして時にそれに執着します。 　しかし時間が経って冷静になって客観的にみることができるようになれば別のことに気付くことになります。 　それが中観でありポスト構造主義です。 　「空や構造主義を絶対化して実在論を排斥、排除する」それは机上の空論のようなものです。 　我々は実在論を持って生きています。 　悟ってからもそうです。 　空や構造主義を知っていても多分実在論を完全に捨てる生き方、考え方はできません。 　できるかもしれませんが無駄が多いです。 　発達主義心理学では知的発達はまず赤ん坊の感覚運動期、そのあとに直感的試行段階という時期があってその時期に物事を実在、実体として認識するような知的能力を発達させると思われます。 　そしてそういうものを土台にいろいろな知的能力、例えば抽象的思考のようなものを発達させていきます。 　基礎となる知的能力を排除して別の知的能力を作り直すのが単純に考えてもロスが大きいです。 　必要に応じて徹底的な構造主義や空の考え方を使う程度で、普段は物心つかない頃から身に着けている実在論的知的能力で生きていった方が感覚、感情的にも楽ですし、経済的というか認知的にも効率がいいです。 　そもそも実在論的知的能力を全否定して構造主義的知能システムなるものを作れればいいのですがそれに失敗するととんでもないことになります。 　実在論的知的能力もなく構造主義的知的能力もない状態になります。 　これを精神病の発症と呼ぶ人もいます。 　たとえて言えば外国に歩き方を学びに行って外国で新しい歩き方を身に着けられず、かといってもともと持っていた自分の歩き方も忘れてしまって這って帰国した人、のたとえのようになってしまいます。 ・空は人間も輪廻転生も否定できるがそれが実在論の否定ということにはならない 　そもそも空や構造主義的な思考を徹底するとそれが自然に実在論の排除になるのでしょうか？ 　そこがよく考えなければいけないところです。 　数学でいえば背反と独立という言葉で表されるもので、その概念を理解していないと背反と独立をごちゃごちゃにしてしまっている場合があります。 　別にお釈迦様が人間、というか輪廻転生をする主体としての魂のようなものや輪廻転生を否定する革新的な理論を考え付いたからと言ってそれで魂がないとか輪廻転生がないとかを実証するものではありません。 　近代科学の言葉で言い換えましょう。 お釈迦様が考え付いたのは理論であって別に何も実証していません。 かといって実在論もまた理論です。 実在論という理論があるからと言って構造主義という理論を否定するものでもありません。 別に両者はただの理論です。 かつ別に両者は背反しない理論です。 別の言葉でいえば独立した理論です。 だから両者は両立しえます。 そもそも実在論にせよ構造主義にせよ理論なので実証とは別の問題です。 両者ともに別に実証もされていません。 そういう意味ではどちらかを絶対化することもできないし両方とも絶対化することもできません。 　もしかしたら実在論とも構造主義とも違う全然別の理論があってそれが実証されてしまうかもしれません。 　とすると実在論が世界の真理だとか構造主義が世界の真理だとか言っていること自体がバカみたいな話になります。 　背反、とか独立とかは中道や中観、ポスト構造主義の相対主義の説明に少なくとも私はよく使いますがいろいろな思想や考え方や理論やイデオロギーの整理に必要な中心的な概念かもしれません。 ・そもそも我々は何も分からないが豊かになれる 　結局我々は何が正しいとかこの考え方が正しく他方が間違っているとかいうのはルールがある場合はそれに準拠して判定できますがそもそもできません。 　そもそもルールがあるとしてもそのルール自体が我々が恣意的に設定しているものであってそれが真理であるからとかそういう理由ではありません。 　我々は結局何も分からないともいうことができます。 　他方で我々は分かることができるということもできます。 　心から何かを信じていればそれはその人にとっては分かっていることだし真実かもしれません。 　でも他の人にとっては「お前がそう思うならそれは正しいんだろう。ただしお前のなかだけではな」ということになります。 　ただ大切なのは我々はいろんな理論なり考え方なり思想なりイデオロギーをたくさん持っていてもいいのです。 　聖書みたいに他の思想の排除条項があるものがあるとややこしくなりますがそれはそれで聖書の安定性であるとともに脆弱性でもあるのかもしれません。 　聖書みたいに他の思想排除条項がなければ日本人みたいな大乗仏教とはあらゆる思考を受け入れることができます。 　これは豊かさです。 　我々はソクラテスの言うように本当のことは何一つ分からないのかもしれません。 　ヴィットゲンシュタインのいうように「知らないことは沈黙すべき」なのかもしれません。 　しかし本来それが正しいのかもしれません。 　何かをわかっている、何かが正しい、と主張する人は傲慢ですし謙虚さがないと見ることもできます。 　そもそも我々は高々考える葦であり何か心理を知っていたり心理を体現している存在ではないくらいに考えるのが常識的で良識的な見方ではないでしょうか。 　人類の歴史では時々イデオロギーの絶対化が流行って自分や自分たちの考え方が絶対に正しくて他の人も同じ考え方を絶対化するべきだし、社会もそう作り直すべきだ、みたいな考え方が吹き上げる場合があります。 　ただそういうのは後から見れば中二病的で思春期の黒歴史みたいなものです。 　今現在の文明も科学も技術も進んだ世の中でも時々そういう人たちを見かけます。 　しかししばらくすると黙ってしまい、そういう自分の過去をなかったことにするように見えます。 　このスパンは年々早くなっているようです。 　人間は空気と水がないと生きられませんが昔、特に20世紀ごろは空気の醸成が楽な時代で水を差すのが大変な時代でした。 　今は空気の醸成も難しいし水を差すのがいかに楽になっているかはユーチューバーになったりバズらそうとしたり、炎上を恐れたり炎上してひどい目に遭ったことがある人には痛いほどわかるでしょう。 ・中観が大切 　実在論に執着するのも構造主義に執着するのもどちらも中学2年生的というか思春期の若者みたいな感じです。 　青いですし未熟で成熟していません。 　ある程度大人になったら恥ずかしい消してしまいたい自分が消えてしまいたい思い出になります。 　中観、中道、中、ポスト構造主義の相対主義はこういう大人の発想です。 　最初からこういう考え方を持てていれば空も構造主義も必要ありません。 　しかし人間は弱点があります。 　いい歳しても何かが正しいと神でもないのに主張してしまうことがあります。 　傲慢と独善の罪に人ははまりやすいのです。 　特にはまりやすいのは実在論に関係あるいろいろなことです。 　これは先ほども書いたように仕方ないことでもあります。 　生得的なものではないのかもしれませんが、実際にはプログラムされているかの如くほぼ生得的です。 　発達心理学で直感的認知や認識の段階に至れなければ知能障害、英語ではメンタルリタデーションで精神遅滞や遅れた子とみなされます。 　たぶん人類普遍的と言っていいものだと思いますが人類が文化や時代にかかわらず持っている人間の共通項で最小公約数といえるかもしれません。 　そういう人間の性質を自覚した上でいろいろな考え方や思想や理論を理解していく、これを教養主義といいってもいいですし知性そのものとも言えます。 　往々にして高学歴でスペックが高くても物の見方が単調で見透かしやすい人は多いです。 　頭の回転が速くて物覚えも知識も多いが情報処理方法が少ないので単調というパターンです。 　逆にハードウェアのスペックが貧弱でシンドウズなどとてものせられず、リナックス程度のＯＳしか入れられないハードウェアでもソフトウェアが素晴らしければスペックの低さをカバーできることも多いです。 ・まとめ 　人間は中観、中、中道、ポスト構造主義の相対主義を持てればそれでいいというのが大乗仏教や現代哲学の結論です。 　ただそれを邪魔するものがあります。 　実在論です。 　実在論はほとんど生得的というか運命的にあらゆる人間が持ってそれに知らない間に支配されてしまう目に見えない構造です。 　目に見えない構造があるから構造を暴き出して脱構築する構造主義が必要です。 　その気があれば実在論を完全に排除して完全に実在論にとって代わりうる思想は東洋では大乗仏教の中（縁起）や西洋思想では構造主義しかありませんでした。 　これが空や構造主義が道具であり薬と言われる理由です。　

Moving Away from Einstein to Understand Both Special and General Relativity A Simple Way to Understand Relativity, an Easy Entry Point to Make It "Click"

Moving Away from Einstein to Understand Both Special and General Relativity A Simple Way to Understand Relativity, an Easy Entry Point to Make It "Click" Is Relativity Hard to Understand? Many people have probably tried to study relativity only to find it difficult and give up. Things can be viewed in many ways, and what seems incomprehensible can sometimes be easily understood by simply changing your entry strategy. When trying to learn special relativity, many books start with something like an explanation of Einstein's original paper. Einstein was a genius, but trying to understand relativity through an explanation from over 100 years ago can be as fruitless as trying to understand algebra and geometry by reading translated originals of Euclid's Elements, Diophantus's Arithmetica, or Archimedes's works. Therefore, to understand relativity without it being a fruitless endeavor, we should adopt a method of understanding and study that is based on the accumulation of over 100 years of science and mathematics. With that in mind, I have tried to explain the theory of relativity in a way that is easy to understand. First, Special Relativity Many people, from the general public to those who have studied physics or engineering in college, have likely studied special relativity. There are many ways to study and understand it, but here I would like to present an entry point to special relativity from one particular approach. Minkowski's Perspective It was Hermann Minkowski who, after the publication of Einstein's special theory of relativity, mathematically formulated it and gave it a new interpretation. Whether by chance or not, Minkowski was Einstein's mathematics professor during his university days. He was also a close friend of Hilbert, the father of modern mathematics. Minkowski had a perspective on special relativity that goes like this: "If you think of time and space in the same way and view them from the perspective of a four-dimensional spacetime, all things are moving at the speed of light, c." This is called four-velocity. For example, if we move through space at a speed close to that of light, our subjective experience of time doesn't change. However, from the perspective of an observer watching us, the time flowing for us appears to be slow and delayed. In relativity, it's necessary to look at time from the dual aspects of time discrepancy and changes in the speed of time, but we'll set that aside for now. This is because getting too complicated might consume memory and put an unnecessary load on the brain, making it harder to understand. You could say that time is flowing slowly, or that the speed of time is slow. Since the speed of light is constant, it is always c in space for any observer. This means that light allocates all its possible motion in spacetime to moving through space. In other words, the speed it allocates to time becomes zero. If we were to personify light, it's unclear how it would subjectively experience time, but from the perspective of an observer, light has no time. Time does not flow for light. It could be described as living in an eternal now. It's a cool, or perhaps edgy and dramatic, expression like Neo-Platonism's "eternity is an instant, and an instant is eternity," but that's what it amounts to. Conversely, when we are at rest in space, our velocity in space is zero, so our entire velocity is allocated to time. Unfortunately for us humans (or is it?), unlike light, we have mass, so we cannot allocate our entire speed c to our velocity in space. Time flows for us no matter what. If you travel through the universe at high speed and return, you will experience the Urashima effect (like the twin paradox), but you won't be the exact same age as when you left. Upon returning to