in other word, in order to solve a contradiction, we need something new, somewhat a bigger picture.
for example, a common question on " if egg first, or chicken first. " we knew, that , there can not be both first by definition. and there "must" be something happen first, by instinct. after many years of biology advancement, now, scientist knew that, in some sense, egg (a general egg) comes first, while in other sense, chicken (a general animal ) comes first. This is based on genetic study and evolution.
another example may be "when observation is not fit theory". it seems that there is no contradiction at all, eventually, the observation is the truth, while theory is just a description. However, when a theory was confirmed by many many observations while suddenly a new experiment violate the theory, then it is a big deal. as the recent "hyper-speed neutrino".
in order to solve a contradiction or a conflict in general, the easiest way is choose a side. that means, against another. a trivial example is "believer of Bible" and "Believer of Koran". or " free-market and small government" vs "regulated market and big-government".
but there is a third choice, or even fourth.
 |
| the bipolar and beyond |
the third one is comparatively easy. this is nothing new but "depend on given conditions". i think HK A-Level students are well trained on this option. say, "should or should not take drug/ medicine for exam? " then, students are typically say, it depends. if you are sick, then it is ok, since it help to to perform as you are. etc, bra, bra bra... this option is simple cut the question in small piece, and see how each piece fit the principle. or how each piece fit in each principle. it is somewhat a considerate option, which take care of each different situation, but it is kind of flexible that there seem to be no principle.
the 4th choice is, having a bigger picture, that cover and see what make the conflict or contradiction happen? this is hard. not everyone can have. it require penetration of the problem. this is what i called "beyond bipolar". say, "believer" and "not-believer". and there is "non-believer". i think i had talked the difference between these 3 .
one last thing i like to mention is, the John Rawls's theory and Milton Friedman's theory on economy. or simple communism and capitalism. but the later two is too broad, so broaden that beyond my ability. Rawls said, since everything we have is basically, not by ourselves, our wealth, our ability, our handsomeness, etc... so, we should not value people on their ability, but share the wealth. while Friedman given an example, that, in an imaginary world, John can make 2 cakes an hour and Sam can only make 1 cake, in what reason, John have to share a cake with Sam? by humanity? in my extension, if an alien comes to earth, shall we share our resources with them? if some stranger come to my home, shall i share my food to him? why? in an extreme case, since your prefect body is not by yourself, why don't you share and have sex with everyone?
personally, i am ok with "share a cake with sam, since you 2 are friends or John feel pity that Sam always hungry", but not "we have to set up a law, to force John to share with Sam." that is i am strongly against, that is absolutely cross the line, the line of freedom.
however, Fridmann's theory of freedom can possibly general a cruel world that the rich has no sympathy toward the poor. that is also i don't like, nevertheless, we are human, not animal.
so, is there a way out? to beyond these 2 theories? may be, that is what happening in this real world.
that, rich can have no sympathy, but the government should, and the matter is, how far this sympathy should stop. where is the line? and how the line move when the society change?
say, the MPF, the Mandatory Provident Fund, in HK. it try to ensure old people welfare. but i think that, this is an example of good intention, suck method. why and how suck it is? i think i already mentioned somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment