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.

What does it mean to be free? First and foremost, it is a word, obviously, so it must come from somewhere. According to John Locke political theory in the Age of Enlightenment, Liberty is one being free from a superpower. Adam Smith, grandfather of economy, based his entire economic theory on individual liberty. Even in the bible, the concept of liberty run strongly to the core, embedding in the logos, a spark of divinity in every man. This appearance of Western thought runs through the veins of every free individual. So strongly, in fact, it is manifested in The Bill of Rights. How unthinkable to even reject it through reason when it is Western history itself.

But even the impeccable concept is still intangible ideas. Look at Eastern Philosophy, trace back to Confucius teaching. The Western notion diffuse and differs. Men here in the Orient are men as a community. To take one’s self-interest is the same thing as the regard for others. Egoism and Altruism combined. Combined not in a way that virtuous person is partially egoistic and partially altruistic but both simultaneously. Personal and Politics circulating as one in terms of virtue ethics of the synthesis between Egoism and Altruism, that is the role of the government in the East, different from the liberal view.

To learn and understand the foundation of roots is to alienate from one’s manifestation. How am I to feel indifferent about both views. But the external is binary, to make a choice between one-another. No longer in the state of paradox left in the mind. To choose one is to reject the solid ground of an empire. How am I to decide? To view as the eye of Horus staring down at the pyramid. Now we have a split, between the above and the within, the minority and the majority, the master and the slave. Pick a side, through the guidance or multiplication.

Looking at inequality, we see that it is an issue in every economy. It’s a problem that we have to look that, but it’s much more complicated then you think. There are different lenses one can view from, and I’ll try to lay out some of them.

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.

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?