Earth, the traveler will have aged a little since their departure. Our subjective experience of time doesn't change, but for an observer, our time is observed as flowing faster. We are in a state of allocating our fixed value c entirely to the flow of time. Conversely, since light cannot allocate any velocity to time, from an observer's perspective, time does not flow for light. This feels like a kind of conservation law, so perhaps some people might intuitively feel that "special relativity is a satisfying theory." Not only is it interesting, but from this perspective, many phenomena that appear as consequences of special relativity can be easily explained. An Easy Way to Approach General Relativity General relativity is a generalization of special relativity. How was it generalized? Special relativity theorized the laws of physics between systems in uniform linear motion relative to each other. It was created because classical mechanics could not explain the constancy of the speed of light. In contrast, general relativity deals with the observation problems between two systems that are in a state of acceleration relative to each other. From the perspective of overall accelerated motion, uniform linear motion and being at rest are just special cases of acceleration. Therefore, general relativity is a more general theory that includes special relativity. Commonly used phrases are "mass warps space" and "the inertial force felt in accelerated motion and gravity are the same thing." People who are good at topology might be able to form a good understanding or image, but others might feel it's not quite clear, or that it's not a good starting point for understanding why this is the case. Understanding Special and General Relativity Together The difficult part of relativity is understanding the fourth dimension. Understanding anything beyond four dimensions requires some ingenuity. General relativity is also tricky because spacetime itself is warped. There are several ways to approach it. Think of space not as three-dimensional, but as two-dimensional (or in some cases, one-dimensional). Use the analogy of a river's flow. Imagine pasting rulers or numbers of different scales onto spacetime or space. Represent the warping using something like shades of color. Think of spacetime as a fluid, and that matter isn't moving on its own, but is just riding the flow of spacetime. There are many others, but I will explain these briefly. This is a commonly used method. If you reduce space to two dimensions, the area near a mass becomes like a hole, with the mass at the bottom. The flow of a river can be seen as an analogy for the flow of time. A river might be imagined as a huge, calm body of water with a flat, horizontal surface and uniform speed, but if the riverbed is complex, the speed of the flow and the height of the water surface might differ locally. We can build an image of relativity from such a river. This is a good idea and might be good for visualization, but it seems tedious to do it yourself. It might be a good idea to use a computer or AI. Visualizing the warping with shades of color might also be a valid image. This is the main focus here. The image is of spacetime as a fluid, with the fluid of spacetime flowing into places where there is mass. Since there are relativistic effects, it's different from fluid dynamics, but in special cases, the analogy of fluid dynamics can be used locally. A mass is like a suction hole, and the larger the mass, the more water it sucks in and the faster the flow. A faster flow results in relativistic effects, so the progression of time becomes slower. If you want to represent this, you can use shades of color to show where the flow is fast. An object, setting aside the fact that it