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 Awakening (to Reality)
Especially the reality of oneself. This is largely unachievable with all too exclusively conceptual thinking. Reality is conceptual AND subconceptual, not just one or the other. An overly conceptual take leads to a toy world in perception and construction, of which present-day conceptual humanism is an unfortunate example with many dire consequences in medicine and Read the full article…
We Need to Be the Best We Can
This differs from being ‘the best person’ or ‘the most intelligent beings on Earth’ in competition with others. Our only – and fierce – competition should be with ourselves. The best, in good Aurelian tradition, is most Compassionately the best — striving for in-depth excellence. This striving is purposeful. It’s about standing at one’s limits Read the full article…
The Hallmark of Progress: Bridging Worlds
For at least two centuries, progress has been defined mainly by conceptual mastery — reason, science, and logic. While these achievements have brought immense material benefits, they often come at the cost of deeper human needs: connection, meaning, and emotional balance. Today, we face a new challenge: how to integrate the conceptual and subconceptual, bridging Read the full article…