X or Not X, Versus: X or Y

June 29, 2018 General Insights No Comments

This is a straightforward blog, although you may need to keep your attention focused on the logic.

For instance:

Freedom of speech: are you for or against it?

… (just enough time for your immediate answer.)

OK.

Until recently, I would hesitate a bit, then say yes.

Now let’s put ‘freedom of speech’ versus ‘the intention behind freedom of speech’.

If a blatant madman gets ‘freedom of speech’ on the Internet (as he does)

then the intention behind freedom of speech is clearly violated. So, what is more important: freedom of speech or the intention? From a humane standpoint, according to me it’s clearly the latter. Choosing for the madman’s freedom of speech, is also choosing for his – possibly disastrous – influence on many others. Among many other things, this eventually diminishes the freedom of speech of these others.

Are you for or against X? Some logic.

If X is clearly incompatible with Y, then you are, by being for X, also against Y.

The issue is, in such case:

Are you (for X) XOR (for Y)?

‘XOR’ = either this or that, not both at the same time.

As always, this logic is quite simple. IF you are for both, then at least one of the premises should be revised. You have to change your X or your Y, or both.

‘To X or not to X’, a big divider

“Are you for us or against us?” Put this way, it has quite a chance to divide people. Compare this to ‘for X’ or ‘for Y’. This admonishes the comparer to look more into what ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are, or stand for. There is more chance to get the comparer ‘for X’ and not altogether ‘against Y’, thus also a bit ‘for Y’. It can make him think a bit more ‘for Y’.

For example, I’m definitely ‘for freedom of speech’… but even more ‘for the intention behind it’. Without X/Y-ing the issue, ‘freedom of speech’ looks more sacred than after. So, after, I can manage ‘freedom of speech’ with more nuance.

‘X or not X’ precludes an overlap with Y, easing the road to show things as a zero-sum game: either X wins or X loses. ‘The other’ is only important in making X lose.

Still, I often encounter this confusion

Being ‘for or against something’ is frequently a fight where the issue should be reframed as to this blog. It’s a trap that is easily fallen into, but also easily gotten out of. It takes in many cases just a bit of patience, criticism and, well, logical thinking.

Yes or no?

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Growth to Happiness

Happiness can hardly be found at the end of happiness-road. It can be found at growth-road. Actually, it is that road. People who search for happiness – just like that – frequently end up being less happy. It’s a kind of nature’s revenge, maybe, especially when one and the other end up in a vicious Read the full article…

Meaningful Relaxation

Deep relaxation can be meaningful by itself ― not only as a means to further action or a necessary slowing-down of the mind/brain machine. This is not about crisp-concept-based meaningfulness but pattern-based meaningfulness ― the meaningfulness of “This means a lot to me.” Not straightforward We are used to looking for meaningfulness in action. This Read the full article…

Complex is not Complicated

These are very distinct concepts. The latter is mechanical; the former is organic. The latter is controllable from the outside; the former is only controllable from the inside. This text is a short introduction in what and why. ►►►WHY read this? Complexity is indispensable to understand human affairs and how to alleviate growing crises.◄◄◄ Complex? Read the full article…

Translate »