has mass itself, is something that is carried along in the flow. Riding the flow is the shortest path. If something prevents it from riding the flow, the object feels a force. That is inertial force, and it is equal to gravity. We who live on Earth think it's normal to be on the ground, not moving, or moving slowly on the surface and feeling gravity. But perhaps that's a special case, and the natural state is to flow smoothly within the fluid of spacetime. This is a possible line of thought. The Importance of the Entry Point It is often said that an exit strategy is important, but in science, an entry strategy is crucial. In technology, industry, or management, an exit strategy—that is, the result—may be important, but in science, an exit is not necessary. Rather, the entry point, the process, and the method are what matter. In basic sciences like science and mathematics, it's not even clear if there is an exit or a result at all. It's a world where one can say with sincerity that the process and effort are more important than the result. Well, there are also messy academic societies and academic politics. When studying something or making an invention or discovery, the point of view is important. Aren't there many people who find an Einstein-like explanation difficult to understand? Einstein was a genius, but I think he also had youth on his side. At the same time, many researchers were studying theories to solve the problem of the constancy of the speed of light, including mathematicians like Poincaré and Hilbert. Poincaré was undoubtedly a genius, but it is symbolic that Einstein derived special relativity using only classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and simple analogies. A genius solving a difficult problem with a simple method relying on their raw ability is similar to a genius middle school student solving one of the greatest mathematical problems using only the math taught up to middle school. In the world of mathematics, it is said that after the age of 40, you are no longer useful for research. The power of youth's abilities and brain is amazing. Even a smart older person, if they suddenly challenged a young person on the street to a 7-digit number reverse recitation contest, the young person would often win, wouldn't they? It is said that Einstein initially did not or could not understand Minkowski's mathematization of special relativity. It is also said that he incorporated Minkowski's mathematical approach when he needed mathematics to create general relativity. This contradicts the idea that younger is better, but since Einstein created general relativity more than a decade after special relativity, I suppose he was still a genius even as he got older. Or perhaps, as Newton and Gauss both said that the condition for great inventions and discoveries is to keep thinking, Einstein might have been a persistent person who could stick with a problem and keep thinking. However, it's not just in Einstein's case that an explanation summarized by later mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and others is easier to understand than an Einstein-like one. Eric Temple Bell, who was the president of the American Mathematical Society around 1900 and wrote the book Men of Mathematics, repeatedly wrote that ancient Greek mathematics reached great heights, but that it is meaningless because one can simply learn modern mathematics. The way we understand things through modern mathematics education is also easier to grasp than their understanding at the time. When studying a somewhat non-intuitive academic field, such as quantum theory or relativity in physics, I have tried to show that by just changing the angle or entry strategy a little, understanding can suddenly become much easier.

