If there is a common pursuit, people with different personalities can run into each other, on the contrary, if they have different ideas, people with similar personalities will become the most uncompromising existence - unless one party abandons their own ideas.

Biqigu and I should be the latter, and we are also a little paranoid about believing in our own ideas and persistently believing in our own abilities. So, we can never like each other.

It is undeniable that Hikiya is actually a very charismatic person, and if you write a story with him as the protagonist and record his thoughts, many people will like him, and even many people will say "I am probably such a person". I certainly admit that there is something unique about his thinking, but I don't think we should like such a person. Most of the people who like him after seeing his thoughts are just because some of the opinions he shows give confidence to withdrawn people, and the confidence that Bikiya gives people is probably such an illusion: If Hikiya Hachiman can succeed, then it is not difficult for me to succeed if I am so similar to him, right? The so-called "I am very similar to Bikigu" is probably just that I have some conceit that seems to see through everything like him, and I think that if Bikiya calls himself a sophomore in high school, he feels that "I am similar to him" It's just a secondary disease. Even, if you put it to the extreme, assuming that Hikiya didn't solve the problem according to his philosophy in the first place, would the people who regarded him as an idol still like him?

Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that "if Hikiya Hachiman is the protagonist", Hikiya Hachiman is not the main character, and he doesn't solve all the problems like the real Long Aoten, and even, after that self-explosion that turns out to be of little significance in the end, no one else has time to care about him.

Excuse me, even disgusting, isn't it? Sorry, that's the reality. If a writer wants to create a story, no matter how tragic his protagonist is, he will never be completely ignored in the end, as if no matter how desperate the world is, there will be a little light in the end. From the point of view of the writer's own creation, this is a possibility of redemption, and from the point of view of commercial publicity, a novel about failure will not be of interest to anyone.

- Well, so I don't mean I'm making excuses for ignoring Bikigu. After all, it's normal to ignore men compared to women who interact more, isn't it? Besides, I remember that guy didn't have a sister who liked him very much, who had been supporting him, and a cute friend senior who would bend men in every way? Even if he really left that guy alone, he wouldn't necessarily be miserable.

If I had to find a reason for my willingness to re-engage with Hachiman Hikiya, it would be because I was dissatisfied that this guy who had a similar attachment to me in the past had not yet shaken off his obsession.

When I saw Bikiya again, he wasn't much better than when we met before, and certainly not much worse. The news topic spread quickly among the students, and the title was fixed quickly, and the impression of Hachiman Hikiya as a "shady sensationalist" had been determined, and no one cared about how the title was obtained, except for the results and labels left behind, people had no intention of dwelling on how tortuous and complex the process was, and focused on new issues.

Bikiya apparently didn't care much about the title anymore, it didn't matter to him, it probably didn't matter as much as some of the strange nicknames other people had given him for his surname, and when I went to look for him, he seemed to be observing the texture of the table with interest.

"Yubihama, I've always wondered if other people's graffiti on my desk is bullying, then what is it if I doodle on my own desk?" he asked, like a born monk, when I came to his table.

"I think there's a good chance you'll be criticized by your teacher as a bad student for destroying utilities. ”

"Yes, I think so, so the question is, why are the bullies not criticized in this regard? Does this mean that if some unforgivable mistakes have been made, then some minor mistakes can be forgiven, right?"

"It makes sense in a sense, but isn't it a broken jar in another sense? Anyway, I made a mistake and was going to be criticized, so I might as well take this opportunity to do something that I don't usually dare to do. ”

"So, when it comes to solving problems, that is, I used some abnormal means at the beginning anyway, but as long as the final goal is righteous, then I can continue to use some improper methods, if my score is 50 points at the beginning, then I only need to reach 100 points in the end, and it doesn't matter if my performance becomes negative before?"

I frowned, always feeling that the object of the allusion was too rich, as if it was aimed at himself, and it seemed to be aimed at me.

"Well, I actually thought of this because I saw a very interesting point earlier. It's about countries in Europe that have undergone economic transitions. In the process of changing the economic system, their economy will inevitably decline, which is an objective economic law, and has nothing to do with whether the economic reform method adopted by the government is shock therapy or gradual reform, although the economic trauma caused by shock therapy will be greater than that of gradual reform. However, no matter how big or small the trauma is, as long as the economy is in recession, the people will demand that the government will be held accountable, so the new government will generally adopt a more conservative economic reform strategy than the previous government, if the predecessor is a supporter of shock therapy, then the new government will support gradual reform, and if the predecessor is a supporter of gradual reform, then the new government will choose not to reform. In the end, it was the countries that made the initial sacrifice of shock therapy that established more functioning economies, while those that opted for incremental reform were slow to make progress. From this point of view, it's important to go overboard at first, giving your successor more room to maneuver and negotiate, and of course, the first person has to bear the biggest price. ”

I understand what Bikiya means - after our last discussion, it is clear that self-sacrifice is not a one-time solution, but he does not dismiss self-sacrifice as a result, he compares himself to the governments that suffered the necessary wrath of the people in the early stages of reform, and although self-sacrifice does not solve the problem, it can pave the way for the later successes. And if no one is the victim in the first place, and all try to solve the problem in a safe way, it will only make the solution of the problem stagnant until it cannot be solved in the end.

This is not a wrong view, or just a version of the narrowed down role of the individual than the one that has always been the one in the valley - there is no necessary sacrifice to achieve the ultimate goal. His personal sacrifice is no longer a means to an end, but a way to open a path to an end.

However, there is no point in just making such an amendment.

The first government to bear the wrath of the people was able to succeed based on the following assumptions: people's tolerance for a recession brought about by shock therapy is the same, or at least similar, to the recession brought about by gradual reforms -- if people can tolerate the recession of the latter, then they will not have to suffer the great pain of the former, and the successive governments will also adopt a reform program - If the successor compromises the people completely and abandons the reforms, then the sacrifice made before is even more meaningless. And both of these points are debatable. Do you really think that the governments that introduced shock therapy in the first place did so simply to pave the way for future generations?"

Or, to put it another way, although both are failing, a 40-point fail and a 0-point fail give you a different sense of hopelessness, that is, whether you have chosen to make a sacrifice after trying all the gentle ways to solve the problem, or have you made it impatient to go to this point by first seeing it as inevitable? On the other hand, since you have sacrificed yourself, how can you guarantee that your heirs will inherit your ideas, inherit your so-called will, you cannot influence your heirs, and if your heirs fail you, then you can only watch them helplessly. ”

"So, what you're doing now is just trying to justify your sacrifice. Compared to the previous theory that sacrifice solves the problem, you narrow down the possible meaning of your sacrifice, but if the meaning of your sacrifice becomes less significant, it is not as absolute as it was at the beginning. The meaning of self-sacrifice, hovering indeterminately from 0 to 100, do you really think that you can sacrifice your reputation, or even your life, for an uncertain possibility?"

"Of course, when it comes to achieving some necessary big things, even if the possibility is very small, you have to continue to persevere, but, Hikiya senior, are you really facing this kind of big thing that is worth paying for this uncertain possibility? If not, it only proves that my original judgment was not wrong, and your approach is still just self-satisfaction. ”

It is difficult for people to admit their mistakes, so people will always find a new justification for their actions after realizing that they have made mistakes, but in general, this new justification will only be more fragile than the original well-thought-out justification.

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

emmmm seems to have been writing about mouth cannon attacks for a long time.,The second half of this chapter unexpectedly feels okay?