I don't know when the word "neutral" was given a color that made people feel not so good. Under the call of "neutrality," many countries have connived at the trampling of weak countries by powerful countries, which makes the word "neutrality" itself take on a hidden biased meaning.

In other words, the so-called neutrality is, after all, a preference for the strong, because under the premise of the same level of interference or no interference, the strong inherently have an advantage over the weak.

Of course, my approach does not consider the derogatory meaning of neutrality in the social context, any word has its original connotation corresponding to the symbol and meaning, and there is also a new connotation given to it by the context under the social meaning, and what I am discussing here is only the correspondence between the neutral initial symbol and the meaning.

The neutrality discussed here is a mode of operation of practical action, that is, it is a policy of practicing this idea under the guidance of a concrete idea, and this idea is to believe in human reason.

Of course, we all know that human beings are not absolutely rational creatures, and when they are emotional, human beings will adopt more emotional ways, and people who always maintain rationality are freaks in life, forcing themselves to remain rational at all times, and many times it is reflected in the constraints on the essence of human beings.

However, even so, I would still believe in the rationality of human beings themselves, because this is the most important thing that distinguishes humans from beasts in general, and at the critical moment of making a decision, human beings should not be bound by their emotions and thus make decisions that are not conducive to the results they are pursuing, but only to satisfy their own momentary emotional needs.

In other words, the premise of absolute neutrality is rational decision-making.

So, what kind of decision is a rational decision? First of all, it is a decision that is expected to maximize the likelihood of achieving one's goals. The goal here is not necessarily the maximization of one's own interests, but the practice is most in line with one's own expectations, that is, sometimes, some people will give up some of the benefits they may obtain for some special reasons, and if the decision is made with this goal, it is also rational.

Therefore, the next question is, is rational decision-making necessarily a successful decision? No, rational decision-making is a decision made on the basis of measuring the information we have to achieve one's own goal to the greatest extent possible, because the incomplete grasp of information and the various accidents that may occur temporarily when human beings achieve their own goals are beyond the reach of rational prediction, so rational decision-making is only the decision with the greatest possibility of success, not a decision that is necessarily successful.

So, when it is found that the other party's decision is not necessarily successful, does it mean that the neutral act loses its own value? Not really, because, as an individual like the decision-maker himself, you will not have more information than the decision-maker himself, and even, the information you have is a kind of interference for the decision-maker, when the other party has carefully screened and analyzed, selected the most effective and credible information for themselves and made a decision, the information you have that has not been screened is just to add invalid information to the other party, so no matter when, neutrality is necessary.

However, an important premise of this approach is that can humans really be rational in making all decisions?

I used to think so, and that's the premise of how I judge everyone's approach. But, lately, I have discovered that this is not the case, that all human beings are more susceptible to emotional judgments than I thought, and that even such emotional judgments, and irrational practices, cannot be realized by the human beings themselves.

A recent example is Minister Iizuka, and I thought at one time that both Minister Iizuka and Kitahara-senpai were rational in dealing with the issue of light music clubs. Of course, judging from the results, it seems that Kitahara's predecessors did do their best to fight for the light music club, but his best efforts were not successful. However, what we want to discuss is that Minister Iizuka Takeya, in this decision-making process, his judgment was wrong.

From an after-looking point of view, Minister Iizuka's trust in Kitahara-senpai is simply abnormal, that is, he unconditionally trusts Kitahara Haruki to be able to solve the incident, however, the truth is that Kitahara-senpai did not solve the incident. And in the whole process of Kitahara's senior's resolution of the incident, although the minister's approach cannot be called ignorance, it is definitely worthy of the word "negative", and the only thing he did was to temporarily suspend their quarrel when the contradictions between Yanagihara Tomomo and the other members of the Light Music Club were irreconcilable, without appeasing either side or winning over any party, and completely passively waiting for the outcome of Kitahara's senior's handling.

If we imagine a situation where Haruki Kitahara does not exist, then Minister Iizuka would definitely not have been so passive, he would have taken a more proactive approach to stop everyone's behavior and try to resolve the conflict - but he did not do it, not because he did not have enough information to make such a move, but because his blind trust in Kitahara's predecessors led to his hasty and conservative actions.

This is an irrational approach - one can certainly interpret this approach as a rational approach to making a decision after considering Kitahara-senpai's abilities, but the fact is that Minister Iizuka did not consider the consequences of Kitahara-senpai's failure at all, so, obviously, in this situation, they have no alternatives.

In other words, human rationality does not depend on whether they know whether they want to be rational or not, and many times, social concepts and social habits will lead human beings to make irrational choices.

Secondly, it is the applicability of the principle of neutrality to family members under the premise of rationality. Just as many times I care unconditionally about Yui-ssan's affairs, Yui-san will also express unlimited intervention in my situation. Is this kind of intervention certain from my point of view?

In the face of other people, the conclusion is undoubtedly negative, but, as I said, family is always an exception. Of course, some people also belong to the category of mutual use, but more often, the so-called family members are people who do not care about rational judgments at all in terms of value judgment - the same situation may also apply to some couples in love, but the latter accounts for a smaller proportion than the former.

Therefore, in the case of facing the family, because the premise of rational thinking is abolished, then the role of absolute neutrality is naturally impossible to talk about.

Moreover, as Bikiya and I have said, the loss of the principle of absolute neutrality in front of my family can of course be explained by the other party's logical framework that does not conform to mine, but more, even if I don't want to admit it, it is actually a kind of relaxation under the logical view of self-pressure. That is to say, if there is such a thing as nature, human nature should be inclined to social interventions - and I am no exception, except that now I am forcing myself to make a neutral choice.

But if neutrality is really the best option, why would human beings, or rather me, as rational agents, show a repressive attitude toward such an approach?

There are only two possible explanations: one is that neutrality is not the best option, which I do not accept as a rational actor, and the other is that I am not able to achieve the level of rationality myself, so I cannot achieve the optimal state of neutrality that reason requires.

The result of these two explanations is actually the same - absolutely neutral, and there is an irreconcilable self-contradiction in logic.

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

I decided to add PS to the text, and if it was posted in the author's testimonial, I was worried that people wouldn't be able to see it - because I almost ignored it myself.

After all, this chapter is too cloudy and foggy, or I have to talk to you.,Of course,Actually, it's best if you don't understand this chapter in the end.,Because it's estimated that you're going to complain.,Of course, if someone patiently understands and then doesn't complain, but tries to find contact with the context to find understanding, I'll be grateful.。 All in all, this volume is over, and new characters will continue to appear in the next volume, and that's pretty much it.