特殊相対性理論も一般相対性理論もアインシュタインから離れてみる 相対論のかんたんな理解の仕方 、相対性理論を「ピンとくる」易しい入口

特殊相対性理論も一般相対性理論もアインシュタインから離れた方が簡単 相対論のかんたんな理解の仕方 ・相対性理論はわかりにくいか 　相対性理論を勉強して分かりにくいと経験して失敗した人は多いのではないでしょうか。 　物事はいろいろな見方をすることができて分かりにくく思えることも入り口戦略を変えれば簡単に理解することができる場合があります。 　特殊相対性理論を勉強しようとするとアイシュタインの論文の解説みたいなものから理解する本があります。 　アインシュタインは頭がいいですし100年以上前の説明の仕方で相対性理論を理解しようとするのはユークリッドの原論、代数学のディオファントスやアルキメデスの代数や幾何学の原典の翻訳から理解しようとするくらい不毛になる可能性があります。 　ですから相対論を理解するのも不毛でもなく科学・数学の100年以上の蓄積を踏まえた理解や勉強の仕方をするべきです。 　そこで相対性理論を分かりやすく解説してみました。 ・まず特殊相対性理論から 　特殊相対性理論を一般の人でも物理学関係の理工系の大学の学部に進んだ人でも勉強した人はいると思います。 　いろんな勉強の仕方やいろんな分かり方があると思いますがここでは一つのアプローチから特殊相対性理論の入り口を提示しようと思います。 ・ミンコフスキーの見方 　アインシュタインの特殊相対性理論の発表後に特殊相対性理論を数学的にまとめて新しい解釈を与えたのがミンコフスキーです。 　ミンコフスキーはたまたまかわかりませんがアインシュタインの大学時代の数学の先生です。 　また現代数学の父ヒルベルトの親友でもありました。 　ミンコフスキーの特殊相対性理論の見方でこういうものがあります。 　「時間と空間を同じように考えて４次元の時空という観点で見ると全ての物は速度ｃで動いている」というものです。 　これを四元速度と言います。 　例えば我々が空間内で光に近い速さで運動すると我々の主観的時間間隔は変わりませんが、我々を観測する人から客観的にみると我々に流れている時間はゆっくりで遅れているように見えます。 　時間が遅く流れている、時間の速度が遅いと言ってもいいかもしれません。 　光は光速度一定なのでどんな観測者から見ても空間内で光速度は一定でｃです。 　となると光は空間の移動に時空内で可能な運動を全振りしていることになります。 　つまり時間にふる速度は０になります。 　もし光を擬人化すれば光にとって主観的な時間はどう感じるのかよく分かりませんが、光を観測する人の目から見ると光は時間をもちません。 　ひかりには時間が流れないのです。 　永遠の今を生きているみたいな表現になります。 　「永遠は一瞬で一瞬は永遠」みたいなネオプラトニズムみたいでかっこいいというか中二病くさい表現かもしれませんがそういうことになります。 　逆に我々が空間内で静止している時には空間ないの速度が０ですので速度は時間に全振りになります。 　我々人間は残念ながら（？）光と違って質量があるので空間の速度に速度ｃの全振りはできません。 　時間はどうやっても流れてしまいます。 　宇宙を高速で旅して戻ってきた場合浦島太郎効果はあっても全く元の年齢のままというわけにはいきません。 　地球に戻ってきた段階で旅行者はちょっとは出発前より歳をとっています。 　我々にとっての主観的な時間は変わりませんが観測者にとっては我々の時間は早く流れているように観測されます。 　時間が流れることに自分の持っている固定値cを全振りしている状態になります。 　逆に光は時間に速度を割り振ることはできないので観測者にとっては光の時間は流れません。 　これはある種の保存法則のような感じですので何となく「特殊相対性理論って気持ちいい理論だな」と思う人はいるのではないでしょうか？ 　面白いだけではなくこの観点からは簡単に特殊相対性理論の結果として現れるいくつもの現象が説明できます。 ・分かりやすい一般相対性理論のアプローチの仕方 　一般相対性理論は特殊相対性理論を一般化したものです。 　どういう風に一般化したのかというと特殊相対性理論は相互に等速直線運動をしている系の間の物理法則を理論化したものです。 　古典力学では光速度普遍を説明できなかったのでできるような理論を作ったのです。 それに対して一般相対性理論ではお互いに加速度関係にある２つの系の観測問題を扱います。 加速度運動全体から見れば等速直線運動も静止も加速度運動の特殊な場合でしかありませんので一般相対性理論は特殊相対性理論を含むより一般的な理論になります。 よく使われるのは「質量で空間がゆがむ」「加速度運動で感じる慣性力と重力は同じもの」みたいなものです。 トポロジーが得意な人なら上手な理解やイメージをできるのかもしれませんがちょっとすっきりしないという人もいるかもしれませんし、なぜそうなのかを理解する糸口にはなりにくいと感じるかもしれません。 ・特殊相対論と一般相対論をまとめて理解する 　相対論が困るのは４次元の理解だと思います。 　四次元以上だと理解に工夫が必要になります。 　一般相対論は時空も歪むのでまた別のとっつきにくさもあります。 　とっつくにはいくつか方法があります。 ① 空間は三次元空間ではなく二次元空間（場合によっては一次元空間）で考える。 ② 川の流れのアナロジーで考える。 ③ 時空というか空間に尺度の違う物差しや数値をペタペタ張っていく。 ④ 例えばゆがみを色の濃淡のような色を使って表現する。 ⑤ 時空を流体に見立てて動いているのは物質ではなく時空の流れに乗っているだけと考える。 などがあります。 　他にもいっぱいありますが簡単に解説します。 ①はよく使われる方法だと思います。 　二次元空間にしてしまえば質量のある付近は穴のようになって穴の底に質量があるようなイメージになります。 　②川の流れは時間を流れと見立てます。 　川も静かな平面が水平で速度も均質に流れるような巨大河川のイメージもあるかもしれませんが、川底の形が複雑だったりすると局所で流れの速さが違ったり水面の高さが違ったりする場合があるでしょう。 　そういった科話から相対論のイメージを構築していきます。 　③はよいアイデアでイメージ的にもいいのかもしれませんが自分でやるとなるとめんどうくさそうです。 　コンピュータかAIを利用するといいかもしれません。 　④のゆがみを色の濃淡でイメージするのも一つのイメージとしてありかもしれません。 　⑤は今回の本命で時空を液体と見立てて質量があるところに時空の流体が流れ込んでいくイメージになります。 　相対論効果があったりなどがあるので流体力学とは違いますが徳部うつな場合は局所では流体力学のアナロジーが使えます。 　質量は吸引する穴みたいなもので質量が大きいほど吸引する水の量が多く流速も早くなります。 　流速が早いと相対論効果が出ますので時間の進行はゆっくりになります。 　これを表現したければ流速が早いところを色の濃淡などで表すという手があります。 　物体は、それ自体が質量があるとかいう点は置いておいて流れの中を流されていく存在です。 　流れに乗るのが最短経路です。 　流れに乗るのを邪魔されると物質は力を感じます。 　それは慣性力でありイコール重力です。 　我々地球に住んでいる生き物は地面があってその上で動かず、あるは地表をのろのろ移動し重力を感じている状態を普通と思っていますが、もしかしたらそういうのは特殊で時空という流体の流れの中を素直に流れていく状態の方が自然なのかもしれない、という発想もあり得ます。 ・入口の大切さ 　よく出口戦略が大切だと言われますが科学においては入り口戦略が大切です。 　