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

Simply Beautiful

Eventually, what is beautiful is simple. Also when this beauty is surrounded by complexity. Simplicity in beauty Beauty doesn’t necessarily mean ‘not much’. It always means ‘not too much’. At least, no superfluous complexity is standing in the way. So as much as possible, beauty can flow where it wants. According to me, beauty is Read the full article…

The Revenge of the Lullabies

Lullabies, both literal and metaphorical, offer comfort. They soothe, calm, and create a sense of safety. Yet, when misused, they lull people into complacency, suppressing their potential to grow and explore. In this sense, a lullaby’s revenge is profound: its refusal to remain silent when misused, awakening us abruptly to what we’ve been avoiding. This Read the full article…

Things Get Broken When Not Growing

We live in a world of failing systems, increasing conflict, and widespread suffering. Healthcare struggles to heal. Democracies feel fragile. Wars erupt when dialogue should take place. Anxiety and depression are at record highs. Everything seems to be breaking down at once. We often blame bad leaders, corrupt institutions, or external threats, but the real Read the full article…

Translate »