A large part of the reason for the bankruptcy of absolute neutrality comes from the lack of rationality in the human heart. Of course, many people may scoff at my overemphasis on reason, and one can think that we can get a good life even if we forget reason once in a while, and that we may be able to live a more relaxed and pleasant life if we relax our strict judgment of facts at certain times and turn to subordination to our own sensibilities.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with this statement, and as I have emphasized, I do not deny the existence of human sensibility, but if human beings are kidnapped by sensibility when making decisions and choices, it is a dereliction of duty as a human being. At this time, the existence of reason is necessary.

At this time, what we need to pay attention to is not only the right to choose and make decisions independently, but a higher-level concept, that is, the concept of freedom.

At the end of the day, whether I consider talent to be a sin or to uphold an attitude of absolute neutrality, what I want to emphasize is that I, as an individual, should not interfere with the freedom of others. If there is a thing in this world that is deliberately called a universal value, then I think that the value of freedom can undoubtedly make the list.

- After all, I believe that no one in the world wants to lose their freedom, lose their right to choose and make decisions on their own initiative.

So, what exactly is freedom?

In my concept, freedom should first and foremost be a state of not being interfered with by others. This state is generally associated with pluralism, a state that can accommodate the emergence of a wide range of values. In the medieval theocracy, you had the so-called "freedom" of "not believing in God", but if you did not believe in God, then you would become a heretic in society, and it would seem that no specific actors would interfere with you, but this would also make it impossible to express freedom. In the totalitarian model, you also have the so-called freedom to "express your opinion", but in this model, your dissent has to experience persuasion from others, that is, your dissent, although it can be freely expressed, cannot be freely disseminated, which is also a manifestation of loss of freedom.

Therefore, this state of freedom without human intervention is not only not interfered with by individual or collective actors, but also not excluded by the so-called social environment.

Of course, the good news is that we are living in such a society.

Secondly, freedom should be a state of reciprocity, that is, my freedom cannot interfere with the freedom of others. I can have my own values, even if my values are deviant, as long as I am in a society that accepts pluralistic values, my values can be accepted. However, no one can force others to accept a value on the grounds that it is "absolutely right".

Those who are skeptical of this view will argue that the existence of too many values will lead to the loss of cohesion in society, leading to the division of the social sphere, which is not conducive to unity. But when you accuse this of happening, the skeptic person is first and foremost upheld by a collectivist value – the imposition of solidarity, society, this collective gain on the individual, which itself does not stand on the logical position of pluralistic values, so it is not qualified to deny pluralism.

Human freedom presupposes respect for pluralism. However, the values of pluralism are only necessary conditions for freedom.

Another prerequisite for freedom is rationality.

When society fully respects the facts and no one else intervenes, is the choice made by human beings truly free choice?

Freedom without reason is still not freedom.

If a person sins because he is drunk, is he free at the time of the crime? Of course not, he was just an animal dominated by alcohol at that time, and I am not whitewashing this accidental crime, I am just emphasizing that it is possible for human beings to make non-free decisions without the intervention of other people.

Simple physiological impulses may be the cause of irrational behavior, and of course, a deeper habitual, cultural, and social concept may also make your so-called rational behavior have irrational factors.

For example, Minister Iizuka misjudged the situation of the Light Music Club because of his blind trust in Kitahara's predecessors, which is a reason why freedom is affected because of habit.

So, in our society, freedom seems to be a low-hanging fruit, but in fact, the real freedom we can get is much more precious than we think.

After all, none of us have been able to achieve the true so-called self-domination as we imagined.

——Kazuya Yuhihama, "High Interrupted Chapter"

------------------------------- still thinks that no one sees the author's words at the bottom of the interface, so I use PS-----------------------------------

Ahem, a new volume, the topic of this chapter doesn't feel so difficult to understand, but it's a little sensitive, well, no one should check my water meter, right? Anyway, the theme of this volume was decided after reading Isaiah Berlin at the time, but it's been almost a year, and I almost forget what the alarmist guy like to listen to in Berlin said, so I still feel like there are a lot of loopholes.

The number of words in the zero chapter convention is small.,Count me lazy.,Of course, if I'm in a good state at night, I can try to code another chapter.。