技術や産業や経営では出口戦略、すなわち成果が大切かもしれませんか科学においては出口がある必要はありません。 　むしろ入り口と過程や方法が大切です。 　科学や数学などの基礎学問においては出口も結果も必ずしもそもそもあるかすら分かりません。 　結果よりも過程や努力が大切だときれいごとが言える世界です。 　まあどろどろした学会や学会政治もあるのですけども。 　何かを勉強したり発明、発見するときは着眼点が大切です。 　アインシュタインのような説明では分かりにくい人は多いのではないでしょうか？ 　アインシュタインは天才ですが同時に若さもあったと思います。 　同時期に光速度普遍の問題を解決する理論を研究する研究者は多数いて中にはポアンカレやヒルベルトという代数学者もいたと思いますが、ポアンカレは間違いなく天才ですがそれでもアインシュタインが、単に古典力学と電磁気学と単純な比喩を使って特殊相対性理論を導いたのは象徴的です。 　天才がスペック任せで単純な方法で難問を解くのは天才中学生が中学までで教わる数学で数学の最大の難問を解いたのに似ています。 　数学の世界では40歳過ぎたら研究にはもう役に立たないと言われます。 　若さのスペックや脳の力はすごいものです。 　年配の頭のいい人でもそこらを歩いている若者を捕まえて7桁の数字の逆唱勝負を突然行わせたら若い人が勝つことも多いのではないでしょうか。 　アインシュタインはミンコフスキーの特殊相対性理論の数学化には当初は理解を示さなかったか示せなかったと言われています。 　一般相対性理論を作る際に数学が必要になってミンコフスキーの数学アプローチを取り入れたとも言われています。 　上の若いほどいいとは矛盾しますがアインシュタインが一般相対性理論を作ったのは特殊相対性理論の十数年後だったと思いますのでやっぱりアインシュタインは歳をとっても天才だったのでしょう。 　あるいはニュートンもガウスも素晴らしい発明、発見の条件は考え続けることと言っていましたのでアインシュタインはねちっこいというかこだわって考え続けられる人だったのかもしれません。 　ただアインシュタイン的な理解の仕方よりはのちの数学者や理論物理学者やその他の人が分かりやすくまとめてくれた方が分かりやすいのはアインシュタインの例に限りません。 　古代ギリシア数学はすごい高みに達していましたがそんなものは意味がなく現在の数学を学べば済むので意味がない、ということを1900年頃のアメリカの数学会の会長で『数学を作った人々』という本を書いたベルが繰り返し書いています。 当時の彼らの理解の仕方より現代の数学教育で学習する理解の方も理解しやすくなっています。 　ちょっと非直感的な学問を勉強する際には、物理学なら量子論や相対性理論のようなものを学ぶ際にはちょっと切り口というか入り口戦略を変えるだけで理解が途端に容易になる場合があると思われるので例示してみました。 　

Controllable Precision Over Uncontrollable Accuracy: A Paradigm Shift in Science and Engineering

Controllable Precision Over Uncontrollable Accuracy: A Paradigm Shift in Science and Engineering Part 1: The Paradigm Shift in Worldview – Moving Beyond a Single Truth The scientific worldview of the 19th century was largely deterministic, famously symbolized by the concept of "Laplace's demon." In this universe, if one knew the precise location and momentum of every atom, one could predict the future with absolute certainty. Error was merely a nuisance, an inconvenient byproduct of imperfect measurement, and approximation was a necessary evil. The "true value" was out there, waiting to be found. However, the history of science and technology reveals a significant delay in the adoption of modern statistics. The inferential and testing theories that are now indispensable for scientific publication were only developed in the 20th century, becoming commonplace in many fields well into the latter half. This delay was not due to a lack of mathematical prowess but required a profound paradigm shift. The revolution brought by statistics was to reframe the role of error. In the probabilistic worldview, variation is not noise to be eliminated; it is the very object of study. Consider a normal distribution curve. The probability of hitting a single, specific value—such as the exact mean—is zero. What we can determine is the probability of a value falling within a certain range. Variation, or "variance," is inherent and essential. This acceptance of intrinsic uncertainty marked a fundamental break from the deterministic view of classical science. This shift naturally led to a re-evaluation of concepts like "truth" and "reality." In a world governed by probability distributions rather than singular true values, the notion of an objective, perfectly attainable "truth" becomes elusive. We live in a world of interpretations, where information is never pure. While we may set an ideal "truth" or a perfect design as our goal—be it in moral