Its tough looking at the situation in Hong Kong. There’s so much suffering, and it deeply affects me personally - part of my roots are from Hong Kong. There seems to be no way out of the turmoil. I can’t bring myself to think politically, because if I were to engage with it at that level, I have to pick a side, and both sides seem to be a losing battle; between pro-democracy and pro-China.

The way I see it, one of the explanations of the resulting situation is social inequality, but that answer leads to no end. The empirical evidence on inequality is quite clear, that the only viable compression to long-term inequality is through violent means; Warfare, State Failure, Pandemics and Revolution. To say revolution in Hong Kong as an inevitable consequence of human nature is such a pessimistic answer. The same as saying that there’s nothing we could do but let the patterns of history play itself out again. :(

I have to view it form another perceptive, as a socially constructed phenomenon. That in appearances, it curious why there seem to be only two groups in opposition, pro-democracy and pro-China. From a macrocosm perspective, the two groups seem to be a battle between Western values against the Eastern values. If we were to trace their philosophy, the two would share different first-principles. The former from rationality since the Greek period, and the latter from moral virtue in Confucianism, and both build their empire from different grounds, constructing different approaches and progression.
Once the existing structure is dramatically shifted in the case of integrating China into westernizes Hong Kong, chaos will occur. The human’s belief is shaken and immediately relies on its defence mechanism.

Currently, we see both sides in the extreme form leading to the outbreaks of violence. Riots being emphasized in the news outlet and social media, leading to more tension at an international level. The world is spectating, picking a side as well.
But I prefer to be optimistic, there should and could a more hopeful alternative. Being a socially constructed phenomenon, it is possible to choose a new moment, a synthesis of the two. I see it as a humanitarian movement, of the position that violence as a means cannot justify whatever end. It could be an opportunity for people of Hong Kong to spark a third movement, to re-establish whatever small hope of peace left in Hong Kong. To accept the current state of oppression but to hold it back, and internalize it for the moment, and to work towards their sense of justice incrementally and widely deem acceptable from both sides. That I see, is the only positive way out of the mess, although working it through is complicated and I have no definite answers.

The truth could be replace as rational thought, common sense (although I would argue not very common sense), some empirical data, metaphor, or an analogy to prove a certain point. But which methodology is closer to the truth? Maybe there’s a voice at the back of your head telling you otherwise? Perhaps you’re using someone else thoughts as your own without justifying it?

The world is a complicated place beyond comprehension. We could possibly never have the capacity to understand the truth. We simplify, reduce, shorten the “truth” so could get our point across during a conversation/thought. To reach a point, we chain our thoughts into a sequential flow that makes sense. Imagine having someone break that chain of thought with another/opposing idea. Now you have to re-think. Now you have to have a debate to move forward. What if its something that has manifested in you so deeply close to your soul. Will you pull the “Well, it’s up to your interpretation” card? Aha! Someone caught you between your feet. You are not who you think you are.

We may not be adapted for truth. We’re tribal, biased, emotional, irrational creatures. You have to work tirelessly to get to the truth. It isn’t easy, especially when we’re unsure how to define truth.

How then? We explore… the quest of finding the truth.
We’re starting from antiquity and work our way to the Now.

There are places where we put ourselves in mentally on the idea of how we want to live our life. There is order; the place of comfort, the walls of culture, the perception of how society portrays your role according to your demographics, psychographic and ethnographic factors. Then, there is chaos, which is the land that lies outside the boundary of order. It is the place where the potential of exploration will take places. The area that elicits fear and curiosity.

Here’s an analogy to what I’m saying to visualise. You are on an island. The island is your reality. The things that lies within the island may or may not be enough for the capacity for living. And there’s the infinite ocean that surrounds the island. It is infinite because you cannot see the end of it. Therefore it is infinite. There are times where you don’t notice the ocean. There are times where you look at the sea, but the fear of exploration stops you. The fear of drowning. There are times where your fear is replaced by curiosity, and you step into the water. Everyone has their island, in different mental places.

The information that you feed yourselves is the foundation of your order, the sand below your feet. The island of order can shink and expand depending on the information you have so you move accordingly if you don’t want to drown and fall into nihilism. You have the move voluntarily; otherwise, you won’t move and you sink slowly and drown in your own reality. It a justified but sad way of living.

The question I want to contend with is that of human rationality. First, we have the define our terminology. What do we mean by rationality? I lack the knowledge of the philosophical perspective of rationality so I need to catch up on that in the future, but let us define rationality in terms in game theory. There are several axioms in game theory, but as a summary; if I get to choose between $1 and $2, I should pick $2 … obviously. The same logic should be applied to other scenarios or object with our initial logic. There might be a few problems here. Is this the same as Aristotelian’s logic? And what is the evolution of logic theory? Does the example suffice?