I do not deny in any way the ability of others to think rationally. In other words, in my opinion, the ability of human beings to think rationally is the most important sign that distinguishes humans from animals, but the key question is whether people have the ability to think rationally without the interference of other things.

Human personal emotions, the general public opinion environment of society, and even every word and action of other people all affect people's freedom and hinder a certain person from making the most correct choice for himself.

It is precisely because every individual is lost in his or her own judgment and choice for various reasons that all people in history have tried to find an "idealistic" path, or what we call the only correct path.

For example, in the search for political institutions, 25 years ago, after the confrontation between the two superpowers, which had been running for half of the actual world, a certain scholar excitedly shouted the conclusion that "the end of history" was concluded. The end of this confrontation is seen as a sign of the victory of some concrete political system.

Although all sorts of practical examples immediately pushed him into the abyss, and even he himself was forced to admit the arbitrariness of his own judgment at the time - I don't think we have the right to accuse him, or laugh at him, he wasn't brainwashing anyone else or had any purpose in saying this, he really thought so. As for why he thinks so, it is because he is an idealist, and he believes that after that confrontation is over, humanity has really found a bright "right" future.

There are always more realists in this world, they only see the cold and cruel reality, they only see some kind of world where the jungle is the strong. However, there is always no shortage of idealists in this world, because only idealists can build systems, realists disdain the system, believing that absolute strength can defeat the system, and idealists hope to use the system to restrain them, believing that the system can restrain violence.

So, is there really an ideal system? I don't think there is any -- but this does not mean that I am on the side of the realists, I deny the ideal system itself, but I do not deny the pursuit of an ideal system by human beings, or that it is precisely because of the pursuit of this ideal that human society develops.

And the pursuit of the ideal system itself is the ideal itself.

Of course, this macro idea, which rises to the perspective of all mankind, has nothing to do with me. What I need to pay more attention to is the current code of my conduct.

In essence, I am a person who pursues ideals, and I am unable to pursue an optimal solution to solve the general direction of human beings, but I pursue the optimal solution to each problem, and this optimal solution, I believe from beginning to end, should be made by each person, according to their own rational judgment, according to their own ideal thinking, and finally made.

Therefore, what I am seeking is a state of freedom for human beings in their pursuit of solving every problem, but if human beings cannot achieve this state of freedom, this idealistic conclusion will not be possible.

Well, all I have to do is help people who don't understand what they should do.

If, more seriously, it is up to me to bring to those people the idea of freedom – I have borrowed Rousseau's idea here: if people do not know what their freedom is, then it is up to me to force them to obtain their freedom!

Kazuya Hihihama - "High Interrupted Chapters—The Fourth Debate of Freedom"

-------------------------------PS---------------------------------

There are a few interesting points in this chapter, the protagonist does not believe that there is an ideal system, this view is the so-called rational skepticism, but his approach is the result of absolute rationalism (the connection and distinction between the two can be used by yourself, etc.), and I also admire me for forcibly grafting the two together - in short, in order to inherit the protagonist's previous thoughts and the next two transformations.

Then, Rousseau's exact words on the subject of freedom are that coerced freedom is not true freedom. However, especially in the history of Western political thought after the 20th century, Russell, Hayek, and Isaiah Berlin, to whom I refer to this book, have pointed out that Rousseau's practical views will lead to the emergence of totalitarianism, and this actual result is a deviation from what he said, well, in fact, it is very similar to the protagonist.

Of course, this chapter is actually, try to write another chapter tonight, otherwise I'm embarrassed to say that this chapter is an update.