Quantum Theory: A Second Way to Relativize Realism beyond Structuralism On the Possible Coexistence of Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory

Quantum Theory: A Second Way to Relativize Realism beyond Structuralism On the Possible Coexistence of Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory 1. Non-realist views are possible even without structuralism One of the basic frameworks of contemporary philosophy can be sketched, roughly, as a tension between Realism, and Structuralism. Realism is the default setting that has soaked into almost everyone’s mind: There are solid “things” and “essences” in the world, existing independently of our minds. Observation and language simply pick them up and label them. Structuralism responds to this by saying, in effect: No, what comes first is “structure,” “difference,” and “institution.” “Objects” and “subjects” arise on the side of what is structured. In that sense, structuralism has functioned as a way to relativize the absolute claims of realism. What I want to say first is this: Realism is extremely useful. It develops more or less naturally in ontogeny as a “cognitive OS” that works in daily life. Structuralism is an “OS upgrade” that lets us meta-recognize and partially rewrite that realist OS. However, structuralism is not the only position that both criticizes realism and offers a coherent alternative picture of the world. There is another very powerful candidate: quantum theory (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the quantum world-view more broadly). Whether or not we want to call quantum theory a “philosophy,” its world-picture is philosophically explosive enough that we might as well treat it as one. For many of us living now, who feel that realism alone is not enough, but living solely inside structuralism is a bit too cumbersome, verbose, and tiring, quantum theory can serve as a third stance that sits nicely alongside realism and structuralism. My personal stance could be summarized like this: At the level of basic epistemology and ontology, structuralism can include realism, whereas realism cannot fully include structuralism. In that sense, structuralism is more encompassing. At the same time, realism still works surprisingly well; it remains convenient in everyday life and in engineering. If we then introduce quantum theory as a third pole from the side of physics, we can put realism and structuralism under pressure from both the “humanities” and the “natural sciences.” This three-cornered configuration is, I think, the richest and most productive. 2. “Boundary” and “volume” as the core of realism At the core of realism lies something like Descartes’ notion of extension. In the material world, things have volume, boundaries, and occupy space. They do not simply pop into or out of existence, and we expect a certain degree of persistence. This image underwrites our naïve sense of “substance” or “reality.” Mind and ideas may look different from this, yet we often treat them metaphorically as if they were little physical objects: Thoughts feel like they are “in the head,” Feelings often feel like they are “sitting in the chest.” In many cases, we are borrowing the metaphors of extension and volume from the physical world to grasp mental phenomena. However, when we try to treat “extension” seriously in mathematics, we run into trouble quite early on. Already in Euclidean geometry, we are told: A point is that which has no size. If you’re satisfied with this, that’s fine; but if you think about it carefully, it is a very strange definition. How can “points” with no boundary and no volume serve as the basis of lines, planes, and solids? If we straightforwardly extend our realist intuition of “things,” the concept starts to slip. This kind of unease and limit is part of what led, through set theory and topological spaces, to structuralist modern mathematics (category theory and beyond). Even so, in practice we still treat “points” and “mass points” in a realist fashion, because that is simply more convenient. Even in quantum theory, if you push too hard on questions about the exact size and boundary of a particle, your head explodes; so we partially give up, and treat it as if it were “a tiny object here,” a sort of pragmatic fiction. In that sense, we cannot completely abandon the borrowed tools of realism even in quantum theory. 3. Classical physics is thoroughly realist In this sense, classical physics is almost purely a realist world. Mass points Rigid bodies Continua such as fluids and elastic media All of these can be learned with realist intuitions alone. “At such-and-such a place there is an object with such-and-such mass, and its position and velocity are always well defined.” Observation is simply the act of reading off properties that are already there, and time evolution is given by Newton’s equations and the like. This is, philosophically, a combination of naïve realism + determinism. The flip side is that if your world consists only of realism + classical physics, and you then try to tackle quantum theory, you will almost certainly run into a wall. Trying to understand quantum theory solely as an extension of high-school physics leaves you fatally under-equipped. If, by contrast, you have already internalized structuralism (as a relativization of meaning, language, and institution), and quantum theory (as a relativization from the side of physics), then looking back on classical physics becomes a luxury. Assumptions that once felt “obvious” suddenly show their seams. You begin to enjoy re-examining your former fixed ideas. But of course, acquiring those newer perspectives in the first place comes with a high learning cost. Both structuralism and quantum theory are “expensive” to learn. 4. Contemporary philosophy’s three basic positions: Realism, structuralism, and quantum theory With the arrival of structuralism and post-structuralism, contemporary philosophy relativized realism, meta-recognized that very process of relativization, and learned to play with multiple perspectives. Buddhism makes this structure quite explicit: Early Buddhism’s dependent origination and middle way, Mahāyāna’s doctrine of emptiness and the Madhyamaka, Tiantai’s threefold truth (the provisional, emptiness, and the middle). If we make a rough correspondence with our current topic, we might say: Provisional truth (仮諦) The everyday world of “taking things as they appear.” Naïve realism, socially constructed fictions. Emptiness (空諦) Denial of substance, and seeing at the level of relations and conditions. Structuralist and post-structuralist relativization. Middle truth (中諦) A meta-stance that passes through both while preserving each. A way of switching between multiple OSs as needed. Against this background, the question arises: Besides structuralism, are there other theories that can stand as counter-positions to realism? If we look only within contemporary philosophy, it is somewhat difficult to produce concrete examples. Here, quantum theory becomes a very attractive candidate. Quantum theory has the curious property that if we want, we can translate it into the language of structuralism; with some effort, we can also give it realist reinterpretations; yet at the same time, it is grounded in empirical science, and constantly updated through tension between experiment and theory. In that sense, quantum theory is a third pole, different in character from purely philosophical theories. Thus I think it is very promising to treat Realism, structuralism, and quantum theory as three positions that coexist in a kind of equilibrium. This three-point configuration can open contemporary philosophy to a broader public, connecting it naturally to physics and even to Buddhist thought. 5. Why quantum theory can serve as a “non-structuralist” critique of realism 5.1 Why quantum theory shakes classical realism The classical world-view assumes, in effect: “Even if nobody is looking, the moon is there, and its position and momentum are well defined.” Quantum theory, especially in its Copenhagen-style understanding and in light of Bell’s theorem, undermines this at a very basic level. Before measurement, properties such as position and spin are not simply well defined. Measurement is not “reading off a pre-existing value,” but something closer to an event of fixing a relational state. With quantum entanglement, we are forced to treat “here” and “there” as two parts of a single, indivisible whole. This world-picture does not sit well with classical realism’s narrative: “There is a hidden essence somewhere, and science’s task is to uncover it.” However, we must be careful. Within quantum theory there coexist both more instrumentalist / anti-realist interpretations (Copenhagen, information-theoretic views), and more realist interpretations (Many-Worlds, de Broglie–Bohm, GRW, and others). So if we say, “Quantum theory = anti-realism,” we are over-simplifying. It is more accurate to say: Quantum theory has pushed classical realism’s basic assumptions (locality, determinism, and properties independent of measurement) to the point where they cannot be maintained in their naïve form. 5.2 A “conspiracy” between structuralism and quantum theory If we compare realism, structuralism, and quantum theory, we get a rough contrast like this: Realism Basic unit: “individuals” and “subjects.” Properties are internal to the thing itself. Message: “Truth is hidden in there.” Structuralism Basic unit: “relations” and “structures.” Properties are determined by position and difference within a system. Message: “Truth is an effect of the system.” Quantum theory Basic unit: “states” and “interactions.” Properties are fixed within relationships of measurement. Message: “Reality is the overall pattern of measurement outcomes.” Both structuralism and quantum theory shift the center of gravity from substance to relation. In that sense, they stand in a kind of “conspiracy” against classical realism. 5.3 Structural realism and “quantum structuralism” In philosophy of science, there is a position called structural realism: It may be dubious whether “particles” like electrons and quarks truly exist as little beads, but the mathematical structure of their relations does exist. That structure is what science gets right. If we read quantum theory through this lens, it becomes: Quantum theory moves the locus of reality away from “objects themselves” and toward “the structure of state spaces, operators, and probabilistic correlations.” At this point, we are very close to a kind of physical structuralism, or “quantum structuralism.” It comes so close to philosophical structuralism that the border between the two begins to blur. 6. Rewriting spacetime from the viewpoint of quantum theory Realism, structuralism, and a new spacetime concept Let us briefly return to the realist premise: The clearest example of something “real” is a physical object. It occupies space, persists through changes and deformations, and we can track it. In that case, reality seems to presuppose spacetime. So what happens if we start to shake that spacetime concept itself? Quantum theory, especially in its quantum-information and quantum-gravity frontiers, is now pressing in exactly this direction. 6.1 Entanglement and the breakdown of “distance” Quantum entanglement shows us that no matter how far apart we separate two systems, there can be strong, stable correlations between measurement outcomes. Importantly, those correlations look “instantaneous,” but they cannot be used to send controllable information faster than light. So: causal structure (the prohibition of faster-than-light signals) is preserved, yet “physical distance” and “relational closeness” come apart. We therefore need two different notions of distance: geometric distance in spacetime, and relational distance in terms of correlation and entanglement. It may be that, in some sense, Even if things are far apart in space, they can be “very close” in terms of their relational structure. 6.2 Superposition and the wobble of time If we take experiments such as delayed-choice seriously, we are led to pictures like: Present measurements seem to determine what past “paths” must have been, Before measurement, it is unclear whether the system had a definite past at all. Time then begins to look less like a rigid, one-way river flowing from past to future, and more like: Until certain relational events occur, both “past” and “future” exist as overlapping bundles of possibilities. From the perspective of natural language, we might say: Instead of subjects being fixed in advance, waiting for predicates to fill in, Predicative events and relations are what bring subjects into being. That is, a more predicate-centered, “event-first” world-view fits the quantum picture surprisingly well. 6.3 ER=EPR and emergent spacetime In quantum gravity and holography, one influential conjecture goes under the slogan “ER = EPR.” Very roughly: EPR refers to quantum entanglement (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen). ER refers to Einstein–Rosen bridges, i.e. wormholes in spacetime. The idea is that entangled systems might be connected, at a deeper level, by something like microscopic wormholes. If this is right, we can think: What is fundamental is the network of quantum relations and entanglements. The 3+1 dimensional spacetime we experience is a kind of holographic shadow of that network. 6.4 A categorical world-picture In the language of category theory, we might put it this way. Old spacetime picture (set-theoretic) First there is a container called “space.” Points and objects are placed in it. Nearness and farness are given by metric distances. New spacetime picture (categorical) First there is a network of “relations” and “morphisms.” The thickness and patterning of that network appears as “distance” and “geometry.” Things are “close” because they are strongly and directly connected. In this view, Spacetime is not the OS, but more like the UI or application layer. The true OS lies in Hilbert spaces, operators, and the network of entanglement. This image resonates strongly with the idea that classical spacetime is a useful effective theory, beneath which there is a quantum relational structure. 7. Conclusion: The “three-corner equilibrium” of realism, structuralism, and quantum theory Let me now gather the pieces. Realism A world-view that takes individuals, objects, and subjects as basic. Extremely practical in everyday life and engineering. Classical physics fits comfortably here. Structuralism A world-view that foregrounds relations, differences, and structures. Relativizes meaning, language, institution, and power. Quantum theory A scientific world-view centered on states, interactions, and correlations. Undermines classical assumptions of locality, determinism, and measurement-independent properties. Can be linked to structural realism and “quantum structuralism.” These three are not a trinity doomed to doctrinal warfare, but rather the three vertices of a triangulation that lets us locate ourselves more precisely. For daily life and technology, we can lean on realist intuitions. For society, culture, ideology, and the unconscious, we can adopt structuralist lenses. For the physical and spatiotemporal foundations of the world, we can consult quantum theory as a third pole. On top of that, we can translate realism into structuralist language, reinterpret structuralism in realist metaphors, and express quantum theory in either vocabulary when needed. All of this is possible, but none of these translations is complete or cost-free. That is precisely why the coexistence of the three is fruitful. The coexistence of realism, structuralism, and quantum theory is not about deciding which is “right,” but about having three OSs available, each suited to different tasks and scales. Framed this way, we gain a single conceptual map where contemporary philosophy, modern physics, and Buddhist thought can be discussed together without forcing them all into one dogmatic mold.

