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.