Thoughts in the world rise and fall, endlessly emerging. Everyone claims their own thought is the most correct. Yet I believe such correctness only applies in certain contexts and at certain times. Correctness cannot rely solely on majority recognition. So what is the legitimacy of thought? I define legitimate thought as that which conforms to fact, aligns with principles of justice, and possesses proper logic. (For the definition of justice, see Essay Two.)

The composition of thought arises from three aspects: logic, emotion, and interest. This essay discusses only human thought.

1. Logic I believe thought arises to solve problems or provide guidance. To be effective, thought must conform to logic. Even ineffective thought has its own logic—only that it is mistaken.

2. Emotion I believe part of the function of thought is to release emotion, to satisfy it, or to provide a sense of security.

3. Interest A thought must bring benefit to its holder in order to persist. Benefit may also mean the avoidance of loss.

Can thought exist with only one or two of these aspects, or with none at all? I believe thought cannot exist with only logic, only interest, or only emotion. Logic alone ignores the interests it entails. Interest alone ignores the logic of its realization and the emotional needs attached. Emotion alone is impossible—even instinctive reactions carry interest. Since thought cannot exist with only one aspect, it cannot exist with none.

What if thought contains only two aspects? I believe logic and interest are inseparable. That leaves the question of emotion. Without emotion, thought is mere calculation—an idea but not truly thought. With emotion, it can become any kind of thought.

What influences the legitimacy of thought? I believe thought and legitimacy both stem from wisdom. Legitimacy is influenced by reason and emotion. Emotion affects legitimacy: most illegitimate thoughts originate from excessive emotional exaggeration, amplified by wisdom. Emotion is more often a negative factor, for it leads people to misjudge, making legitimate thought harder to reach. A thought dominated by emotion may by chance align with legitimacy, but only accidentally. (For the definition of reason, see Essay Eight.) Reason can make thought more logical, and logic aids in reasoning about facts. This better conforms to principles of justice, and thus produces more legitimate thought.

The relationship between legitimacy of thought and collective moral level Since legitimacy of thought is tied to justice, collective moral level is directly proportional to it. An illegitimate thought is collective tyranny. Its causes are mostly emotional: lack of reason, submission to fear, defense of existing interests, or simply conforming to others to blend into the group.

Illegitimate thought does not always need to be changed No matter how shocking another’s thought may be, it remains personal thought. Thought without action is not worth changing—only its behavior needs to be limited.

Why are more legitimate thoughts not always accepted by others? The reasons are similar to those that form illegitimate thought. Applied to individuals, it is the refusal to admit one’s own mistakes. At root, this is emotional dominance—equating evaluation with self-worth.

Personal reflection I believe even legitimate thought is only reasonable within certain contexts. Legitimate thought changes constantly, though not without fixed principles. As defined in Essay Two, the principles of justice ultimately regulate legitimate thought through the shared principles of wisdom. Beyond legitimacy, there exist illegitimate and neutral thoughts. Finally, I believe even legitimate thought is only broadly recognized—it is not iron law, nor truth.

Possible issues Why separate reason and logic? Because reason requires some logic, yet flawed logic can still be reason. Reason is a tool; a poor tool is still a tool.

Does the interest discussed in the essay on reason overlap with this essay? To some extent yes, but not entirely, because thought is not necessarily rational.

If a thought is rational, does that mean it is legitimate? Not necessarily. Reason can be used for evil purposes, while legitimacy carries value judgment.

Self-esteem and Self-confidence Influenced by the External World Self-confidence refers to an individual’s trust in themselves. Self-esteem is the subjective evaluation of one’s own value. Inferiority is simply the lack of self-esteem. Many articles claim that confidence can be increased, that self-esteem can be cultivated through external means. In my view, these concepts have no psychological entity that can be literally increased or decreased. They are merely adjustments of innate human psychological states.

Using a battery as a metaphor: high self-esteem is high charge, low self-esteem is low charge. Increasing self-esteem does not add another battery to what one is born with. The factor that most affects these concepts is human interaction. We gain or lose energy through social relations, which in turn influences the level of self-esteem. By definition, to escape low confidence or low self-esteem, one only needs to give oneself a blind yet stable belief. This has little to do with external reality. Learning to separate value from reality is the simplest solution.

Evaluations Built Around Value: Recognition, Being Needed, and Being Loved Value, in my view, is defined as how much benefit a person or thing can bring to others. The self has no inherent value, because value is constructed by subjects. How can a fictional construct restrict the very subject that created it? When an individual evaluates themselves by value, they place themselves beneath others to some degree. To break free from the bondage of value, one must separate value and rights from self-evaluation. Even an ordinary person does not lack rights, nor should they belittle themselves.

Recognition is the feeling most commonly sought. People use recognition to evaluate their own value, because value can bring greater benefit. These benefits may be psychological—such as increasing self-esteem—or practical, such as enhancing influence. Recognition grows out of success, and success grows out of value. Recognition is essentially an evolutionary reward mechanism: what benefits the community benefits the individual. Moderate pursuit of recognition can indeed be beneficial to mind and body. But people become addicted, and society raises its standards. In my view, the best way to break free is not to seek recognition at all.