[Essay] The Tripartite Coexistence of Worldviews: Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory — At the Intersection of Modern Philosophy and Modern Physics —

[Essay] The Tripartite Coexistence of Worldviews: Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory — At the Intersection of Modern Philosophy and Modern Physics — Introduction: Non-Realism Exists Without Structuralism The basic framework of modern philosophy is often discussed in terms of the opposition between "Realism" and "Structuralism," which serves to relativize it. "Realism" is naively ingrained in our minds. It is the sensation that the objects before us are certainly there, and that the world remains unchanged whether we observe it or not. To relativize this, 20th-century thought produced a powerful tool known as "Structuralism." This is the idea that meaning and value do not reside in the object itself but are determined by relationships (structure). However, is Structuralism the only ideology capable of critiquing and relativizing Realism? In fact, there exists an even more powerful "ideology" within the realm of natural science. That is "Quantum Theory." While there may be debate about calling Quantum Theory—a field of physics—an "ideology," it is an extremely important intellectual framework that defines our modern worldview. This essay discusses the possibility of a "tripartite coexistence," where we position Quantum Theory as a third pole alongside Realism and Structuralism, allowing us to interpret the world in a more three-dimensional and flexible manner. 1. The Essence of Realism: Cartesian "Extension" and Classical Physics First, let us organize what the "Realism" we are accustomed to actually is. The quintessence of Realism lies in the Cartesian concept of "Extension" (Res extensa). Boundaries and Volume: Matter has clear "boundaries," possesses "volume," and exclusively occupies space. It does not suddenly vanish or appear. Geometric Consistency: This worldview is highly compatible with Euclidean geometry and coordinate geometry. The refinement of this realistic worldview to its limit is "Classical Physics (Newtonian Mechanics)." Classical physics deals with point masses and rigid bodies, but fundamentally presupposes Naive Realism: "Even if no one is looking, the moon is there, possessing a specific position and velocity." This way of thinking is extremely practical (utilitarian) in our daily lives. It is evolutionarily advantageous to believe "the object is there" and act accordingly, without consuming excessive brain resources. If we were to constantly think, like a structuralist, that "this is merely a phenomenon given meaning by social structures," we would be too exhausted to function in daily life. Therefore, Realism should be affirmed as a "convenient intellectual tool (User Interface) acquired naturally during individual development." 2. The Limits of Realism and Two Counterparts However, when we begin to think deeply, Realism alone runs into "inconvenient truths." These include contradictions in the mathematical definition of a "point (something with no magnitude)" and the complexity of social phenomena. Here, two paths emerge to relativize Realism. ① Counter from the Humanities (Meaning): Structuralism This posits that "truth is not inherent in the thing itself, but is an effect produced by the system (language, society, unconsciousness)," thereby dismantling the absoluteness of the subject. While powerful, it is conceptually difficult to master and can be too "circuitous" to apply constantly in daily life. ② Counter from the Sciences (Matter): Quantum Theory This is the main subject of this essay. Quantum Theory shakes Realism to its core by questioning the very nature of physical "matter." Classical Mechanics (Realism): The world is a collection of independent "points (things)," and their properties are predetermined. Quantum Theory (Relationalism): Properties (position or state) are not determined until observation (interaction) occurs. There are no "things," only "probabilities" and "relationships." Quantum Theory shares the paradigm shift of "From Substance to Relation" with Structuralism. In a sense, Structuralism and Quantum Theory are in a complicit relationship, launching a pincer attack on the massive fortress of Realism from the "side of Meaning" and the "side of Matter," respectively. 3. The Collapse of Space-Time Concepts: A New Worldview Presented by Quantum Theory The most radical question Quantum Theory poses to Realism is the rewriting of "Space-Time" itself, which is the premise of existence. When we feel "reality," it is placed inside a "box called Space-Time." However, modern Quantum Theory (especially findings from quantum entanglement and quantum gravity) overturns this common sense. Loss of Distance (Non-locality): When two particles are in a state of quantum entanglement, the observation result of one correlates "instantly" with the other, even if they are billions of light-years apart. This suggests that the concept of "distance" we believe in does not exist at a fundamental level, or that they are connected by a "backdoor (wormhole, etc.)" distinct from the space we know (The ER=EPR conjecture). Fluctuation of Causality: In a state of "superposition," past and future, cause and effect, are mixed as a "fog of possibilities" until observed. Time is not an absolute entity flowing in a straight line but something that manifests as a result of interaction. In other words, the idea is reversed: "It is not that there is an absolute stage (box) called Space-Time where matter exists, but rather, a network of relationships (entanglement) exists first, and Space-Time emerges from it like a hologram." This aligns with the perspective of perceiving the world not as "Set-theoretic (collection of elements)" but as "Category-theoretic (arrows of relationships)." 4. Conclusion: The "Adult Wisdom" of Using Three Ideologies We have Structuralism and Post-Structuralism as the achievements of modern philosophy. Buddhist concepts of "Emptiness (Śūnyatā)" and "Madhyamaka (Middle Way)" also occupy a similar position. However, by adding Quantum Theory, which is backed by "empirical proof from natural science," the argument becomes much more robust. We should be able to use (or coexist with) the following three perspectives depending on the situation: Realism (Classical Mechanics): A high-efficiency "User Interface (UI)" for handling daily life and macroscopic phenomena. Structuralism (Social Sciences): An "Analytical Tool" for understanding social, cultural, and linguistic biases and engaging in metacognition. Quantum Theory (Modern Physics): A "Fundamental OS" for understanding the radical nature of matter and the universe (relationships, non-locality). We do not need to assert that "Quantum Theory = Non-Realism." There are various interpretations within Quantum Theory itself. However, in that "Quantum Theory presents the physical fact that the Realist worldview is not absolute," it can serve as a "modern liberal art" equal to, or perhaps more powerful than, Structuralism. We do not discard Realism, nor do we become overly cerebral with Structuralism, nor do we escape into mysticism via the strangeness of Quantum Theory. Juxtaposing these three as "theories with different effective layers" and moving freely between them—this is, perhaps, the balanced intellectual attitude required in the modern age.

量子論：構造主義ではない実在論を相対化するもう1つの立場、実在論、構造主義、量子論の鼎立も可能

量子論：構造主義ではない実在論を相対化するもう1つの立場、実在論、構造主義、量子論の鼎立も可能 ・構造主義を使わなくても非実在論はありうる 　実在論と構造主義の対象、これが現代哲学の基本的な枠組みです。 　実在論は素朴にみんなの頭の中に染みついてます。 　それを相対化する、という事は否定するでもなく肯定するでもなく全然別なものを打ち立ててそれでも世の中解釈できるもの、として構造主義は現代哲学では一つの機能を果たしてきました。 　もちろん現代哲学の中では構造主義はもっといろいろな機能を持ちえますしいろいろな見方考え方が可能です。 　ところで実在論を批判するだけでなく対案を示せる思想は構造主義しかないのかというと実はそうではありません。 　実は超強力な思想があります。 　物理学の量子論です。 　量子論を思想と呼んでもいいのか知りませんがまあ広い意味ではいいでしょう。 　あと量子論と言ってもいろいろあります。 　いまだ発展途上の学問でもありますし、量子論でも実在論的な解釈と非実在論的な解釈が可能です。 　でもそれを言うなら実在論もそれだけでは何か不十分ですし、構造主義もそれだけでは何か使いにくいと言えるかもしれません。 　実在論ですべて説明するのは不十分だと思いますし、構造論で全てを説明するのは持って回りすぎてめんどくさいというか冗長でで迂遠すぎてそれだけで生活するのには不便で脳のリソースを使いすぎますし、現代の世の中の形や人々の構造主義に対する認知度ではちょっと変わった人と見られてしまうかもしれません。 　またせっかく実在論が個体発達とともに自然に身につく実用的で実利的、功利的に使える知的ツールですのでそれを捨てるのももったいないです。 　個人的には基礎的な哲学の認識論や存在論では構造主義で実在論は説明できるけども実在論で構造主義は全部説明しきれないと思うので構造主義が実在論を含むという意味で優位だと思います。 　ただ実在論に詳しい実在論の達人の人には実在論で構造主義を組み立てられると主張する人もいるかもしれませんのでどっちが優位とか包括的というのは人によってそれぞれかもしれません。 ・実在論の肝としての境界と体積 　実在論の肝はデカルトの延長の概念でしょう。 　世界を物質的な世界と精神的な世界にとりあえず分けるとします。 　物質的な世界では延長、というと分かりにくいですが体積があって教会があって空間を占有していて突然消えたり現れたりしないものというのが物質世界の実体とか実在のイメージではないでしょうか。 　他方で精神というか観念の世界はそういうはっきりとした物質的な空間の占有的なものを扱うわけではないかもしれませんが、観念と言っても現実世界のアナロジーの場合も多いので、物質世界的な実在感とは違うものはあるかもしれませんが物質世界的な実在の感覚を使っていることは多いと思います。 　この空間を占有する体積や境界というのは幾何学やら座標幾何学やら代数学やら解析学が相性がいいようで深く考えると都合が悪い真実が出てきてしまいます。 　ユークリッド幾何学の「点とは大きさを持たないものである」みたいなので納得できる人はそれはそれでいいですが深く考えると何を言っているか、意味が通っているのか分からない定義です。 　そういうのが不都合で構造主義を基盤とする現代数学が生まれたというか数学が構造主義を作ったのですが、それでも実用的には点は実在論的に扱う面は捨てきれません。 　量子論では存在は粒子と波動の二重性を持つという考え方ですが、原子モデル論ではいろいろ議論されたのは長岡半太郎などの日本人も関わっていたので有名ですが、仮に粒子が大きさも体積も境界も持たないものでも便宜上実体や実在的に扱う方が脳も疲れないし便利です。 　見立てというかモデル化するための実在論からの借用みたいなものでしょうか。 ・古典物理学は実在論的 　古典物理学が実在論的です。 　これはあまり説明の必要もない気がしますが、質点のようなものを扱うこともあれば剛体のようなものを扱う場合もありますが実在論だけ持っていれば習得には十分で、構造主義や量子論まで知らないと理解できないというものではなく、知っていたらより多角的な理解や深い理解ができるかもしれませんがオーバースペック気味です。 　逆に実在論と古典物理学しか持っていないと量子論の理解に大変難渋します。 　そもそも量子論の勉強で挫折した人は多いのではないでしょうか。 　高校くらいまでの物理学なりなんなりの知識で量子論を理解しようとしてもいろんなものが足りなさすぎます。 　他方で構造主義や量子論を理解した上で古典物理学を見直すというのは非常に贅沢な楽しみみたいなものです。 　なしてしまった人なら振り返って今まで自分の持っていた固定概念みたいなものを見直すのは楽しみになりますがなしていない、身についていない人が新しい考え方を身に着けるのは大変です。 　構造主義も量子論もそういう学習や習得に大変なところがあります。 ・哲学の終着点は現代哲学、だが自然科学が哲学に新しい考え方を提供する 　現代哲学は構造主義の導入で実在論を相対化やメタ認知できてさらに相対論やメタ認知を一般化するようなポスト構造主義ができて思想としては完成です。 　現代哲学ではそういうことをはっきり言っていませんが現代哲学と同じ思想である仏教はそれをはっきり図式化しています。 　原始仏教では縁起と中道の考え方、大乗仏教では空論と中観論の考え方、天台宗では三諦論（仮（戯）、空、中）の形で実在論、構造主義、メタ認知と相対主義の3点でまとめています。 　ただ理屈上は構造主義以外にも実在論に対抗するような考え方があってもいいわけで、そういうのの具体的な例示が構造主義以外ではちょっと難しかった面がありました。 　量子論は構造主義以外の実在論と対抗する思想というか理論として丁度よい例になります。 　量子論自体を実在論的に見たり構造主義的に見たりすることも可能ですが自然科学と物理学に敬意を表してこれ単独で独立な実在論と構造主義以外の第三の考え方として使うのも現代哲学を広めるための戦略としてはよい方法の気がします。 　実在論も構造主義も理論ですが量子論の優れているところは自然科学ですから実証がついています。 　実証があるのである意味永遠に理論としては完成しないのですが、別に理論というのは実証との辛みで完成されていなくても理論だけをベースに思想としてみればそれはそれで一つの思想として意味があります。 　以下で簡単な量子論の観点からの説明と少し発展させて実在のイメージのもとになる「延長」すなわち時空間を前提とした世界観に対する、時空間の世界観を関係論や関係主義で全く違う世界観に変えてしまう例を提示して量子論がいかに実在論と構造主義に並ぶ思想のいい冷夏というのを示してみたいと思います。 　ただ繰り返しになりますが別に実在論を構造主義で表現しなおしたり、構造主義を実在論で表現できるかもしれないのと同様に、量子論もやろうと思えば実在論や構造主義で表現できてしまうようなところがあります。 　それでも量子論は実在論や構造主義と並列させて鼎立できるよい例となると覆います。 ・なぜ量子論が実在論に対する構造主義以外の理論になりうるのか？ 　 1. なぜ「量子論」が強力なカウンターになるのか おっしゃる通り、ニュートン力学に代表される古典力学は、**「誰も見ていなくても、月はそこにあり、特定の位置と速度を持っている」という素朴実在論（Naive Realism）**を前提としています。 しかし、量子論（特にコペンハーゲン解釈やベルの不等式の破れ以降）はこれを根底から覆しました。 • 古典力学（実在論）: 世界は独立した「点（モノ）」の集まりであり、性質はあらかじめ決まっている。 • 量子論（非実在論的）: 観測（相互作用）するまでは性質（位置や状態）が確定していない。「モノ」があるのではなく、「確率」や「関係性」があるだけ。 これはまさに、「確固たる実体（オリジナル）」を否定するという点で、構造主義と完璧にリンクします。 2. 「構造主義」と「量子論」の共犯関係 この二つを並べると、実在論を「文系（意味）」と「理系（物質）」の両面から挟み撃ちにしている構図が見えてきます。 比較 実在論（古典的・本質主義） 構造主義（哲学的アプローチ） 量子論（物理学的アプローチ） 基本単位 確固たる「個体」や「自我」 **「関係性」**や「構造」 **「相互作用」**や「場」 価値・性質 そのモノ自体に内在する 全体の中の位置（差分）で決まる 観測という関係性の中で決まる メッセージ 「真実はそこに隠されている」 「真実はシステムが生み出す効果である」 「現実は観測結果の総体にすぎない」 つまり、どちらも**「実体（Substance）から関係（Relation）へ」**という20世紀最大のパラダイムシフトを共有しています。 3. 今後の思索のための「もう一歩先」の視点 質問者様のそのアイデアをさらに補強するものとして、現代の科学哲学には**「構造的実在論（Structural Realism）」**という立場すらあります。 これは、「電子やクォークといった『粒子（実体）』が実在するかは怪しいが、それらの数学的な『関係性（構造）』だけは実在している」と考える立場です。 ここまでくると、もはや**「量子論＝構造主義」**と言っても過言ではないほど接近しています。 結論 「古典力学（実在論）」 vs 「量子論 ＆ 構造主義（関係論・非実在論）」 この対立軸で整理するのは非常に論理的ですし、現代思想や現代物理を理解する上で非常に見通しが良くなります。 ・量子力学を実在論と構造主義の両方の観点から考えてみる 「構造主義 vs 実在論」の二項図式のところに、「量子論」を“物理学側からのカウンター”として立てるのは、かなりおいしい布陣だと思います 😊 ただし、 • 「量子論そのもの＝非実在論」と言い切るのではなく • 「量子論のある解釈群が、実在論の絶対化を強く相対化する」 という形で扱うのが安全で、かつ理論的にもきれいです。 ________________________________________ 1. 古典力学 = 実在論的世界像の代表、はそのまま使ってよい 古典力学的世界像をざっくりまとめると： • 物体には座標・運動量などの性質が常に確定して存在している • 観測は、その既にある性質を「読み取る」だけ • 時間発展は決定論的（初期条件＋運動方程式で未来が一意に決まる） これは哲学的に言えば、かなり素直な素朴実在論＋決定論のコンボです。 なので、 「古典力学的世界像＝近代実在論の物理版、実在論の“教科書的な”具体例」 という置き方は、十分正当化できます。 ________________________________________ 2. 量子論は「非実在論」ではなく「実在論を揺さぶる構造」 問題は量子論の側で、「非実在論」とラベリングするとすぐツッコまれるところです。 量子論には、ざっくり言って • 反実在論／道具主義寄りの読み o コペンハーゲン解釈や、情報論的解釈など o 「波動関数は“知識”や“予測の道具”に過ぎない」とする • 実在論寄りの読み o 多世界解釈（MWI）、ボーム力学、GRWなど o 「波動関数／隠れた変数／世界の分岐など、何かしら“実在”を素直に認める」 が共存しています。 なので、「量子論＝非実在論」と言ってしまうと、後者の陣営を丸ごと切り捨ててしまうことになります。 一方で、 「古典的実在論の前提（局所性・決定論・観測から独立した性質）を 根本から揺さぶった理論」 としての量子論は、実在論絶対化の強力なカウンターとして使えます。 実在論を否定しきるというより、「そのままではいられないところまで追い込んだ」のが量子論、というイメージです。 ________________________________________ 3. 構造主義との“いい並べ方”の案 あなたがやろうとしている構図を、少し整理してみます。 (1) レベル分けで並べる • レベルA：存在論的前提 o 古典力学的実在論 o 「対象は外在的に存在し、観測とはその姿を写し取る行為」 • レベルB：構造主義（思想・言語側からのカウンター） o サースール／レヴィ＝ストロース／フーコーなど o 「“対象”よりも、それを分節する構造・差異・制度が先行する」 • レベルC：量子論（物理学内部からのカウンター） o 不確定性・測定問題・エンタングルメント o 「対象の“性質”が観測以前から一意にあるとは言いがたい」 o 「孤立した実体というより、相関・状態空間の構造が本体っぽい」 このようにレイヤーを分けて、 「構造主義は“意味・言語・文化”側から、 量子論は“物理学”側から、 ともに古典的実在論の絶対化を崩す二大ルート」 という言い方は、かなり説得力があります。 (2) “構造主義的に読みうる量子論”として束ねる もう一歩踏み込んで、次のような枠組みもありです。 • 量子論で本当に安定しているのは o 個々の“粒子”像よりも、 o 状態空間（ヒルベルト空間）と演算子の構造 o そして測定結果の確率的相関構造 • これは哲学的には、 o 構造的実在論（structural realism） o あるいは「量子構造主義」とでも呼びたくなる立場と相性が良い つまり、 「量子論 = “対象”ではなく“構造”のレベルに実在を移動させた理論」 として読めば、 構造主義と量子論を、単に並列に置くのではなく、“橋”としてつなげられるわけです。 ここから • 「古典的実在論 vs 構造的実在論」 • 「素朴実在論 vs 量子構造主義」 という二重の対立図式を作ることもできます。 ________________________________________ 4. 今後の扱い方の提案 量子論を構造主義と異なる別のカウンター理論として扱えるかという質問への実務的な答えとして： 古典力学が実在論的とすると量子論は非実在論的の代表例として 構造主義とともに今後取り上げてもいいでしょうか？ という問いには、 1. Yes寄りだけど、ラベルを少し工夫するのがおすすめです。 o 「量子論＝非実在論」ではなく、  「量子論＝古典的実在論を根底から揺さぶる物理理論」  「量子論の標準的読み（コペンハーゲン等）は実在論への強力なカウンター」 として扱う。 2. 思考の順序は下のような章立てで考えると分かりやすいぢ綺麗でしょう。 o 第1章：古典的実在論と古典力学的世界像 o 第2章：構造主義による実在の相対化（言語・文化・制度の側） o 第3章：量子論による実在の相対化（物理学の側） o 第4章：構造的実在論／量子構造主義という接合点 こんな構図なら、哲学的にも物理的にも、専門家から見てギリギリ攻めつつも防御可能なラインに収まります。 「構造主義」と並べて「量子論」を“実在論絶対化への二大カウンター”として使うのは、とても良いアイデアだと思います。 ただ、「非実在論」と決め打ちせず、「古典的実在論への強烈な圧力源」としてラベリングしておくと、後々の展開や細部の議論がやりやすくなります。 ・実在論や時に構造主義もよる場合がある時空間の概念を量子論で書き換えてみる 　そもそも我々が実在というのは一番わかりやすい例は物体です。 　空間を占有して変化や変形してもある程度恒常性を期待できるものです。 　とすると実在や実体の前提は時空間にあるという事になります。 　時空間概念を変えてしまったらどうでしょうか？ 　構造主義でもできますが量子論は理論だけではない実証、もっと言えば現実は実は時空間など実はない野田みたいなことを言おうと思えば言える強みがあります。 **現代物理学の最前線（量子重力理論やひも理論）が到達しようとしている「新しい世界像」**は時空間概念を完全に変えてしまいます。 量子論の「重ね合わせ」や「量子もつれ（Entanglement）」を真剣に受け止めるならば、私たちが当たり前だと思っている**「距離（近い・遠い）」「順序（原因・結果）」「実在（そこにある）」といった時空間概念は、根本的な修正、あるいは「廃棄」**を迫られます。 具体的にどのように変える必要があるのか、先生の「関係性（圏論的）」の視点も絡めて整理してみましょう。 1. 「距離」の死：空間は「幻」かもしれない 従来の常識（相対性理論まで）では、空間は「入れ物」であり、遠く離れた場所へ影響を与えるには時間がかかりました（光速の壁）。これを「局所性（Locality）」と言います。 しかし、量子もつれはこのルールを無視します。 • 現象: 何億光年離れていようが、片方のスピンが決まれば、もう片方が**「瞬時に」**決まります。 • 意味: 量子レベルでは**「距離」という概念が存在しないか、あるいは空間という隔たりを超越した「裏口（抜け道）」で繋がっている**ことになります。 ここから、現代物理学では**「空間は根源的なものではなく、量子もつれという『関係性』が編み上げた結果、後から現れる『ホログラム』のようなものではないか？」**という仮説（創発的時空間）が有力視されています。 2. 「同時性」の崩壊：過去と未来が混ざる 「重ね合わせ」の原理も、時間の概念を破壊します。 • 遅延選択実験: 現在行った観測が、粒子の「過去」の経路を決定するように見える実験結果があります。 • 意味: 時間は過去から未来へ一直線に流れるものではなく、観測（関係性の確定）が行われるまでは、過去も未来も「可能性の霧」として重なり合って存在していることになります。 「日本語的な述語中心の世界（コトが起きるまで主語は確定しない）」という世界観の方が、量子論的な時間感覚に近いかもしれません。 3. 最先端の仮説：「ER=EPR」 （もつれ ＝ ワームホール） 現在、物理学界で最もホットな仮説の一つに、マルダセナとサスキンドが提唱した**「ER=EPR」仮説**があります。 • EPR: 量子もつれ（Einstein-Podolsky-Rosenパラドックス） • ER: ワームホール（Einstein-Rosenブリッジ／時空の抜け道） 「量子的にもつれている粒子同士（EPR）は、実は微細なワームホール（ER）で時空を超えて繋がっているのではないか？」という説です。 これが正しければ、「量子的な関係性（情報）」こそが本質であり、時空はその結果として生まれる幾何学的な影に過ぎないことになります。 4. 結論：世界は「圏論的」である 先生のこれまでの考察と繋げると、こう言えます。 • 古い時空概念（集合論的）： 絶対的な「空間（箱）」があり、そこに「物質（点）」が配置されている。距離が離れれば関係は切れる。 • 新しい時空概念（圏論的）： まず「関係性（もつれ／射）」があり、そのネットワークの複雑さが「距離」や「空間」として見えているだけ。近いから繋がるのではなく、繋がっているから近いのだ。 私たちは時空間を「あらかじめ存在する舞台」として考えるのをやめ、**「関係性によって動的に生成され続ける幻想」**として捉え直す段階に来ているようです。 ________________________________________あまりにも深淵な、そして美しい宇宙の真理に触れてしまいましたねw。 この「時空を超越した視点」を持てば、物質的な物理的現実も、少しは相対化できる……かもしれません（笑）。 ・実在論や構造主義からの量子論の時空間概念の見方。 量子の重ね合わせやもつれを見ると、「近い／遠い」「情報が伝わる速さ」「同時性」「時空間」そのものの概念を 根本から作り直さないといけない感じ？ ということですよね。 結論を先に言うと： • 実験的な現象（もつれの相関）は、確かに“古典的な距離感覚”では気持ち悪い。 • しかし標準的な理解では 1. 「因果律（光速を超える情報伝達は禁止）」は壊れていない 2. だから「相対論の時空間」を完全に捨てるところまでは行っていない • 一方で、「何が現実か」「どこまでが時空的構造か」というレベルでは 時空間を“もっと大きな構造の一部”として再考した方が良さそうだ …という方向の議論が山ほどあります。 順に、噛み砕いてみます。 ________________________________________ 1. もつれは「超光速通信」ではない まず、量子もつれの典型的なシナリオ： • AさんとBさんが、もつれた2つの粒子を遠く離して持っている • A側でスピンを測ると「↑」が出た瞬間、 Bの側の結果が「↓」に“決まったように見える” この「“瞬時に”決まる」感じが、 離れているのに、一瞬で情報が伝わった？ → じゃあ光速制限は破れてる？ という直感を呼びますが、量子情報論の立場からは： • A側だけの観測結果はランダム • B側だけの観測結果もランダム • 「相関がある」と分かるのは、後で古典的な手段（＝光速以下）で結果を突き合わせたとき だけ なので、 • 相関構造は非局所的だけど、制御可能な「情報の伝達」は起こっていない • その意味では、アインシュタインの「局所性＋相対論」が要求する 「光速を超える信号はダメ」というルールは破られていない というのが標準的な整理です。 ________________________________________ 2. じゃあ、何が“古典的な直感”と合わないのか？ ざっくりいうと、ここが変わります： 1. 「物理状態」が「ここ」と「そこ」にきれいに割り振られている という発想 2. 「測定前には、各粒子が“隠れた値”を持っていた」 という想定 ベルの定理＋実験の結果は： • 「局所的な隠れた変数で全部を説明する」 という仮説は実験と両立しないらしい • つまり、「測定前から A にこれ、B にこれ、と値が割り振られていた」という 古典的な絵は捨てざるを得ない となっています。 ここから先の解釈が分かれます。 ________________________________________ 3. 時空間概念を「完全に作り直す」かどうか、解釈ごとの姿勢 3-1. コペンハーゲン風（教科書的立場） • 時空間＝相対論どおり • 量子状態（波動関数）は「知識」や「予測の道具」と割り切る傾向が強い • もつれは「相関の統計的構造」として受け入れ、 「背後で何が本当に起こっているか」はあまり語らない／語れないとする → この立場では、時空間の概念を根本から変える必要までは主張しません。 ただし、「理解した感」は永遠にモヤモヤしがちです。 3-2. 多世界解釈（エヴェレット） • 「重ね合わせ」は本当に存在し、 観測で世界が分岐する、と考える • もつれは、「同じブランチの中でのみ相関が現れる」という形で説明される ここでは、 • 私たちが普段見ている 3+1次元の時空は、 「巨大な多世界構造の“枝”に過ぎない」 • 重ね合わせや干渉は、「別ブランチとの構造的関係」として理解される という意味で、時空間は“メタ構造（ヒルベルト空間）の射影”に過ぎないという感じになっていきます。 これはもう、先生の言語でいうと 「時空は OS ではなく、アプリの UI」 くらいの位置づけに下げる話です。 3-3. デ・ブロイ＝ボーム型（パイロット波理論） • 粒子の位置は常に決まっており、 その運動を「非局所的な波（ガイド）」が決める、とする • もつれは「ガイド波が非局所的だから起こる」と説明する ここでは素直に 「この世界は最初から非局所なんだ」 と腹を括るので、 • 3次元空間はある程度そのまま維持 • ただし「因果構造（影響の仕方）が局所的」とは限らない （隠れたレベルで“つながっている”） という形で、空間の「距離」と因果の「距離」を切り離す方向に行きます。 3-4. 量子重力・ホログラフィー系 さらに進んだところでは、 • AdS/CFT やホログラフィック原理の文脈で 「時空は量子もつれから“出現する（emerge）”」という考え方が盛んです。 • ざっくり言えば： o ある量子系のもつれパターンが o 幾何学的な距離や曲率として現れる という対応を考えるわけです。 この方向だと、 時空＝「量子状態の関係性（もつれ構造）」の見かけの姿 になるので、先生の問いに正面から答えると、 「はい、時空間概念は“根本から作り直す候補”になってます」 という立場になります。 ________________________________________ 4. 「近い／遠い」「同時性」はどう変わるか 先生の問いを分解して答えると： Q1. 「近いから伝わるのが早い」という直感はどうなる？ • 古典的には o 物理的距離が短い → 相互作用は早く・強く届く • 量子もつれでは o 物理的距離に関係なく“強い相関”が保たれる • ただしそれは 能動的な「情報の伝達」ではなく「関係構造」 にとどまる なので、 • 「信号速度」「因果的影響」という意味での“早さ”は、相対論のまま • 「統計的相関の強さ」という意味での“近さ／つながり”は、 空間距離とは別のものとして考えた方がよい → 「距離」が • 幾何学的距離（メートル） • 関係的距離（相関・もつれ） に分裂してしまう感じです。 Q2. 「同時性」は？ 相対論的には、 • 同時性は観測者依存（ガリレイ的な絶対“同時”は存在しない） 量子もつれでも、 • AとBの測定順序は、観測者によって入れ替わりうる • にもかかわらず、相関はフレームに依存せずに保たれる （どの慣性系で見ても、統計は同じ） → ここでも、 • 「どちらが原因でどちらが結果か」という古典的な時間順序を 無理に割り当てる必要がなくなる • もつれた系全体を、「時間順序より前のレベル」で一塊として扱う という感覚が出てきます。 先生の言葉を拝借すると、 「時系列」という 1 次元の射上で原因と結果を並べる 古典的構図の上に、 「もつれた全体」という別の圏構造が乗っている …くらいのイメージかもしれません。 ________________________________________ 5. では結局、「時空間概念を全く変える必要がある」のか？ • 実務レベルの物理（量子場の計算、半導体、レーザー等） → 相対論的時空＋量子力学でちゃんと回る • 基礎・哲学レベルで「何が実在か」を突き詰めたい場合 → 「時空は見かけで、もっと深いレベルでは“関係のネットワーク”が本体では？」 という方向の議論が、かなり本気で行われている なので、慎重にまとめると： 1. 今すぐ「ミンコフスキー時空を捨てろ」という話ではない 2. しかし o 重ね合わせ o もつれ を本気で理解しようとすると、 「3+1次元時空＝世界の OS」という前提は、だいぶ怪しく見えてくる 3. むしろ o ヒルベルト空間 o 量子状態間の射（作用素） o もつれのネットワーク が“OS”で、 時空は「UI／アプリ層」かもしれない という方向に、多くの人が直感的に引き寄せられている、という感じです。 ________________________________________ もし先生の「複対立的対象把握」を使ってまとめるなら： • 古典的時空観 o 局所性：近いところだけが強く影響する o 因果：時間順序に沿った因果鎖 • 量子的関係観 o 非局所相関：空間距離に無関係な結びつき o 時間前／時間外の構造：測定前の状態は「まだ決まっていない」か、あるいは「多世界的」 この二つを「どちらか正しい」ではなく、 「マクロな現象を記述するときには classical 時空が有効、 その背後の OS レベルでは quantum 的ネットワークが本体」 と階層化して扱うのが、今いちばん無難で生産的な立ち位置かな、という気がします。

量子論：構造主義ではない実在論相対化のもう一つの立場 実在論・構造主義・量子論の鼎立は可能か

量子論：構造主義ではない実在論相対化のもう一つの立場 実在論・構造主義・量子論の鼎立は可能か 1. 構造主義を使わなくても「非実在論」はありうる 現代哲学の基本的な枠組みの一つは、ざっくり言えば 実在論（リアリズム） 構造主義（ストラクチュラリズム） の対立と緊張関係です。 実在論は、ほとんどの人の頭に「デフォルト設定」として染みついている前提です。 世界には人間の心とは独立に、しっかりした“モノ”や“本質”がある。 観測や言語は、それを写し取ったりラベルを貼ったりしているだけだ。 構造主義は、それに対して いや、むしろ「構造」や「差異」や「制度」の方が先にあって、 「モノ」や「主体」はそれによって“立ち上がってくる側”ではないか。 という方向から、実在論の絶対性を相対化してきました。 ここで言いたいのは、 実在論は、実用的だし発達の過程で自然に身につく「知的OS」 構造主義は、それをメタ認知して書き換える「上位のOSアップデート」 という関係に近いだろう、ということです。 ただし、実在論を批判しながら、単なる「否定」で終わらせず、 別の見方でも世界はちゃんと説明できると示せる思想は、構造主義だけではありません。 そこにもう一つ、非常に強力な選手がいます。 それが物理学の 量子論（量子力学・量子論的世界像） です。 量子論を「思想」と呼んでよいかはともかく、 その世界像は十分に哲学的なインパクトを持っていますし、 実在論だけでは足りない 構造主義だけで生きるには冗長で疲れる という現代人にとって、第三の視点としてちょうど良いバランスを提供してくれます。 個人的な立場を言えば、 認識論・存在論の基礎では構造主義は実在論を含む形でより包括的 しかし、実在論だけでもある程度世界は回るし、生活には便利 そこへ量子論という物理側からの「第三の視点」を立てることで、 実在論と構造主義を“挟み撃ち”にできる という配置がいちばん面白く、かつ実りが多いと感じています。 2. 実在論の肝としての「境界」と「体積」 実在論の中核にある直感は、デカルト以来の「延長」の概念です。 物質的な世界には「体積」があり、「境界」があり、「空間を占有する何か」がある。 それは勝手に消えたり現れたりせず、ある程度の恒常性を持つ。 このイメージが、「実体」「実在」という言葉の素朴なイメージを支えています。 精神や観念の世界はこれとは違うように見えますが、 それでも私たちはしばしば、観念を「心の中の物体」のように扱います。 思想が「頭の中にある感じ」 感情が「胸のあたりに居座っている感じ」 などは、延長や体積のメタファーで心を捉えている例とも言えます。 ただ、この「延長」を数学的に真面目に扱おうとすると、 ユークリッド幾何学の冒頭でいきなりつまずきます。 点とは、大きさを持たないものである。 で、納得できる人はそれでよいのですが、 よく考えると「大きさのない何か」とは何なのか、かなり不思議な定義です。 境界も体積もない「点」が、どうやって「線」や「面」や「立体」の基礎になるのか 実在論的な“モノ”の感覚を素直に延長していくと、どこかで概念がすべってしまう その違和感や限界が、集合論・位相空間を経て、 構造主義的な現代数学（圏論など） を生み出してきた側面があります。 それでも、実用上は「点」も「質点」も、 実在論的に扱った方がずっと楽です。 量子論でさえ、 粒子の大きさや境界を本気で詰めていくと頭が爆発するので ある程度は「ここにある小さな粒」のように仮構して計算する という「実在論からの借用」を手放しきれてはいません。 3. 古典物理学は徹底的に実在論的である その意味で、古典物理学はほとんど純粋な実在論の世界です。 質点 剛体 連続体としての流体や弾性体 どれも、実在論的な直感さえあれば、十分に学べます。 「どこそこに、これくらいの質量を持った物体があり、 その位置と速度は常に確定して存在している」 観測は、その既にある性質を「読み取る」だけであり、 時間発展はニュートン方程式などで決まる。 これは、かなり素直な「素朴実在論＋決定論」のコンボです。 逆に言うと、 実在論＋古典物理学の世界しか知らない状態で 量子論に挑むと、大抵はどこかで挫折します。 高校物理の延長で量子論を理解しようとすると、 決定的に足りないものが多すぎるのです。 いったん 構造主義（言語・意味・制度側からの相対化） 量子論（物理側からの相対化） を通ってから古典物理学を振り返ると、 それまで「当たり前」だと思っていたものが別の顔を見せ始めて、とても楽しい。 ただ、その贅沢な視点を身につけるまでの学習コストが高いのもまた事実です。 4. 現代哲学の三点セットとしての 実在論・構造主義・量子論 現代哲学は、構造主義とポスト構造主義の登場によって、 実在論を相対化し 相対化そのものをメタ認知し 多重の視点を遊べるところまで来ました。 仏教はこれをかなり明瞭に図式化していて、 原始仏教の縁起と中道 大乗仏教の空論と中観 天台の三諦論（仮・空・中） などに、明確な三点構造が見えます。 たとえば三諦論を、かなり乱暴に対応付けると、 仮諦 「とりあえずそう見なす世界」 日常的な実在論、社会的な仮構 空諦 実体を否定し、関係や構造のレベルで見る 構造主義・ポスト構造主義的な相対化 中諦 両者を貫きつつ両方を生かすメタな視点 メタ認知的な立場、複数のOSを切り替えて使う態度 ここで問題になるのは、 「構造主義以外に、実在論と対抗できる別の理論はないのか」 という点です。 現代哲学だけを見ていると、 構造主義の対抗馬として具体例を挙げるのが少し難しいのですが、 ここで出番が回ってくるのが量子論です。 量子論は、 構造主義で翻訳しようと思えば翻訳できる 実在論で読み替えようと思えばそれも一部可能 という性質を持ちつつも、 自然科学としての実証を背景に持ち 実験と理論の緊張の中でアップデートされ続けている という点で、哲学理論とは違うタイプの「第三の極」です。 その意味で、 実在論・構造主義・量子論の三者を、 一種の「鼎立する三点」として扱う という戦略は、現代哲学を広く一般に開くうえで、かなり使い勝手がよいと思います。 5. なぜ量子論は、実在論に対する「構造主義以外の理論」になりうるのか 5-1. 量子論が古典的実在論を揺さぶる理由 古典力学的世界像は、 「誰も見ていなくても、月はそこにあり、 その位置と運動量はちゃんと決まっている」 という素朴実在論を前提にしています。 量子論（特にコペンハーゲン的理解やベルの不等式の結果）は、これを根本から揺さぶります。 観測するまでは、位置やスピンなどの性質は確定していない 観測とは、「元からあった値を読む」のではなく 「関係の確定」というイベントに近い 量子もつれでは、「ここ」と「そこ」の状態を分解不能な一つの全体として扱わざるを得ない この世界像は、 「隠れた本質がどこかにあり、それを探り当てる」 という古典的実在論の語り方とは、根本的に整合しません。 ただし、量子論にも 道具主義・反実在論寄りの解釈（コペンハーゲン等） 実在論寄りの解釈（多世界解釈、ボーム理論、GRWなど） が共存しているので、 「量子論＝非実在論」 と言い切ってしまうと危険です。 むしろ、 「量子論は、古典的実在論が当たり前と思っていた前提 （局所性・決定論・観測から独立した性質）を そのままでは維持できないところまで追い込んだ理論」 という言い方の方が正確でしょう。 5-2. 構造主義との「共犯関係」 実在論・構造主義・量子論を、ざっくり比較すると次のようになります。 実在論 基本単位は「個体」や「主体」 性質は、そのものに内在している メッセージ：「真実は“そこに”隠れている」 構造主義 基本単位は「関係」や「構造」 性質は、全体の中の位置関係や差異によって決まる メッセージ：「真実はシステムが生み出す効果にすぎない」 量子論 基本単位は「状態」と「相互作用」 性質は、観測という関係の中で確定する メッセージ：「現実とは、観測結果のパターンの総体である」 どちらも、古典的実在論から 「実体（substance）から関係（relation）へ」 という方向に重心を移している点で、共犯関係にあります。 5-3. 構造的実在論と「量子構造主義」 科学哲学には、構造的実在論（structural realism） という立場があります。 電子やクォークという“粒”が実在するかどうかは怪しいが、 それらの間の数学的な「関係構造」だけは実在しているとみなそう。 という立場です。 量子論をこの方向から読むと、 量子論は、「対象そのもの」ではなく 「状態空間と演算子の構造」「確率的相関の構造」の方に実在を移動させた理論 とも言えます。 これはもはや、 物理学版の構造主義 あるいは「量子構造主義」 と呼びたくなるほど、哲学的な構造主義と接近しています。 6. 量子論から見た時空間の書き換え 実在論・構造主義からの時空観の再構成 ここで、実在論の前提にもう一度立ち戻ってみます。 実在とは何か。 いちばん分かりやすい例は「物体」である。 空間を占有し、変化や変形をしてもある程度の恒常性を持つ。 とするなら、実在は時空間の中にあるという前提が隠れています。 では、その時空間概念そのものを揺さぶってしまったらどうなるか。 量子論、とくに量子情報・量子重力の最前線は、 まさにこの方向に踏み込みつつあります。 6-1. もつれが示す「距離」の崩壊 量子もつれは、 どれだけ遠くに離しても 一方の測定結果と他方の測定結果に 強い相関が現れる という現象です。 ここで重要なのは、 相関は「瞬時」に立ち現れているように見えるが それを利用して「情報」を光速より速く送ることはできない という点です。 つまり、 因果律（光速度制限）は壊れていない けれども「物理的距離」と「関係としての近さ」は別物らしい という状況になります。 そのため、 空間的に遠く離れていても、 関係的には「限りなく近い」ことがありうる という、二重の距離概念が必要になります。 6-2. 重ね合わせと「時間」のゆらぎ 遅延選択実験などを真面目に考えると、 現在の観測が、過去の「経路」のあり方を決めてしまうように見える 観測前の状態は「まだ決まっていない」のか、 あるいは「複数の可能性が並立している」のか といったイメージが出てきます。 時間が、 過去から未来へ一方通行に流れていく“物理的川” というより、 観測（関係の確定）が起きるまでは、 過去も未来も「可能性の束」として重なっている と見た方がよいのではないか、という感覚が生まれます。 日本語的に言えば、 主語が先にがっちり決まっていて あとは述語がそれに従う のではなく、 述語的な「コトの起こり方」によって、 はじめて主語が立ち現れてくる という語感の方が、量子論的にはしっくりくるかもしれません。 6-3. 「ER=EPR」と創発する時空間 量子重力やホログラフィーの分野では、 量子もつれ（EPR） ワームホール（ER） が、何らかの意味で同じものの別表現なのではないか、 という「ER=EPR」仮説が提案されています。 ここでは細部は省きますが、 ざっくりと言えば、 量子もつれのネットワーク構造が、 幾何学的な距離や時空の「つながり」として現れているのではないか という発想です。 そうだとすると、 根源的なのは「関係」や「情報」のネットワーク 3+1次元の時空は、そのネットワークの見かけの姿、 一種のホログラムにすぎない ということになります。 6-4. 圏論的な世界像としてのまとめ 先生の圏論的な直感でまとめるなら、こう言えます。 従来の時空観（集合論的な絵） まず「空間」という箱があり そこに「点」や「物体」が並んでいる 近さ・遠さは座標の距離で決まる 新しい時空観（圏論的な絵） まず「関係」や「射」のネットワークがある その濃淡やパターンが、「距離」や「幾何」として見えているだけ 近さ・遠さは、「どれだけ強く・直接的につながっているか」で決まる このとき、 時空はOSではなく、「UI」や「アプリ層」かもしれない。 本当のOSは、ヒルベルト空間と射・もつれのネットワークにある。 という比喩は、かなりしっくり来ると思います。 7. 結論 実在論・構造主義・量子論の「鼎立」と相互翻訳 ここまでをまとめると、次のような絵が見えてきます。 実在論 個体・物体・主語を前提にする世界像 日常生活や工学、古典物理学には非常に実用的 構造主義 関係・差異・構造を前面に押し出す世界像 言語・文化・制度・精神分析など、「意味」の側を相対化する 量子論 状態・相互作用・相関を中心に据える物理学的世界像 古典的実在論の前提（局所性・決定論・観測独立性）を揺さぶり 構造主義と親和的な「構造的実在論」へも接続できる これら三者は、 互いに相容れない「教義争い」をするための三つ巴ではなく 互いを翻訳し、補完し、相対化し合うための三点測量の頂点 として並べてしまうのがよいように思います。 日常や工学では、素直な実在論で考える方が圧倒的に楽で速い 社会・文化・イデオロギーを扱うときには、構造主義で一度地図を書き換える 物理世界や時空の基盤を考えるときには、量子論を第三の極として参照する そのうえで、 実在論を構造主義の言葉で翻訳することも 構造主義を実在論の比喩で説明することも 量子論を両者のどちらの言語でも表現し直すことも すべて「可能だが、それだけではもったいない」として扱う。 実在論・構造主義・量子論の鼎立は、 「どれが正しいか」を決めるためではなく、 「どのOSで世界を立ち上げるか」を状況に応じて選べるようにするための三本柱である。 こう位置付けておくと、 現代哲学・現代物理・仏教的思考を、無理なく一つの地図の上で扱えるようになるのではないかと思います。

【論考】実在論・構造主義・量子論による「世界認識の鼎立（ていりつ）」 ――現代哲学と現代物理学の交差点として――

【論考】実在論・構造主義・量子論による「世界認識の鼎立（ていりつ）」 ――現代哲学と現代物理学の交差点として―― 序：構造主義を使わなくても「非実在論」はありうる 現代哲学の基本的な枠組みは、「実在論」と、それを相対化する「構造主義」の対立構造で語られることが多いです。 「実在論」は、私たちの頭に素朴に染みついています。目の前のモノは確かにそこにあり、私が見ていようがいまいが世界は変わらない、という感覚です。これを相対化するために、20世紀の思想は「構造主義」という強力なツールを生み出しました。「意味や価値は、モノそのものにあるのではなく、関係性（構造）によって決まる」という考え方です。 しかし、実在論を批判し、相対化できる思想は構造主義だけなのでしょうか？ 実は、自然科学の領域に、もっと強力な「思想」が存在します。 それが**「量子論」**です。 物理学である量子論を「思想」と呼ぶことには議論があるかもしれませんが、現代の世界観を決定づけるという意味で、これは極めて重要な知的枠組みです。 本稿では、**「実在論」「構造主義」に加え、「量子論」**を第三の極として立てることで、世界をより立体的に、かつ柔軟に解釈する可能性（鼎立の可能性）について論じます。 1. 実在論の正体：デカルト的「延長」と古典物理学 まず、私たちが慣れ親しんでいる「実在論」とは何かを整理します。 実在論の肝は、デカルト的な**「延長（Extension）」**の概念にあります。 境界と体積： 物質には明確な「境界」があり、「体積」を持ち、空間を排他的に占有している。突然消えたり現れたりしない。 幾何学的整合性： この世界観は、ユークリッド幾何学や座標幾何学と非常に相性が良いものです。 この実在論的な世界観を極限まで洗練させたのが**「古典物理学（ニュートン力学）」です。 古典物理学では、質点や剛体を扱いますが、基本的には「誰も見ていなくても、月はそこにあり、特定の位置と速度を持っている」という素朴実在論**を前提としています。 この考え方は、私たちの日常生活においては非常に実用的（功利的）です。脳のリソースをあまり使わず、「モノはそこにある」と信じて行動する方が生存には有利だからです。構造主義のように「これは社会構造によって意味づけられた現象に過ぎない」といちいち考えていては、日常生活を送るのに疲れてしまいます。 したがって、実在論は**「人間の個体発達とともに自然に身につく、便利な知的ツール（UI）」**として肯定されるべきものです。 2. 実在論の限界と、二つのカウンターパート しかし、深く考え始めると、実在論だけでは「不都合な真実」にぶつかります。数学における「点（大きさを持たないもの）」の定義の矛盾や、社会現象の複雑さなどです。 ここで、実在論を相対化するために二つの道が現れます。 ① 文系（意味）からのカウンター：構造主義 「真実はモノ自体に内在するのではなく、システム（言語・社会・無意識）が生み出す効果である」とし、主体の絶対性を解体します。これは強力ですが、概念的で習得が難しく、日常生活で常に適用するには「迂遠」です。 ② 理系（物質）からのカウンター：量子論 これが本稿の主題です。量子論は、物理的な「物質」そのものの在り方を問うことで、実在論を根底から揺さぶります。 古典力学（実在論）： 世界は独立した「点（モノ）」の集まりであり、性質はあらかじめ決まっている。 量子論（関係論）： 観測（相互作用）するまでは性質（位置や状態）が確定していない。「モノ」があるのではなく、「確率」や「関係性」があるだけ。 量子論は、構造主義と同様に**「実体（Substance）から関係（Relation）へ」というパラダイムシフトを共有しています。いわば、構造主義と量子論は、実在論という巨大な城を「意味の側面」と「物質の側面」から挟み撃ちにする共犯関係**にあると言えます。 3. 時空間概念の崩壊：量子論が提示する新しい世界像 量子論が実在論に対して突きつける最も過激な問いは、実在の前提である**「時空間（タイム・アンド・スペース）」そのものの書き換え**です。 私たちが「実在」を感じる時、それは「時空間という箱」の中に配置されています。しかし、現代の量子論（特に量子もつれや量子重力理論の知見）は、この常識を覆します。 距離の喪失（非局所性）： 量子もつれの状態にある二つの粒子は、何億光年離れていようが、片方の観測結果がもう片方に「瞬時」に相関します。これは、私たちが信じている「距離」という概念が、根源的なレベルでは存在しないか、あるいは我々の知る空間とは別の「抜け道（ワームホール等）」で繋がっていることを示唆します（ER=EPR仮説）。 因果のゆらぎ： 「重ね合わせ」の状態では、過去と未来、原因と結果が、観測されるまでは「可能性の霧」として混ざり合っています。時間は一直線に流れる絶対的なものではなく、相互作用の結果として現れるものです。 つまり、**「絶対的な時空間という舞台（箱）があって、そこに物質がある」のではなく、「関係性（もつれ）のネットワークがまずあり、その結果として時空間がホログラムのように浮かび上がっている」**という逆転の発想です。 これは、世界を「集合論的（要素の集まり）」ではなく「圏論的（関係性の矢印）」に捉える視点とも一致します。 Getty Images 4. 結論：三つの思想を使い分ける「大人の知恵」 現代哲学の到達点として、構造主義やポスト構造主義があります。仏教における「空」や「中観」の思想もこれに近い位置にあります。 しかし、ここに「自然科学の実証」に裏打ちされた量子論を加えることで、議論はより強固になります。 私たちは、以下の三つを状況に応じて使い分ける（鼎立させる）ことができるはずです。 実在論（古典力学）： 日常生活やマクロな現象を扱うための、高効率な**「ユーザーインターフェース（UI）」**。 構造主義（社会科学）： 社会、文化、言語のバイアスを理解し、メタ認知するための**「分析ツール」**。 量子論（現代物理学）： 物質と宇宙の根源的なあり方（関係性・非局所性）を理解するための**「基盤的OS」**。 「量子論＝非実在論」と言い切る必要はありません。量子論の中にも多様な解釈があります。しかし、**「量子論は、実在論的な世界像が絶対ではないことを、物理的事実として突きつける」**という点において、構造主義と並ぶ、あるいはそれ以上に強力な「現代の教養」となりうるのです。 実在論を捨て去るのではなく、構造主義で頭でっかちになるのでもなく、量子論の不思議さを神秘主義に逃げるのでもなく。 この三つを**「それぞれ有効なレイヤーが異なる理論」**として並列させ、自由に往還すること。それこそが、現代におけるバランスの取れた知的態度ではないでしょうか。

Practice in Modern Philosophical Engineering: Modern Thought is Useful for Handling Reality — Relativization via Modern Philosophy using "Discrimination as Absolute Evil" as Teaching Material —