philosophy or industrial engineering—we must acknowledge that what we can achieve is always an approximation. The modern paradigm is not about the futile pursuit of an impossible ideal, but about intelligently managing the gap between the ideal and the real. Part 2: Practical Wisdom – Taming Uncertainty in Engineering This philosophical shift has profound practical implications, particularly in manufacturing and engineering. Imagine the relationship between a blueprint (the ideal) and a finished product (the real). For complex machines like cars, airplanes, or semiconductors, which consist of countless components, adherence to the design is critical. Yet, creating a component with zero error is physically impossible. This is not a matter of effort but a principle of reality. When thousands of components are assembled, individual, minuscule errors can accumulate, leading to catastrophic system failure. Since errors cannot be eliminated, they must be controlled. This is where the crucial distinction between accuracy and precision comes into play. Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the true value. The pursuit of accuracy is a relentless quest to minimize error. However, this pursuit often accepts that, while most attempts are close to the target, occasional wild deviations can occur. Precision refers to how close multiple measurements are to each other, regardless of their proximity to the true value. The pursuit of precision focuses on minimizing variance. It prioritizes consistency and the elimination of outliers, even if it means accepting a consistent, small deviation from the true value. For simple, low-cost products, a focus on accuracy may suffice; a defective item can be easily replaced. But for complex, high-stakes systems like a spacecraft, a single component failing due to a large, unexpected error can doom the entire mission. In such cases, the success of the system depends less on achieving perfection and more on avoiding catastrophic failure. The guiding principle becomes "controllable precision over uncontrollable accuracy." By establishing a guaranteed maximum error margin for every component (a "precise" approach), engineers can design a system that reliably functions, accounting for the worst-case scenario. The overall performance might be slightly lower than a hypothetical system built from perfectly "accurate" parts, but the risk of unexpected failure is virtually eliminated. This philosophy of building in redundancy and managing knowable limits is the bedrock of modern systems engineering. This is closely related to the concepts of validity and reliability in measurement. Validity asks: "Are we measuring the right thing?" A valid measurement tool is aimed at the correct target. Reliability asks: "Do we get the same result every time?" A reliable tool produces consistent results. You can have a reliable process (like a rifle that always shoots one foot to the left of the target) that is not valid. In engineering, ensuring both is key, but the foundation is reliability—the precision that ensures predictable performance. Part 3: The Mathematical Foundation – Justifying Approximation While statistics deals with the inherent variance in real-world data, the field of mathematical analysis provides the