The sense of being needed is similar to recognition, but goes further, involving entanglement with actual interests. People enhance their self-esteem and confidence by bringing benefit to others.

Being loved is essentially also an exchange of benefits, though concentrated on the psychological level. The one who loves does so because the object meets their requirements, while also satisfying the need to give love. The one who is loved receives psychological energy from the other, satisfying the need to be loved. In my view, love and being loved are the least utilitarian of human interactions.

My Final Solution All of the above psychological concepts are ultimately self-serving. Yet in contemporary society, many people are instead enslaved by these concepts, believing that external evaluation or influence is everything. When they perform poorly, they assume their self-value must decrease, they become emotionally depressed, even surrendering rights that should belong to them. This is putting the cart before the horse—being bound by tools that were meant to serve. In truth, none of these relationships are necessary.

My method is to sever all external evaluations from self-esteem, self-confidence, and the self itself. If this is too difficult to grasp, the practical method is to ignore all thoughts and emotions not consciously chosen, and let them flow freely in the mind. At that moment, one may become aware of the true self—the source of all conscious thoughts and emotions. This is a state of inner calm, where almost all external notions and evaluations lose their effect. In this state, there is no longer any “should.”

Note The above method is not precise science. Readers who encounter interpersonal or psychological problems should first seek assistance from others.

The Meaning of Education Education means the transmission of knowledge, while learning and education are two different things. I believe learning is based on personal curiosity or used to solve problems, and it is an active behavior. However, in reality, education is not entirely for the individual, but for the collective. Since the Second Industrial Revolution, Britain and European countries began to implement education for citizens, generally regarded as the prototype of modern universal education. Its main purpose was to provide qualified workers for rapidly industrializing nations. At the same time, the system of public examinations became an important means for the state to select talent. Unlike in feudal times, when only a small number of nobles received systematic education and talent selection was mostly through private recommendation, modern public examinations standardized the process.

The Origins of Public Examinations The earliest public examination system originated in China, known as the imperial examination. Beginning in the Han dynasty, further developed in the Sui and Tang, flourishing in the Ming dynasty, and lasting until the late Qing dynasty, when it was abolished in 1905. By the beginning of the Republic of China, the system had already ended. Modern public examinations in most countries are similar: fixed scope, divided subjects, standard answers, and results that have a major impact on a candidate’s future life. Admission to university depends entirely on examination scores.

Educational Disorders As civilization has developed, the main complaints about education are heavy student pressure, too many exams, too much homework, and the idea that one exam determines a lifetime. Yet I argue that if public examinations functioned as designed, they would have no inherent problem—they are indeed the fairest selection mechanism. The reality, however, is that education is not an isolated system but interlinked with society.

When education becomes a tool to aid the lower classes, numerous disorders emerge. In East Asia, the hardest-hit region, the disorders include countless cram schools, excessive homework, endless exams, remedial lessons, and memory-based testing. Students must practice large numbers of past papers for every subject, often provided by schools. Entering cram schools means even more complete sets of past papers, targeting every question type, with techniques for scoring and time management. In recent years, diversified admission standards have added further stress to the middle class, who must cultivate their children’s “interests”—most commonly piano, violin, or painting. Here, examinations become a craft, a skill that determines one’s entire future.

In the West, disorders are fewer but still significant. The main issues are the devaluation of degrees and racial quotas. University enrollment rates have risen to 40% or more. When large numbers of people become university students but society cannot provide corresponding positions, degrees lose their value. Almost every university has quotas based on race, preventing more capable individuals from entering.

The Core Problem All these disorders stem from one issue: education has become a tool to rationalize resource distribution. As social resources decrease, individuals must strengthen their competitiveness to secure more of what they believe they deserve. This is seen as the most reliable and fair way to change one’s destiny, reinforced by propaganda. I believe the more educational disorders a country has, the more thoroughly its potential is consumed. This is tied to population issues: educational disorders arise from overpopulation, which in turn reduces population until it matches the level of economic development. This cycle affects not only population but also development potential, as irregular methods within the cycle become the true culprits of wasted potential.

Proposals for Educational Reform Modern education does not require a good teacher merely to help students enter university. I believe reform should achieve three points:

Abolish the quota system and return to equal opportunity.

Prohibit the practice of past papers and all exam-oriented techniques.

Set fewer checkpoints but increase difficulty.

Closing with Nietzsche What is the task of higher education? To make a man into a machine. What are the means employed? He is taught how to suffer being bored.

Since the beginning of human organization, societies of various scales have been formed. Whether it is the individual to the collective, the collective to the individual, or collective to collective, all involve one common issue: the transfer of risk. Most risk transfers occur between people, though the transfer from humans to nature is also one of them. In this essay, “risk” is defined specifically as that which can only bring loss, without including the possibility of gain. The focus here is on human social systems.