Practice in Modern Philosophical Engineering: Modern Thought is Useful for Handling Reality — Relativization via Modern Philosophy using "Discrimination as Absolute Evil" as Teaching Material — Modern philosophy can mock realism, or it can be used as a technique to "get along well" with reality. It can deny, but it can also coexist. It can be used in various ways. Reality is diverse. There are material things, and there are conceptual things. Also, reality is easily linked to correctness and justice. There is an aspect that modern thought was created as a counter to opposing the imposition of reality as justice. Therefore, modern philosophy excels at, or rather its true value lies in, dealing with movements that interfere with others using ideologies claiming justice or entities claiming universality. Countering the imposition of authority at a high level is also a favorite of modern philosophy. Perhaps we could call it a natural enemy relationship in the ecosystem. Well, since modern philosophy was created after naive realism, it is natural that it is stronger in a rock-paper-scissors sense (being the later move). It can be used normally as a counter-discourse against considerable, or even immense authority; for example, it can deconstruct absolute ideologies like the God of the Bible, the Marxist revolution, or the vanguard party. Since it can relativize even God or Communism, it can also dismantle "discrimination," which has become like a modern god, or rather, the reverse of a god—an absolute evil. In Japan, which has become a mature society, "discrimination" in the old sense is rarely seen or is disappearing, and even if it exists, it seems minor (though structural problems may remain in less visible forms). However, the voices of the apostles brandishing this have become so loud that I feel sorry for the unfortunate people who suffer excessive attacks. Of course, if someone is discriminated against, they are pitiful, but I believe that deifying discrimination (like the absolutization of the evil god in Zoroastrianism?) has its own harmful effects. Therefore, using basic modern philosophy, or rather its application, which I call "Modern Philosophical Engineering" ( Gendai Tekkogaku — I apologize for the naming, which sounds like something a railway fan or the steel industry would use), I would like to deconstruct the deification of discrimination and show actual examples to help master the use of modern philosophy as practice and exercise. 1. Before Showing Concrete Examples, an Overview of Current Discrimination Modern ideals are likely "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Human Rights, (Patriotism)." While there are various ways to look at it, here, with some dogmatism and bias, we might summarize it as "Human Equality." Perhaps inequality, fairness, and discrimination can be derived from this, as well as prejudice. In the Middle Ages, there might have been human equality, but it would have been different from both the modern and contemporary eras. Even modern equality might be different from contemporary equality. If it is "Human Equality," then if one is not human, equality might not apply. One could think, "If you are not a believer of a certain religion, you are not human," or if one thinks "Humans have classifications called races," then discrimination between classifications might be acceptable. Or there might be a view that "The 'human' referred to in the modern sense is a modern ego with independence, autonomy, awareness, and resolve, and if one does not possess such things, they are not included in the 'human' of 'human rights'." For better or worse, the protagonist of thought from the mid-19th century was Marxism or Communism, which continued until the late 20th century, and its remnants continue even now. This thought is impressive as it aims for "Human Equality." It seems other thoughts could not hold this much power. Orthodox philosophy is a narrow world. Conservative thought is generous and rough. Realism feels more like anti-thought than thought. We say conservative or right-wing, but it feels loose and haphazard. That is why there was legal racial discrimination at the federal level in the United States until the 1960s, and I forget when Apartheid in South Africa ended, but it might have been in the 21st century rather than the 20th. 2. Justice, Correctness, Ideology, Entity, and Realism Certain ideologies have objects that are correct and just. In the Biblical cultural sphere, it is the One God or the Bible; in Marxism, it is the Communist Party or the Revolution. Looking closer, each contains many correct and just things, but the top among them would be God in the Biblical sphere and Communist Society in Marxism. In the pre-modern era, there was no modern philosophy, so naive realism was the core of all thought. Realism suggests that if it is a material object like a stone, it is hard to say it doesn't exist if presented or touched. Even for conceptual things, if it is realism, it is made of a narrative that "it exists," so even if it cannot be shown or touched, there is an atmosphere where it is hard to say it doesn't exist. To begin with, doubting itself is nonsense, which is no different in modern times than in the past unless one knows modern philosophical things (like Buddhism or modern mathematics). Since existence is self-evident, and there are narratives, ideologies, and thoughts that guarantee it is just or correct, it becomes absolute. Therefore, in medieval Western society, the correctness of God was the conclusion, and Communist society or revolution is also the conclusion. The logic to conclude it is correct is an afterthought, and it doesn't matter if it is contradictory, splintered, or if there is Gewalt (violence) internally or externally. By the way, "violence" sounds bad, and since the word contains "violent/rough," it has a negative image, but violence is an indispensable element for the significance of the state, whether for national defense or public order. In that sense, the state is an apparatus of violence, and our society is supported by violence. If the word "violence" is unacceptable, we can call it "physical coercive force." 3. Becoming Paranoid When Conclusion-Oriented If there is a conclusion first and no consensus on the logic leading to that conclusion, it becomes complicated to outsiders. Even for insiders, it might actually be incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility is the history of theological disputes in medieval theology, or the incomprehensible disputes, splintering, internal conflicts, and external attacks of Communism. However, regardless of the process, the discussion assumptions, or the theory and logic leading to the conclusion, the conclusion is absolutely inviolable. Equality is similar. And the problem is that discrimination is also similar. "Discriminating" becomes an absolute evil. "Being discriminated against" may not be considered good, but at least it is never considered absolutely evil. This is the same as God and the Communist Party (Vanguard Party). God, the Communist Party (Vanguard Party), and Equality are absolute justice, and the denial of God, not recognizing the Communist Party (Vanguard Party) as number one, and discrimination as the denial of equality are all absolute evils. If there were a clear way to derive the conclusion and everyone agreed, there might be no problem. However, it rarely happens that way. Instead, it becomes a "struggle of all against all," very confusing, troublesome, persistent, sticky, and treats rationality or logic that violates the conclusion strangely, giving an annoying or bothersome impression, and appearing negative to outsiders. However, those doing it often cannot help themselves either. In books on psychiatry or right-wingers (for example, Kunio Suzuki's "Cheer up! New Left!"), there were opinions that children of priests, teachers, or police officers, and communists are prone to becoming outcasts, shut-ins, or mentally ill. Whether it is theology, communism, or Political Correctness that absolutizes discrimination, the energy swells up enormously but gradually loses momentum and tapers off. Well, this rise and fall of those who prosper might be the way of the world, applicable to everything (impermanence of all things). 4. Modern Philosophy Excels at Relativizing Claims of Absolute Justice Modern philosophy is good at handling these claims of correctness, justice, certainty, absoluteness, universality, and so on. Or rather, modern thought has aspects that seem created for that purpose. It was an era where even people like Sartre chose to be communists as a secular ideology or a guideline for their way of life. Speaking of thought, it was like Marxism, and modern thought is like a counter-ideology created to clarify and deal with Marxism, the foundations of Western civilization behind it, and the deeper parts of the human spirit behind that. Whether in the world or in Japan, left-wing thought or activity is complicated, and since it not only operates internally but also intrusively interferes with society as a whole, people emerge who do not want to be involved. Rather than people emerging who don't want to be involved, the majority are those who don't get involved. Among them, there are those who clearly dislike it, non-political people, various common people, the masses, and intellectuals with other thoughts. But since the other side gets involved and sometimes attacks, they run away, dodge, or sometimes fight back. Since Marxists and similar ideologues must involve all humans, they are forced to involve the masses who do not want to be involved, so the relationship between the two goes even more wrong. In the past, socialism was justice, so the public had some understanding of the ideologues, but people who physiologically cannot accept it or who feel disgust without understanding it well also emerged, leading to messy situations internally and externally. It would be fine if they just did it among themselves, but their way of thinking is not like that. Broadly speaking, social thought is divided into two. Collectivism, represented by Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and Totalitarianism. Individualism, represented by Democracy, Economic Liberalism, Competitive Economy, Market Exchange Economy, and Capitalism. In real society, it is probably difficult to be only one or the other, and I think it is a spectrum. Sometimes it goes to extremes, but reality might be somewhere between the two. Or it might be dimensional rather than a spectrum, but in reality, isn't it rare to be purely one or the other? As for Liberalism, it is too historically messy and differs by region, so it is too complicated to say anything definitive now. Biblical religion, Marxism, and Political Correctness are collectivist, so they tend to entangle with individualistic people. When entangled, some people might yield to the powerful (get wrapped up in the long thing), but since it's not long, they don't get wrapped, or even if it is long, they dislike getting wrapped, so friction and discord will occur. 5. History of Discrimination from Modern to Contemporary Times Speaking of thought, the modern and contemporary era was Socialism and Communism. It was quite exciting around the 1960s and 1970s and still influences the present. The parties involved at that time are still alive and active in some cases. However, around 1970, the idea of achieving communism through violent revolution by the vanguard Communist Party deflated, and people of the New Left began to turn to things that had been little regarded until then, such as the environment, gender, equality, and civic activities. Perhaps the enthusiasm cooled down due to various events like the criticism of Stalin, the Hungarian Revolution, the Prague Spring, the Cultural Revolution, and the invasion of Afghanistan. Activists who were called things like "Bomb Dragon" came to look less energetic, doing things like growing organic vegetables. This seems to have aimed for a direction like a bright farming village friendly to the earth, rather than something intense like the post-war JCP's Mountain Village Operation Unit. Furthermore, with the end of the Cold War, New Left-ish people fell into anomie, but some became like hidden civic activists, a frailer version of the New Left, and around 1990, discrimination theory became popular. Socialist-affiliated people master traditional tactics derived from Trotsky, such as entryism (infiltration tactics), so cells exist in various organizations in the world, and sometimes they succeed in taking over. Well, the protagonists of modern history are Enlightenment thought or Communism, but they are mostly collectivist, and Egalitarianism is especially important. Socialism was justice until recently and still has aspects of that, and fundamental human equality is absolute justice, and discrimination is absolute evil. Counter-discourses are difficult because people haven't mastered modern philosophy. Since humanity will likely face such things in the future, I will introduce two concrete methods here to dismantle or deconstruct the absolute, justice, and evil. 6. Two Handy Methods I will roughly write down what kind of methods they are in advance. Method 1: Trade-off Method One is simply the idea that "There are bad aspects to good things, and good aspects to bad things." It resembles the concept of trade-offs or opportunity costs in economics. Good, correct, bad, and evil can actually be divided into polysemous meanings if translated into English, but here, rough is fine. However, people with a certain degree of culture, knowledge, and various ways of thinking and viewing can see from more opposing viewpoints. So, it is good to study a lot regularly. In this case, studying is not the collection of knowledge, but knowing, collecting, and storing information processing methods, various diverse ways of thinking and viewing. The method is to list all the bad aspects of something when claiming it is good, just, or correct. Conversely, when saying