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

Three Waves of Attention

Where there is life, there is attention. Where there is attention, there is life. AURELIS integrates rationality and poetry in a specific view of human being. It brings together body and mind, East and West, past, present and future. Most of all, it unifies conscious thinking and the subconscious mind as understood in modern cognitive Read the full article…

The Culminating Point

… The top and then some …. A little story from, you-probably-know-where, is about a 30 m high pile. You scramble up this pile. And then? Then you are on top of this pile. And then? Then you take a ‘step’ forward … but you’d rather not if you don’t know deeply within yourself what Read the full article…

Life’s Main Job: Expansion within Constraint

Life expands endlessly, yet only flourishes while constrained into form. The circle symbolizes pure expansion. The ‘supercircle’ bends this into life’s many shapes. From cells to cultures, from psyche to Compassion, the same principle holds: expansion within constraint. Expansion alone (pure openness) leads to chaos, constraint alone to rigidity. Between the two lies the fertile Read the full article…

Translate »