It is neither comfort, healing, nor a way to live.
This is an era where 'philosophy' is needed!
An Introduction to Philosophy for a Better Tomorrow Than Today

In modern society, where we are constantly forced to ponder "How to Live" and "How to Die," what we need is not worldly wisdom that merely evades the moment, but the philosophy and power of reflection that empower us to proactively shape our own lives! For those who find life difficult and overwhelming, blocked by the walls of reality, and whose days are filled with endless worry, the useful humanities book "Who knew philosophy could be this helpful" has been published.
This book is an introductory book to philosophy that offers a novel-like, exciting storytelling philosophy unlike anything you've ever seen before. It is the "culmination of collective intelligence" completed through the joint participation of 35 experts in the fields of philosophy and ideology.

Starting from the concerns of everyday reality, this book allows you to experience various philosophies from the East and the West, past and present. It is packed with philosophers you have heard of but never properly read, including the Bible, Socrates, Descartes, Wittgenstein, Popper, John Rawls, and other leading figures in philosophy, as well as Adam Smith, the father of economics, and modern philosopher Amartya Sen, as well as their representative classics.
In this book, rather than memorizing difficult philosophical theories, we can simply observe the process of unraveling the threads of our worries in reality through interesting stories and naturally practice thinking.

Viktor Frankl, who sought the meaning of life even in the harsh conditions of a concentration camp; Montaigne, who never hastily concluded, "What do I know?"; and Descartes, who confirmed his existence by constantly asking himself questions.
Let's enjoy the intellectual pleasure of turning everyday question marks into exclamation points, along with the fascinating stories of philosophers who solidified their thinking and reflection each day.

Popper calls the attitude and method of thinking about things in a reasonable way, using words to confirm each thing one by one, without making conclusions based on dogmatism and prejudice, 'rationalism.'
However, this is completely different from the coercion that values ​​efficiency or the rational approach.
Instead, it suggests a rather difficult way to exchange opinions with people who think differently.
Obviously, I don't feel very good when other people have different opinions than me.
Even among friends, unexpected clashes of opinions can cause a rift between them.
But if I stop at superficial discussions for fear of becoming emotional, the conversation won't progress at all and my thoughts won't broaden.
Popper advises us to abandon dogmatism and be open to other ideas.
It goes one step further than the idea that everyone has different values, but it means that we should go beyond relativism by sharing opinions and thinking repeatedly.
So how can we overcome relativism?
The important thing at this time is the method of ‘criticism.’
According to Popper, criticism is the act of examining and examining the validity of claims and theories in the light of experience.
Criticism is when one party thinks rationally with the other party without getting emotional.
--- From Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations"

Life has limits.
That is why, while we are alive, we want to live abundantly rather than just living.
So what does an "abundant life" mean? We've become accustomed to a fast, convenient life where everything is readily available.
Because of this, aren't we focusing only on the immediate tasks at hand, ignoring those that are inconvenient, inefficient, impractical, or of no immediate use? The convenience and speed of modern society expects immediate results.
So we try to live up to it somehow.
If you do that, it's easy to think that it's natural for other people to put in as much effort as you do.
Also, humans have a duty to make efforts, and those who do not make efforts are thought to be weak or lazy, so they criticize and attack the weak.
Could it be because we are under the illusion that strong people are valuable and weak people are valuable?
It is not easy for a person with the life philosophy that 'there is nothing you cannot achieve if you try' to accept values ​​that are the exact opposite.
So, it is easy to unconsciously ignore the weak who do not try, as well as the weak who are in a position where they cannot try even if they want to, thinking them useless.
Even useless people are seen as a nuisance and the weak as a scourge to society, and so we consciously try to exclude them.

Lao Tzu said that if we only focus on the visible 'being', we will miss the true meaning of the invisible 'nothingness'.
Zhuangzi also said that there are times when things that were considered 'useless' are actually useful.
Both Lao-tzu and Zhuang-tzu teach us that we must overturn the common sense and beliefs we are held by, transform our rigid and entrenched thinking, and embrace diverse values.
In other words, if you let go of relative values, you can realize the value of 'uselessness', which at first glance seems useless in this world.
The writings of Lao-tzu and Zhuang-tzu provide clues to rethink what a truly abundant life is.
Zhuangzi tells us to turn our eyes to the truth that the most precious thing to a person is life, and that enjoying the lifespan given is the most meaningful life.
The more we try to use our potential, the shorter our lifespan becomes.
No matter how many useful abilities you have, they are of no use if they harm your mind and body.
We try hard.
But if we think about Lao Tzu's saying that soft and weak water breaks hard and solid rock, being strong does not necessarily mean being valuable or a condition for being a winner.
As the Chinese idiom 'softness makes strength' suggests, isn't living as soft and strong as water a truly strong life?
--- From 『Laozi』 and 『Zhuangzi』