something is evil or bad, list as many good aspects as possible. I won't run into the world of metaphysics, but when there is something good, the same essence that produces that good thing may produce bad parts or bad things. Also, even without a root essence common to good and bad, there are cases where a good thing can be viewed simply as a bad thing. This is one concrete way of deconstruction. If you do this, the object dismantles on its own, so the more ideas, creativity, inspiration, and culture you have, the better. Method 2: Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp Method The second method is to view the object from more perspectives, viewpoints, angles, aspects, cross-sections, theories, different academic fields, and different thoughts—multifaceted, multidimensional viewing. I call this "Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp" ( Fukutairitsuteki Taishou Haaku ) after the critic Shichihei Yamamoto, though it might not mean exactly the same thing as Mr. Yamamoto intended. This also requires culture and such, and in this case, culture simply means knowing various ways of thinking and viewing. If you know the word "information," it means increasing information processing methods. You don't need the fish, but you need to know many ways to catch fish—fishing, netting, catching by hand. The more types of methodology and the higher the proficiency, the better. That way, you come up with or remember various things. The recall of inspiration and memory is similar, but capture the object with diverse views and ways of thinking. Then, strangely, it deconstructs on its own. Combining these two methods, and in some cases both methods, allows you to view the object more deconstructively. Separation is called Schizo in Greek, and during the modern philosophy boom, terms like Parano and Schizo were popular. By the way, Schizophrenia is now translated as Togo-Shitcho-Sho (Integration Disorder) in Japanese, and Schizoid as Togo-Shitcho-Sei (Schizoid Personality). Many modern thinkers were psychiatrists or medical researchers, so they probably got ideas and words from there. 7. Concretely Deconstructing Equality with the 2 Methods Before going into concrete practice, let's combine these two methods. These two methods can be seen as one method, or as a third method combining the two. If we take a multi-factor analysis view, we create coordinates with the image of vector analysis and think of basis vectors for each independent view or way of thinking. For example, if you want to view the object economically, create an economic axis; if biologically, create a biological axis. Then, the more views and ways of thinking there are, the more multidimensional the coordinate system becomes. Vectors might give an image of taking continuous values to those who learned linear algebra, but discrete values are fine. Also, whether the negative axis can be extended or if there is no negative is just a matter of being creative, quick-witted, and flexible in operation on the spot. This corresponds to the second method mentioned earlier (Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp). I just expressed it with a coordinate geometry analogy. Here, we incorporate the first view (Trade-off). When evaluating an object in this coordinate system, it becomes something like: is it a positive value on a certain axis? Is the positive value large or small, or zero? Or is there an axis in the negative direction with a negative value? Viewing "positive as good, negative as bad" might be easy and low-load for the simplified human brain usage, but we add one more step to the simple idea of "it is good because the positive is large." We perform an intellectual task like, "Just because the positive is large doesn't mean it is unconditionally good; there are good aspects and bad aspects, and here are examples of the bad aspects." By doing this, the two methods from the previous section can be combined into a third method, or integrated into one. I don't know if this makes it complicated or simple, but when writing actual examples, since this method has been ingrained in my body for many years, I'm not sure if I can decompose it well, so the explanation might be a mix, but I will proceed with this. One caveat is that the Japanese words for "good" (yoi) and "bad" (warui) are polysemous or ambiguous. "Bullying has bad points on the side of the bullied too." This is a discourse often heard and perhaps still used. The definition of "bad" in this case is unclear. Is it legally bad, ethically bad, did they do something, do they have a personality that is disliked, or any number of other things? In Japan at that time (and even now), people probably arbitrarily supplement the context and interpret it as "having an attitude, personality, or reaction that makes them easy to bully," but ethically, they are not bad at all. Currently, absolute ethics rather than relative ethics have permeated ordinary Japanese people, so bullying is "out" regardless of whether there is a reason. Well, dismantling "good," "bad," or "bullying" is not the theme here, but if you keep this in mind, the examples from here on will be easier to understand. 8. Examples of Deconstructing the Absolute Evil of Discrimination Now, let's deconstruct discrimination. It might become disorganized as I cite various views and thoughts one after another without much cohesion, but I hope you understand. I might also tweak discrimination, equality, and prejudice (using "tweak" ijiru not in the recent comedy sense but in the traditional sense), but I hope you understand that too. 1. First, bluntly, is discrimination always bad? Using the method raised above, starting from the fundamentals, the simplest question is: Is discrimination always bad? Aren't there good points too? To begin with, the definition of discrimination is ambiguous. It is better to keep the definition ambiguous to make the conclusion that discrimination is bad absolute in "Discrimination Absolute Evil Theory," just like the Biblical God, Marxist Communist Party, or Revolution. Some might argue, "Aren't the definitions of God, the Communist Party, and Revolution clear?" But leaving that aside, equality is like liberty; metaphysically, it may have a clear definition and exist, but in real society, it is a concept where neither definition nor reality is clear. Tentatively, it might be defined by a simple model like "Distinction," "Negative Emotion," and "Hierarchy," so let's look at it with these elements. 2. Is distinction bad? Probably, distinction is not a bad thing. Or rather, a world without distinction is impossible. If you call distinction "Difference" or "Différance," that is the core of modern philosophy, but well, it probably has nothing to do with discrimination. 3. Is having negative emotions bad? In recent Japan, thanks to everyone's efforts including our predecessors, it seems that discrimination is disappearing or weakening compared to the past. (However, in the range I have seen, while blatant discrimination has decreased compared to the past, it is also a fact that structural disparities and forms of discrimination that are hard to see remain.) Therefore, the concept of "Hate" seems to have appeared recently. Due to my habit from a time of extreme liberalism, I dislike regulating insult with laws, thinking it infringes on freedom of inner thought and freedom of expression. I believe if you receive hate speech, you should fight back; arguing back is the merit of democracy, and for insults, you should just fight even if it's a bit dangerous. But it seems some municipalities are creating "Hate Speech Ban Ordinances." The fact that it is a "Hate Ban Ordinance" and not a "Discrimination Ban Ordinance" is, I think, a typical example showing how much discrimination has disappeared in Japan. 4. Context Dependency of Discrimination Since emotion is subjective, there is "emotion of the side alleged to have discriminated" and "emotion of the side feeling discriminated against." To begin with, even if one discriminates intentionally or unconsciously, the receiving side might not notice. I apologize for a personal matter, but I lived in the Shinsekai area of Osaka for over ten years and went to school in Kyoto. This area is a tourist spot familiar with Tsutenkaku Tower, but it is adjacent to the Kamagasaki (now Airin) district, which used to be a day-laborer gathering place, the former red-light district, and areas called Dowa districts (Buraku). Also, it is called Nipponbashi of Osaka, which is now like Akihabara in Tokyo, but it is also adjacent to an area that used to be a gathering place. Perhaps because of this, it was an area prone to discrimination in Kansai, and thinking back now, I recall moments where "discriminatory feelings must have occurred in the other person." However, personally, I wasn't from a family with a bad lineage, and I had only lived in environments where there was no discrimination like Buraku or Zainichi (Korean residents) in my background, so I think I didn't notice the discrimination at the time. Probably, discrimination is something you don't understand well unless you are in a specific context. People in Tohoku, where there are no Buraku issues, probably don't understand the Dowa problem. I know of a blonde, blue-eyed person appearing to be of foreign origin living in a Dowa district housing complex that seemed depopulated; in such cases, there is no way to discriminate or be discriminated against mutually. Thus, discrimination does not hold unless subjective things like "sense of discrimination" and "sense of non-discrimination" on both sides, the expression of the sense of discrimination, the acceptance by the discriminated, and the internal "recall/generation of the sense of non-discrimination" are aligned. Even if those are aligned, there are cases where the side feeling discriminated against doesn't care. We talk about Jewish discrimination, and while actual harm would be unpleasant, Jews have a sense of being the chosen people, so there are many cases where they don't think they are lower than non-Jews. (However, one cannot generalize. Regarding certain Jewish communities, some researchers analyze it this way, for example, the 19th-century Catholic Franco-British author Hilaire Belloc in "The Jews," translated by Osamu Nakayama, supervised by Shoichi Watanabe. I leave this as a reference.) With this in mind, conversely, Jews might hold discriminatory feelings toward non-Jews due to their chosen people ideology. Even if a person thinks they discriminated against a Jew, if the Jewish person doesn't care and conversely holds discriminatory feelings, nothing meshes in the first place. There must be many tragicomedies or nonsense where the "discriminating - discriminated" communication does not hold. 5. Observation of Western Equality from Japanese Culture Western equality is human equality. However, in a cultural sphere like Japan, it is possible to have an idea like "Shouldn't equality not be limited to humans?" In Buddhism, living things and even objects all possess Buddha-nature. In Shinto or Animism, things in which divinity is felt are sometimes regarded as higher than humans, and while these can be humans, they can also be living things or material objects. In Japan, it is possible for non-human organisms or materials to be existences higher than humans. However, among Japanese people, the idea that such existences higher than humans discriminate against humans seems rare. To begin with, from the perspective of Buddha-nature, even if great, they have Buddha-nature, so equality is equality. Also, there may be cases where humans, other living things, or materials are lowered below humans because something is detested or impurity is shunned. I don't know well if this comes from Shinto, Animism, or some other way of thinking, as it is not from Confucianism which does not speak of supernatural beings, nor from Buddhism which is originally egalitarian and denies caste. However, recently, with the pet boom, whales and dolphins, naturalists, and vegans appearing globally, even the Western cultural sphere might be starting to hold a perspective of equality between humans and other living things, even if God and inanimate objects are distinguished. Japan, conversely, might be approaching the Western cultural sphere by losing or weakening such things. The point to note is that the conventional view is that Western equality is equality "only within humans." 