X or Not X, Versus: X or Y
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?
Related Posts
The Fate of Humankind
Humanity stands at a decisive threshold. Technological power expands faster than our wisdom, and inner shallowness may even become an existential threat. This blog examines the global cost in resources and human suffering of that ‘flatness madness,’ tracing fifteen ongoing crises arising from our loss of depth and underlying the above-mentioned threat. It also points Read the full article…
The Map is Not the Territory
We live in a world full of representations: ideas, explanations, diagnoses, beliefs, identities. They guide us, but they are never the thing itself. This well-known phrase, originally from Alfred Korzybski, turns out to be far more than a clever remark. Modern neurocognitive science, cultural insight, and the AURELIS philosophy all show how profoundly our inner Read the full article…
The Good Death
—The good death is the one that you do not avoid. That doesn’t mean you have to kill yourself. Rather the reverse. You do not not avoid death. But take that risk. Push that button. Take that responsibility. Take it as a living being, not some remnant of an organism that died already long ago. Read the full article…