In a modern liberal society, public power can restrict citizens' freedom only when citizens harm others.
In other words, it means that our decisions are respected as long as they do not harm others (this is called the principle of harm to others).
So, does this mean that as long as you don't harm others, your body is yours and you're free to do whatever you want with it? Does it mean you can harm yourself? The foundation for this thinking is the thought of the 18th-century German philosopher Kant.
He wrote about suicide in his book:

“Humans are not objects.
Therefore, it should not be treated merely as a means, but all of its actions should always be viewed as ends in themselves.
Therefore, I cannot do whatever I want with the human being within my person, harming, destroying, or killing him.” --- Kant, from 『The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals』

Kant believed that we should not dispose of, harm, or kill rational beings like humans, even if they are ourselves.
According to Kant, objects are irrational beings, and we can freely use them as means (tools).
Goods can be exchanged for equivalents.
In contrast, a rational human being is a person with dignity and is a precious being.
Dignity has an absolute and incomparable value.
To harm such a human being is an insult to divine dignity.
Some people may think that it is okay to harm others but not themselves.
However, since we are equal to others in that we possess reason, Kant believed that from the perspective of human dignity, harming oneself is a violation of dignity and therefore ethically unacceptable.


Let's go back to surrogacy.
It cannot be denied that surrogacy involves using the surrogate mother's body as a means for pregnancy and childbirth.
If there is a machine that can grow a fertilized egg into a baby, there may be no need to ask a surrogate mother.
Therefore, from the perspective of human dignity, using a surrogate mother's body as a means for surrogate birth or exposing her to the risk of losing her life cannot be tolerated even if the surrogate mother herself consents.
Moreover, when it comes to surrogacy businesses in the US, India, and Thailand, where people receive financial compensation for becoming surrogate mothers, the implication that the body is being used as a means becomes even stronger.
--- From Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"

“They say happiness is different for everyone.”
“Some people feel happy when they are active in the front lines or earn money and live a comfortable life, while others...
“I am happiest when I am eating delicious food.”
"That's right! But even eating delicious food requires some effort."
“Isn’t that the suffering of life?”
“You need money to eat delicious food.
“I think that if you work hard for it, you can feel the joy of life.”
“But even if you work hard to get delicious food, if you damage your health through overwork, you won’t be able to eat it.”
“What would Lao Tzu or Zhuang Tzu say?”
“You might say, ‘A life that is the exact opposite of that is happiness.’
“Don’t try to find something delicious, just eat the food you have now and feel that it is delicious.”
“But once you experience something delicious, you’ll want to try something even more delicious next time.”
"you're right.
Then, you end up wanting something that isn't on the menu.”
"You're never satisfied, is that it? 'At what point will you be satisfied?' is a difficult question, but one we must learn."
“Rather than wanting to have everything, I need to acknowledge who I am now and accept that I can’t do what I can’t do.”
“Like Epicurus, who values ​​‘self-sufficiency.’
Epicurus says that any dish can be enjoyed deliciously as long as you have cheese, so if you want to live a rich life, don't accumulate wealth, but reduce your desires.
They say that desire originally starts from a sense of lack.
“If I reduce my desires, I will realize that what I already have is enough.”
“This is the very spirit of ‘knowing contentment’ that Lao Tzu spoke of.” --- From “Column - Is it okay to live moderately?”

What kind of world awaits us if everyone gets swept up in something without thinking?
Frank Pavlov's 'The Brown Morning' provides a clue to unraveling such thoughts.
The plot is as follows.
When it becomes illegal to keep pets other than brown in one country, the protagonist ends up killing his own pet.
Anti-government newspapers are shut down and the media is controlled.
The protagonist, who initially had a negative reaction, is swept along by those around him, thinking, "You can live comfortably as long as you don't go against the flow of the world."
One morning, news spreads that the law has been revised so that anyone who previously owned an animal other than brown can be arrested for treason, and the protagonist is taken away by the vigilantes.
No, to be precise, to the vigilantes knocking on his front door, "Please don't knock so hard.
“I’m going out now,” he replies.
There is a short story by Kobo Abe titled “Yangsikpa” that has a similar story.
The main character is a chicken.
There are many enemies, so you have to go far to get your hands on food.
At that time, a human appears and offers to build a sturdy chicken coop with wire mesh and provide food.
However, the chicken coop can be locked with a key.
The human speaks to the anxious chicken.
“If a chicken can open it, a cat can open it too.”
There were chickens who questioned this, but they were eventually accused of being spies and kicked out.
Finally, the chickens called 'Yangsik (the ability to correctly understand things)' come to a conclusion.
“Since the human being said he would do that much, let’s do as he said.
If something goes wrong, we can all discuss it and decide together.”
Eventually they walk into the chicken coop on their own.
What both fables have in common is that the protagonist, despite harboring resentment and doubts, gives up thinking and gets swept up in the situation, resulting in his own loss of 'freedom'.
If you don't think, you might lose your freedom.

--- From the column “Why Do We ‘Think’?”