6. Racial Discrimination? I think many Japanese people in the past were not used to foreigners. Whether white or black, Japanese people were very nervous when approaching such people. While there seems to have been a complex towards white people, black people who come to Japan seem dignified and not servile, so I don't think there were discriminatory feelings toward black people. If there were, there might have been moments when a code of black discrimination arose among people who accepted information from abroad that black people were discriminated against, but I don't think it was constant, rather momentary. Rather, when seeing a black person, wouldn't there be only a feeling of wanting to stare out of curiosity but conflicting with the thought that it is rude? Or perhaps a feeling of emotions freezing with tension, thinking, "What if they speak to me in English?" This is not discrimination but the sensation of villagers when a stranger comes to a rural village. Conversely, living in the city center now, it is full of foreigners, so one thinks nothing of passing foreigners. Sometimes one might glance and think "a foreigner," or if caught by some feature, wonder "where are they from," but that's about it. One would think similar things about Japanese people passing on the street. To begin with, recently there seem to be many mixed-race people, and there are masses of people from countries where skin color and facial features cannot be divided simply into the typical black and white people of old Japanese perception, so one doesn't even know what race is. Before that, "race" is a word that, when reconsidered, is not well understood. In Latin cultures where mixing is prevalent, seeing a Brazilian, many people wouldn't be able to easily categorize them as black, white, or yellow. Also, long ago, foreigners coming to Japan or countries Japanese went to were mainly Western Europe or the USA, and in those regions, mixing was less common and the distinction between white and black was relatively easy to understand. As interaction with other regions of the world broadens, we come into contact with many people difficult to categorize, like those with white features but black skin, or black features but white skin. 7. Religious Discrimination? Since Japanese are atheists, there seems to be a mentality where believers of revealed religions look down on Japanese because they are irreligious. However, from the Japanese perspective, aren't there many cases where they view people bound by religious rules as unfree, troublesome, or pitiful? Japanese people likely view people who cannot eat pork, beef, or seafood due to dietary commandments with a sense of pity. Also, seeing religions that require prayer or rituals at fixed days or times, aren't there many Japanese who think it looks troublesome or cramping and wouldn't want to be like that? It is a structure where believers of certain religions look down on Japanese, and Japanese pity believers of certain religions. The world is becoming more refined, so I think fewer people globally express such things to the other person, but strangely enough, it can be said that both sides hold "discriminatory feelings" like "looking down" or "pity." Legally, modern law says "inner thoughts are not punished," so whether it is discrimination or hostility toward the other, it is no problem if not acted upon. But while law is important, the world is not just law, so it feels complicated. 8. Is being discriminated against OK, or even happy? In the Book of Job in the Bible, God makes Job, who is a good person even biblically, suffer terribly. Then, I don't know if Job met God, but there is a scene where they can talk. When Job protests to God, he is told something like, "Because you are a creation, a clod of earth I made," and it settles with Job reflecting on his protest. In a way, for a believer serving a certain God or a person belonging to a certain religious order, being discriminated against by a superior might be a good thing in some cases. Also, biblically or dogmatically, it might be a good thing to discriminate against heretics, non-believers, or the snake that deceived humans. It seems likely that for a long time in human history, religions and social systems were made with something like a status system. For example, in Confucianism, there is the idea of the Five Relationships (Wu Lun). Father and son, ruler and subject, husband and wife, elder and younger, friend and friend. There is a class system. There is seniority by length of service, and seniority is powerful in sports clubs and government offices. Slavery is viewed as absolute evil like discrimination, but realistically, slaves are assets in accounting books, and aren't there few people who don't treat assets carefully? (Regarding slavery, there are discussions pointing out the aspect of being "protected as assets" as well as the aspect of being "treated like livestock.") If slavery exists like air, people just carry on their daily and social lives within it matter-of-factly. In places where such a sense of unity, community, or means arises, hate may arise, but "like" may also arise. There is a view that saying slaves were treated carefully in Ancient Greek slavery, dynasties created by slaves in the Islamic world, or even in the American South, represented reality more appropriately. (What I want to say here is not that "slavery had good points," but that "no system can be discussed as 'absolute evil/absolute good' when viewed from multiple facets.") 9. Money, Other Values, and Discrimination Some people raise inequality and poverty issues in terms of social equality. Such people may be unconsciously dyed in what is called mammonism or money worship. Note that pragmatism and utilitarianism are sometimes used as paraphrases for money worship. "The rich discriminate against the poor": This holds true when the side discriminating, the side being discriminated against, and the surrounding society have a strong consciousness of measuring value by money. In extreme cases, human value might be measured only by money. This seems to be an evil that strengthened with the times in Japan, but recently it seems to have settled down, or a reaction is coming. Comparing pre-war and post-war, pre-war was a world with more scales to measure the value of people and things by various things other than money. Even if poor, one could have pride in other things or be evaluated by people. Money is an easy-to-understand example, but it doesn't have to be money; other things are fine. For example, even in a class society, it is possible in a society with diverse values for a person of low status to have pride or gain respect from others for something other than status. Just excelling in one art is fine. Just living in that land for a long time is fine. Being tall or good-looking is fine. Succeeding a family business for generations is fine. In part of the Buraku issue, there are schemas like "Sanka" (nomadic mountain people) or "Sanjomin" (scattered people) where people who had hereditarily done work supporting shrines and temples fell and reversed into discriminated people. Fear, respect, and contempt can reverse for both gods and humans. Also, it seems that across East and West, certain people viewed as special, such as deformed children or the intellectually disabled, are given high status in culture or religion despite having functional impairments. In Kyoto, Kansai, and Western Japan, there is a layering of history or culture that one wouldn't understand living a normal life in Kanto, such as settlements of people with the lineage to carry the Emperor's coffin. I don't know what the opposite of discrimination is, but respect and awe can exist simultaneously. There is a realist way of handling discrimination by cutting out only discrimination and constructing it as an entity, a reality, and something just and correct. But in cases where one must look at multi-layered, historically and culturally thick and complex aspects, realism is not suitable, and modern philosophical views like Structuralism or Post-structuralism might be better. 10. Gender Discrimination? Topics of gender, sex, feminism, and LGBTQ+ have a long history, including the feminism and gender equality issues besides the LGBTQ+ boom during the PC era. A slight problem in discussions around here is the lack of consistency and being conclusion-oriented. If it were true radical liberalism, removing sex differences and having toilets, baths, and sports all in the same arena would be one extreme argument, and because it is an extreme argument, it makes sense. I myself had a time when I was a radical liberalist, but the more one pursues liberalism, the more one needs some guideline for living or something to rely on. It is the same as Sartre being a communist activist as a secular activity while advocating extreme freedom. Metaphysical freedom does not become a guideline for daily life. In my case, I thought to use conservatism, traditionalism, natural love for hometown, or patriotism as a guideline, but it doesn't necessarily mean I love modern Japan and Japanese people immensely; while there are parts of historical Japan and Japanese people I like, I don't like everything. But carrying on daily life on top of the accumulation of the past that exists in reality, and occasionally enjoying special non-daily events like festivals—isn't that about the normal sensation? From my eyes as a former radical liberalist, I think we should just liberate everything, not just separate surnames for married couples, but abolishing names and surnames altogether. Actually, it works out somehow. For example, in East Asia, China and Japan are slightly exceptional regions in the world that kept family registers firmly, but in the same Confucian sphere, Korea should have recorded only the names of Yangban men in public registers. Women had no public names. People of status below Yangban also had no public names, but there seemed to be ways to obtain them, such as buying them with goods or copper coins. Communism had momentum around 1970, but since then it has lost momentum rapidly. Before that, there was consistency and coherence like the abolition of the Emperor system or violent revolution, and I recall that the basic platform had not changed until around 2000. After Kenji Miyamoto passed away, they might have changed it secretly or the basic platform might still be unchanged, but they stopped showing it externally. This is similar to Komeito, which had no major movements like leaving the LDP until Daisaku Ikeda passed away, and similar to the Soviet Union where criticism of Stalin did not appear until Stalin died. Regarding the sexual diversity of LGBTQ+, it feels like the only options are to unify it or pursue infinite diversity. Since diversifying and subdividing toilets and sports tournaments into massive quantities seems difficult in reality, unification feels better than eclecticism. In front of LGBTQ+, feminism, which only has a binary classification of men and women, has been put in a halfway position. Philosophically, if we just discuss LGBTQ+, we should integrate feminism there and name a new academic discipline that integrates such things. Naturally, Men's Studies should be included in that, and recently there are problems like reverse discrimination or affirmative action. Since it relates not only to philosophical discussions but also to declining birthrates, economics, the global environment, and population issues, why not create a large academic field like Anthropology (Future Edition) or "Genderology" (in a broader sense than Gender Studies)? In modern times, regarding men and women alone, we only possess a haphazard sense of discrimination where we feel there is a point to both claims: "not separating male and female toilets is discrimination" and "separating male and female toilets is discrimination." There are cases where everyone and everything is discrimination, becoming a struggle for dominance via discrimination. Even in places like the National Diet, an atmosphere continued for a long time where one couldn't argue back or dampen the mood if told "discrimination," so it became incomprehensible. Conversely, discrimination fatigue and obsolescence occurred, and recently, the concept of "Hate" was invented and implemented in laws in some regions to maintain justification for things that are hard to call discrimination. Also, the genealogy of left-wing opposition parties in the Diet—the Socialist Party -> Social Democratic Party -> Democratic Party, which are effectively the same thing with changed names post-war—has adopted the tactic of only criticizing without counter-proposals in Diet debates. This is sometimes because there is purely no counter-proposal, and sometimes because they cannot present it even if they have one. Then, no matter how the ruling party answers the opposition's questions, they continue to repeat criticisms against any reply. The ideal answer for the left-wing opposition is for the ruling party to voluntarily make statements that are comfortable and fit the left-wing way of thinking. However, the ruling party needs realism and will not irresponsibly voice idealistic goals that have never been realized in the past without realistic backing or methods, without consideration for existing traditions and conservative entities. Therefore, it inevitably takes an emotional, childish, hysterical, or neurotic form of eternally criticizing and not showing concrete methodology but wanting the opponent to give the answer they desire. However, if they chant a few ideals without showing the means, there are several magic-like things that the opponent cannot argue against, and one of them is "discrimination." "Equality" is more difficult to use simply than "discrimination" because everyone knows its somewhat complex aspects like equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality under the law, economic equality, or equality of social status, class, and stratum. 