theoretical tools to legitimize approximation and bring our ideals into contact with reality. Consider the challenge of calculating the circumference of a circle. Geometers since Archimedes have used approximation, such as inscribing polygons with an increasing number of sides. Analysis extends this idea by introducing the concept of the limit and infinity. It provides a formal framework to show that as we refine our approximation (e.g., by adding more sides to the polygon), the error can be made arbitrarily small. This is the essence of the epsilon-delta argument, the rigorous foundation of calculus. It shifts the definition of "correctness." Instead of demanding a single, final value for π (an impossible task, as it is a transcendental number), analysis provides a method. It guarantees that for any requested margin of error (epsilon), we can find a calculation (delta) that meets that requirement. This is a game-changing paradigm shift. The goal is no longer to "find" the true value, but to establish a procedure that can approximate it to any desired degree of precision. The Taylor expansion is a powerful tool in this domain. It allows us to approximate virtually any complex function with a polynomial (a series of simple additions and multiplications). Crucially, the Taylor series comes with a "remainder" term, which represents the error of the approximation. By deciding how many terms of the series to use, we can effectively control the maximum size of this error. This ability to pre-determine and bound the error is precisely what the engineer seeking "controllable precision" needs. Mathematical analysis thus provides the theoretical backbone for the practical wisdom of engineering. Part 4: Contemporary and Future Perspectives The history of technology can be seen as the history of taming error and mastering the analog world. The development of massive, complex systems required a departure from the "lone genius" or "master craftsman" model. A single artisan can create a masterpiece through intuition and trial-and-error. But building a passenger jet or a space station requires a different philosophy—one based on specialization, modularity, and the rigorous management of tolerances. It is a triumph of collective, systematic intelligence over individual brilliance. This brings us to the relationship between analog and digital. For a long time, the challenge was to represent the continuous, analog world using discrete, digital tools. We asked how many pixels were needed to capture reality. But we may be reaching an inflection point. In an age dominated by computation, our world is increasingly generated by the digital. Instead of digital islands in an analog ocean, we may soon find ourselves as analog islands in a digital one. The analog and the digital may never be perfectly reconciled; a conversion in either direction always involves a loss of information. However, the fundamental principles explored here—of managing uncertainty, of preferring controllable precision over unattainable accuracy, and of using rigorous methods to bridge the ideal and the real—remain more relevant than ever. Understanding these foundational concepts is not merely an academic exercise; it is essential for navigating our increasingly complex technological world.