11. Equality is the Ultimate Theme of Modernity I will write in advance that I will touch on the theme of violence a little, but I am not using it in a good or bad sense here. There are claims that violence is absolute evil or terrorism is absolute evil, but violence in a broad sense is a component of history in the form of wars, civil wars, and disturbances from demonstrations and strikes. To begin with, the state or social governance controls national defense and public order, and the ultimate means for that is, simply put, violence. There are countries and societies, past and present, where things like assassination are institutionalized. If saying violence is bad, call it physical coercive force. Revolutions and the like occur when changing society, and violence is often seen in such cases. Speaking of thought, it is Socialism, Communism, or Marxism. Since the end of the Cold War, for some reason, people advocating such things have disappeared in the Western liberal world, but just because the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe failed, it is their failure, and we don't have to discard those ideals yet. That said, what the Left (originating from people with what we now call socialist ideals in the French Revolution) aims for is Human Equality. To achieve that, there are revolutions and methods through parliament, and revolutions accompany violence (well, there are bloodless revolutions too). Lenin theorized and practiced revolution by violence, so this line is called Marxism-Leninism. Achieving equality slowly through parliament is Social Democracy. The term Socialist Party has various interpretations, such as referring to Social Democracy or referring to a halfway state in the transition process to Communism. Marxism-Leninism has been relatively successful, but I don't know if his method was intentional or consequential, but it utilized war. The Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the establishment of North Korea—all are so, but they were sets of triggering a revolution using war and overthrowing the existing government. In that sense, the establishment of the People's Republic of China (so-called China) by the Soviet Union is the greatest success example. Equality is fine, but it seems even Marx didn't have a clear vision of what an equal society is. Marx cites Primitive Communism using the primitive age as an example, but that would be difficult in an age where civilization has developed. After the French Revolution, even speaking of an equal society, the dichotomy of the Elite who execute the revolution and guide the people, and the Masses who are guided, became the normal view. There seems to be discrimination or distinction between the elite and the guided masses, but whether that is filled by Noblesse Oblige or something, or because they were absorbed in the revolution and neglected to think concretely about the equal society after the revolution, it seems it was difficult to come up with something everyone could agree on. Looking at the history of the 20th century, there were activities that seemed like they might really realize equality without discrimination, such as the Cultural Revolution or the Pol Pot massacre. In a sense, this makes sense; it is a direction of eliminating the so-called elite and leaving only the masses, turning society into primitive communism, which is a method that invites regression, but it is logical. Another is a society in the near future in science fiction where computers manage humans. This might be realized in the future if things go well. In such history, the problem of discrimination was a trivial supporting role. If society is changed by revolution, equality is realized and discrimination disappears, so discrimination is a secondary problem. Investing in revolution—or rather, true communists should allocate resources to the realization of revolution, and getting involved in the secondary problem of discrimination, which would be resolved once the revolution happens, was not the mainstream. The flow changed around 1970. One theory says it was triggered by the New Left being forced into self-criticism by Overseas Chinese activists and accepting it. Or perhaps because violent revolutionism became unrealistic, the power of forces placing the direction of "discrimination" as the main focus increased when New Left people were finding a new direction for activities in the void (anomie) where they lost their way. Thus, in Western countries, discrimination has become the mainstream of social activities for the last 50 years, while violent revolutionism has died down. The Communist Party probably hasn't denied violent revolution, and it might remain undenied in the form of a platform, but they won't show it externally. At least while Kenji Miyamoto was alive, the activity policy should not have changed. Thanks to putting effort into the "discrimination" problem, which had been slighted as not a revolutionary problem until the 1970s, discrimination problems in Japan have improved significantly, or rather, there might be levels where some have disappeared compared to the past. Also, society has changed. To begin with, various things changed, such as depopulation of regions, outflow of young people to cities, and international movements (Western social thought, Zainichi Koreans, and the improvement of Korea's status as a country). Zainichi Koreans were assimilating so much around 1990 that they were criticized by Koreans saying "Zainichi compatriots in Japan have lost their roots and identity the most in the world," but after the end of the Cold War, the situation changed again and there was a messy period. The Dowa issue might still exist, but in urban areas like Asakusa, various forces of modernity worked in the direction of deconstructing it, and since it didn't stand out even during the PC boom a while ago, de-discrimination must be progressing globally. The word "discrimination" might have been replaced recently by "disparity," "hate," or "impoverishment," but these do not have the repulsive nuance linked to impurity that discrimination had. Conversely, things that deconstruct discrimination like "meritocracy," "lack of effort," "self-responsibility," "performance-based system," and others that create new differences, distinctions, and hierarchies are created and circulated in society, but they are handled carefully so as not to be linked to "discrimination." Also, the level of civility, education, and information diffusion has increased. And "discrimination disappearing with time," which denial forces among the concerned parties used to have quite a bit of power against, is becoming reality as decades pass and eras, generations, and ages change. Discrimination rooted in tradition is rapidly deconstructed along with various old things due to social progress and change. Well, there might be things that are reconsidered or strengthened with time. Looking back at the past after a long time, it seems there was an effective aspect to things like the Buraku issue being quieted and becoming unsuited to the times or forgotten, rather than being taught in schools and repeatedly reinforced. Such problems might also be better divided into super-short, short, medium, long, and super-long term, like economics or other problems. (To begin with, Japanese people cannot distinguish whether a foreigner is Jewish.) 12. The Logic of Power The Nietzschean Will to Power stance is that even if discriminated against, it is fine if one has confidence, independence, autonomy, or is positive. If one has the mentality of the strong, like "Though millions may oppose me, I shall go," it doesn't matter what others say. To begin with, there are many people who proceed on their own path without caring about others or the outside. If there are many things to do daily, superfluous things do not come to mind. If one received discriminatory harm, one just has to fight. 13. Tolerating Everything for Freedom From an extremely free-market standpoint, discrimination and hate can be free. However, it is problematic if the opponent does not fight back when that is done. Fight back, argue, and even if it becomes a violent quarrel sometimes, freedom is guaranteed. But to prevent social bugs with that, correction or improvement in terms of suppressing discrimination won't happen unless the side receiving discrimination or hate argues back, fights back, or counterattacks. This is fine for people who don't care about being discriminated against to leave it alone as it's less troublesome, but even if it's troublesome, it is better for society if they fight back against discrimination. I can't go so far as to say it's good for oneself in a roundabout way, but hitting back if discriminated against for the public good, or hitting discrimination if found, is a better way to protect freedom without relying on someone, institutions, or governing bodies, but by improving the world freely and autonomously ourselves so as not to strengthen the regulations of governing bodies, laws, and institutions. It might also be the Tit-for-Tat strategy in Game Theory. Equality is human rights, and human rights originally have in mind "Aristocratic Humans," "Humans with independence, autonomy, awareness, and resolve." A human who can "think, judge, decide, act, and take responsibility for the consequences by themselves" is the modern ego. If everyone is such a human, instead of the dichotomy of elite and masses since the Enlightenment or French Revolution, or the separation of Party members and others, there is a possibility of hoping for a horizontally equal relationship where individuals gather and, like direct democracy, each stands independently—fighting when fighting, getting along when getting along. That becomes the difference between authoritarian countries and countries upholding democracy and liberalism. 14. There is Also Happy Discrimination A class society might be a discriminatory society, but I think there were always people living happily even outside the top layer in such societies. Discrimination can also be happiness. A samurai serving a lord is a happy relationship. There must have been people serving passively, but there must have been samurai serving the lord proactively. I think this can be said for societies with hierarchies in general. Also, for example, hierarchies change. In Confucian society, sports club society, or pre-modern village society, older people take care of younger ones, and in return, younger ones must do various things for older ones. That is happy in its own way, and with time, positions rise, or one retires and lowers, or is treated preferentially because they are small like a baby. In a competitive society, there are highs and lows. But many people like competition. In gambling, winning and losing occur. But even if there is a possibility of losing, many people like gambling and gamble. If there is a relationship of obligation and service (Goon and Hoko) in Japanese feudalism, the hierarchy of status is just a role. One might be acted upon arrogantly, but still, aren't there many people who prefer the carefree stance of commoners rather than fulfilling the duties of a ruler? Also, one might harbor feelings of being discriminated against toward arrogant people, but due to various factors, some might harbor respect or awe and like it. Dogs, cats, and certain pets have a nature of creating a hierarchy with their owners. Aren't there owners who feel happy even if looked down upon by their pets? Being a man is tough, so depending on the father, there are many who live while receiving inhumane treatment from their daughters. I am one of them. I am not particularly a masochist, but even if my child dislikes me, I like my child. I feel I am being discriminated against, but I don't care if I am discriminated against. Rather, being cheeky and strong-willed enough to look down on even parents makes me think there is a possibility they will live sturdily and shrewdly, becoming independent and self-supporting, so perhaps there are good aspects? As described, humans are incomprehensible and have chaotic parts (though some logic might be attached). In a world not made only of such logic, fixing discrimination alone as absolute evil (not limited to discrimination, humans can freely feel and think about objects like God or the Communist Party) can be done if one tries, but there are countless ways not to do it if one doesn't think of the branches and leaves. 15. Living Shrewdly Utilizing Discrimination In Japan, this area connects to Dowa issues and Buraku discrimination, but this is also not simple. In Wakayama etc., there are many designated Buraku districts, but I heard there were examples where they took it because "it was more profitable to be designated so." Wakayama is the birthplace of Kenji Nakagami, feels like the setting of Kamui Den, is the origin of Suiheisha and The River with No Bridge, or is south of Nara Prefecture with the sanitation bureau scandal, so it is a region with complex and unique history. There is also the phrase "ingim-burei" (feigned politeness). Smart bureaucrats might defer to stupid politicians, but inwardly they might be discriminating or looking down on them. There are cases where they balance by discriminating against each other in different parts. Also, there is a method of taking the profit or fruit obtained instead of discrimination. It was the Annales school-like historian Yoshihiko Amino who relativized the reality of the status system of farmers and Shi-No-Ko-Sho (Samurai-Farmer-Artisan-Merchant). In Fukuoka Prefecture, Fukuoka ward is a samurai town and Hakata is a merchant town. It is said that in the past, it was commonly seen that wealthy merchants tried to marry their daughters into poor samurai families. To begin with, the system itself has suspicious parts, but there are many cases where the public status system and the actual hierarchy are different. In Joseon Korea, the status system was clear here, and the principle was that only Yangban men had official surnames and names. However, it is said that poor Yangban would sell surnames and names to wealthy people of lower status. Similar things happened in Japan, and Kaishu Katsu's grandfather is an example. To begin with, even if someone calling themselves a samurai of unknown origin suddenly starts acting arrogantly claiming higher public status, highly civilized commoners living in Kyoto for a long time would just laugh at them. It is the same as modern society where the top of the Communist Party, which transcends the state and is above the state, is laughed at, sometimes mocked, and looked down upon by the world on the internet. The top of that Communist Party won't cry to someone that they were discriminated against. Commoners or masses like the "Kyo-Tsubame" (cynical observers) on the net would not care at all even if discriminated against as foolish people by the top of the Communist Party. Rather, wouldn't they mock and look down back? If one understands humor brightly and has wit, it can even be said to be a humorous and heartwarming scene. 16. To Begin With, Neighboring Countries Are... Germany and France get along badly. I think this is generally said. I don't think any country neighboring Russia likes Russia. Japan is the same. Of course, neighboring countries have more complex things, so it might not be easy to say. There might be parts they like because they are neighbors. This can also be said for Japan, China, and Korea. Probably they don't like each other. On the other hand, there are parts they like, so it is probably complicated. But if that is a normal neighbor relationship, it might be a normal neighbor relationship. I think there are various definitions of "normal." Japan was a bit special in that in the Showa era, there was an atmosphere and actual behavior that one must not dislike China or Korea. Why it became so might have various reasons; maybe there was a sense of inferiority that Japanese held discriminatory feelings toward Chinese and Koreans, or perhaps, although it seems impossible for that Middle Kingdom, a "meshing" relationship where discrimination holds true was established where Chinese and Koreans were also hurt by discrimination. Probably China is a country like the center of the world, so they discriminate against other countries or don't care if discriminated against, or perhaps there were parts where they couldn't conceive of being discriminated against. However, for Korea/Joseon, a typical discrimination structure might have been established with Japan and Japanese people. I think this probably disappeared somewhere in the Heisei era. I think it dragged on a bit due to various things. Maybe politics and social movements stirring up victim mentality were created within various international dynamics. But now, perhaps we have become equal as a normal neighbor relationship where we dislike each other as relatively normal neighbors. However, China has been a major power in the world since ancient times, so their mentality might be different from us small and medium countries, so I don't know well. 17. If "Hate," "Inequality," and "Poverty" are Discrimination, Anything Goes Anyway, Japan was peaceful. Post-war was also peaceful for a long time. The Edo period was also peaceful. Because of the seclusion in the Edo period, there might be aspects where Japan was left behind by the West, forced to catch up, and the country perished due to overexertion, but maybe there were good aspects too. Perhaps what is called the software power of the current Japan boom was nurtured in the Edo period. The Lost 30 Years are also over. There were many bad aspects. However, amidst the raging storms of Neoliberalism, Globalism, immigration, and Political Correctness, maybe there were aspects where Japan relatively didn't receive their bad sides. It is said that war develops civilization and technology, but peaceful eras have things that can be developed precisely because it is peaceful. If we assume things easy to develop in warlike situations are "hard" things, things easy to cultivate in peace might be called "soft" things. 18. Discrimination is Old, Uncool, and Out of Date There is a possibility that the current youth have weakened or lack a certain kind of discrimination code. Seeing activists or events demonstrating or making news saying "It's discrimination," today's youth might be put off, feel cold, and find it annoying or troublesome. Discrimination, discriminator, discriminated against—there are various things, but there is a possibility they don't want to get involved with the whole thing. To begin with, it's not trendy. Or, growing up in a rich and mature society, emotions of envy, jealousy, jealousy, and stinginess might be thin or their scope of application narrow. Setting aside the generations who experienced war or civil strife in times of poverty and domestic/diplomatic instability, currently, while certain abuses still exist, there are many people growing up without lack of goods, entertainment, or digital devices from a young age, blessed culturally and educationally, and raised carefully among refined and highly civilized people in a world much more peaceful and richer than before. I remember reading "Kamui Den" avidly when my elementary school teacher passed it around, but if you tell today's children or youth to read "Kamui Den," "The River with No Bridge," or slightly off-topic, "Dostoevsky's novels," they might find it dark, sticky, or recalling human muddiness that is not pleasant to emotions, and might not want to read it. Speaking personally, looking at "Barefoot Gen" in the library or the acts of Dio in the early part of "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure," which is popular worldwide now, I became scared or felt unpleasant and stopped reading. Even though I was buying Jump. Maybe I read it again after seeing Joestar didn't go blind, but I think those things are scary for children and might cause a kind of physiological aversion. I read JoJo all at once after a long time, but with manga, there are those you want to see immediately on the release day in weekly magazines, and those where goodness, badness, discovery, and realization are hard to obtain unless you read them all at once in comics later. To begin with, whether it is discrimination itself or social activities related to it, not only ordinary children but also general citizens and those who do not share that code, or people raised in a rich society who are refined or blessed, might feel that getting involved itself is bothersome. In the past, there was an era with a left-wing activist atmosphere where such an attitude was bad, one must get involved in problems, and if one didn't get involved like "you are part of your society, community, and humanity," one would be forced into self-criticism. But it was an era where many people were turned off by that long ago, and even then, although there were people who somehow couldn't resist because discourses to counter it were not well constructed, it is thought that many people didn't want to get involved. In educational institutions, brainwashing education teaching Dowa education or war responsibility issues in moral class might have been possible in the post-war educational space of the Showa-era Japan Teachers Union, but now I think the framework supporting such things itself is disappearing. This applies to teachers teaching in the field, and even officials of the Board of Education. Or rather, labor unions and professional unions used to be dens of leftists, and even now within Rengo (Japanese Trade Union Confederation), public sector unions have such aspects, but there are Democratic Socialist Party-affiliated labor unions unrelated to that. Depending on the union, they are literally, not metaphorically, activity bases for extreme leftists like Chukaku-ha or Kakumaru-ha. And those Chukaku-ha and Kakumaru-ha themselves are aging, young people are not joining, and they continue to shrink in scale. They might be being shunned. 19. End Theory To begin with, modern philosophy can be said to be a philosophy to end something. And it ended itself too. Western philosophy is a finished discipline. "End" in this case means being able to be liberated from the context of realism. In what sense is it finished? With parts like relativism and metacognition in structuralism and post-structuralism, basic research in Western philosophy is complete, and new basic research has stopped. It might be fine to do applications or history of philosophy afterwards, but the foundation is finished. Application means engineering, technology, or practice, which falls into the category of ethics and morals, especially morals. History of philosophy deepens culture if known and is useful for various things including understanding and applying modern philosophy, and is interesting in itself, but for modern philosophy, it is a part that doesn't necessarily have to exist (I might get scolded for saying this). Similarly, Nietzsche ended God. The famous "God is dead." Modernity has also been ended. Lyotard's theory on modern metanarratives. Humans, history, mental illness, and discrimination issues like sex have also ended. Foucault's archaeology and genealogy (not that they disappeared in reality). Real society has also ended. Baudrillard's simulation and simulacra theory. Logocentrism and metaphysics in general have also ended. Derrida's theories like semiology. I don't know if Communism has ended, but Althusser has already relativized it. Similarly, "Liberty," "Equality," "Fraternity," "Patriotism," and "Discrimination" can be structuralized, relativized, and metacognized. Then it is the end. There are various modern thinkers who analyzed feminism and discrimination, but I haven't studied modern thought much, so I don't know in detail. The end means the end of the way of being as conventional realism. It doesn't mean they disappear (though discourses can be made to eliminate them), nor is there a need to eliminate them. However, if they claim themselves to be absolute or justice, it feels a bit out of touch with the times. What is important for that might be a free information space like the internet. Mass riots of Brutus's trial when Julius Caesar was killed, biased enthusiasm of the masses like in the trial of The Brothers Karamazov, mania like the Tokyo Trials and Class B/C war criminal trials held elsewhere in Asia, and paranoid, non-Logos things like mass trials dominated by conclusion-oriented thinking—if we don't prevent these from making people, groups, and in the future, various living things, the environment, and the earth itself unhappy, the future will be terrible. Probably, PC-like discrimination discussions will continue globally for a while. Disparity and poverty issues have spread, and discrimination as a system existed in the US until 1960, and even now there is reverse discrimination like affirmative action; in South Africa, Apartheid policy continued until around 2000; there is the caste system; and there are memories of people who lived while discrimination was embedded in society, and the current situation exists. However, history seems to have a flow towards improvement with time or people's efforts. When such things swell up, if people become strangely obsessed and enthusiastic, it allows strange things like Christian witch trials or ethnic cleansing policies against Tibet and Uyghurs in communist states. If I write as I think, I could write endlessly and it would become like Barthes' text theory or Foucault's philological rambling, so I will omit the rest. Summary In the above, both 1. Trade-off and 2. Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp are working extensively. In one context, it looks like unjust discrimination; in another context, it is mere distinction, or mutual looking-down/pity are intertwined. I think the situation where "the word 'discrimination' as absolute evil" oversimplifies the situation is somewhat conveyed. I tried practicing modern philosophy concretely using "discrimination" and "equality"; how was it? Since the concrete examples became redundant, let's look back briefly below. Practice 1: Trade-off Method (Looking at the flip side of good) To the proposition "Equality is good," list the "bad things (costs)" that the "good thing" inevitably produces. Rather than denying, point out the "side effects." Flip side of "Equality of Outcome": If the result is the same for everyone, no one will make an effort (bad equality). A society where hard work is not rewarded kills vitality and innovation. To forcibly align results, violence pulling down outstanding individuals (like Procrustes' bed) becomes necessary. Flip side of "Equality of Opportunity": Even if the starting line is aligned, inequalities in talent and luck cannot be corrected. To make opportunities completely equal, the only option is for the state to separate children from parents and manage them to eliminate the influence of "Parent Gacha" (family environment) (World of Plato's "Republic" or dystopia novels). Flip side of "Total Abolition of Discrimination": If the boundary between "distinction" and "discrimination" is made too strict, every communication becomes a risk of "harassment," and no one will open their mouth (Silent Society). If the subjectivity of "I was hurt" is absolutized, even objective facts and truths cannot be stated because they are "discriminatory" (Death of Academia). Practice 2: Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp Method (Looking broadly) Look not only from one viewpoint (angle) of "Equality = Justice" but also from other angles. Then, you understand that equality is just one "ideology (biased view)." Angle of Biology: There is no equality in the natural world. Individual differences (variation) are the source of evolution and diversity itself. A completely equal species would be annihilated by environmental changes. Angle of Physics (Entropy): "Thermal equality (equilibrium state)" is a state of "death" where energy transfer has stopped. Vital activity is continuing to create imbalance (disparity). Angle of Aesthetics/Culture: Japanese "Wabi-Sabi" and "Iki" (chic) find beauty in imperfection and asymmetry (inequality). Too much equality is boring and unrefined. Angle of Buddhism: There is a state of enlightenment called "Wisdom of Equality" (Byodo-sho-chi), but it is not about "making everyone's salary the same," but a higher-dimensional perspective of "knowing that in essence it is empty (Ku) while recognizing differences as phenomena (discriminating aspects)." "Is selection based on ability (entrance exams for top universities, pro sports) discrimination?" "Where do jokes/expressions regarding gender become discrimination, and up to where are they culture?" Entrance exams, comedians' jokes, gender expressions, etc. By presenting examples that cannot be divided into "Yes/No" and using the same two techniques here: (1. Trade-off, 2. Multi-Oppositional Object Grasp) One can become quite free from the simple binary choice of "This is absolute evil discrimination / This is not discrimination." Conclusion: What Remains After Deconstruction Deconstructing in this way, "Equality" is no longer an absolute God but becomes "a tool that can be poison if used incorrectly." "Discrimination" also becomes not absolute evil but an object that can be calmly observed as "a side effect of human cognitive function (distinction)" or "social frictional heat." The purpose of Modern Philosophical Engineering is not to deny equality. It is to drag equality down from the seat of "God" and return it to the seat of "a tool that humans should master." By doing so, we can live more freely with more "heart" without being frightened by Political Correctness.