The fundamental reason people transfer risk is to solve problems, whether physiological or psychological. Yet in my view, this method is only temporary, because everything in the universe consumes external resources to maintain itself. To truly solve a problem, one must first clarify whether it is a root problem or a derivative problem. A root problem refers to risk originating from specific persons, events, or things. A derivative problem refers to those arising from the root. Even if derivative problems are eliminated, the same phenomena will continue to appear.

Risk Problems of the Majority and the Minority If the majority overwhelms the minority and thoroughly suppresses derivative problems, the risk does not disappear. It merely requires greater costs to maintain suppression. For the system, this means higher expenditure without solving the problem. If the minority suppresses the majority, the cost will be multiplied many times, and the effective duration will be greatly reduced.

If the issue is a root problem, then risk will not reappear. But the cost required—corresponding to the duration, depth, and scope of the risk—cannot be resolved in one stroke.

If an individual leaves the collective to survive in the wilderness, can the individual’s risk be eliminated? Clearly not. It merely transfers social risk into the inconvenience of confronting nature. Or, in a less absolute form, one may become a hermit or monk. Yet even then, risk cannot be eliminated. The degree of withdrawal is proportional to the degree of risk the individual must bear.

For the collective, unless the individual is itself the root problem, the risk becomes greater. The departure of an individual can cause the collective to collapse. In attempting to retain them, the collective may pay even greater costs, thereby triggering larger risks.

Risks Between Systems A “system” here refers to a collective, which may be a community, society, nation, or civilization. Interactions between systems are broadly similar. Within the same system, the size of subsystems affects their ability to solve problems and bear risks. How is system size determined? Primarily by the sum of its power and influence. The greater the sum, the larger the system. Higher-level systems automatically encompass lower-level ones. Thus, the wealthy and powerful nations belong to large systems.

If a system attempts to transfer risk to an external system, the risk will eventually erupt at the external carrier’s threshold of endurance, and return in another form to the original system—until all the risk it ought to bear has fully come back. Why can’t risk within a system truly be transferred? Because from the moment of transfer, a larger new system is automatically created. It is not a genuine transfer to the outside, but rather system expansion. Unless one only aims to resolve derivative problems by eliminating both the risk and the external carrier, it is merely self-deception.

I believe the magnitude of risk is related to the endurance capacity of the external carrier. The greater the disparity between the two, the smaller the effect of risk transfer—essentially an inverse relationship. Therefore, strengthening the external carrier’s capacity to bear risk is an effective policy to delay the backlash of risk.

In my view, truly solving problems requires systematically rectifying all the involved links, and eliminating every risk that would otherwise need to be transferred outward.

I regard rationality as a tool for solving problems and fulfilling needs. In my view, genuine rationality possesses three essential features:

Honesty with oneself—recognizing one’s own needs.

Awareness of the probability of success for the chosen strategy.

A utilitarian orientation—there must be actual benefit.

If these three points are met, the action can be considered rational.

Explanation of the First Point When a subject faces a problem, they should seek a way to resolve it. I believe one must set aside external voices and listen to the innermost thoughts. Once an idea emerges, the root of the problem should be clarified, and then a strategy chosen according to the circumstances.

Explanation of the Second Point When a problem has a direction for resolution, one should understand the success rates of different strategies under that direction. If one merely guesses at random, without clarity about the outcome or feasibility, this cannot be considered rational.

Explanation of the Third Point The use of rationality should aim at obtaining benefit. Here, “benefit” includes psychological benefit, that is, a sense of gain, though material benefit outweighs psychological benefit. I define psychological benefit as an additional gain obtained through one’s own effort—achieving the desired result and, after subtracting costs, retaining surplus. If psychological benefit is given passively by others, whether it counts depends on whether it was part of one’s plan. If it was intentionally sought, it can be considered rational. This definition of psychological benefit applies only to judging whether an action is rational.

Is schadenfreude rational? It is not rational, because feeling joy at another’s misfortune involves no element of self-acquisition; it is bestowed, not additionally gained. Envy is similar to schadenfreude but more oriented toward planning. It is not rational, because constant fantasizing consumes great energy while yielding little. Moreover, both are regarded by others as malicious acts, which can damage one’s reputation and future life.

Is avoiding pain rational? If the gain equals the cost, it is rational, because inaction would mean loss. If the cost exceeds the benefit, it is irrational. This is often seen in yielding to others’ non-coercive threats. Coercive threats refer to matters involving life, property, and freedom.

Are rational actions under irrational goals themselves irrational? This can be divided into two cases: irrationality due to impossibility, and irrationality due to failing to meet the definition of rationality. Actions under impossible goals cannot achieve the ultimate purpose, and are therefore irrational. Goals that fail to meet the definition of rationality are naturally irrational, even if subordinate actions achieve their expected results.

Long-term and Short-term Goals Long-term goals are necessarily composed of countless smaller goals. If some small goals are irrational but do not prevent the long-term goal from meeting the definition, the overall remains rational. Small goals that fail to meet the definition, as long as they do not affect the long-term goal, still leave the overall rational. Short-term goals can be considered rational as long as they meet the definition of rationality.

Rationality and Its Independence from Other Values I believe rationality is unrelated to good and evil. Rationality becomes associated with goodness only because choosing good encounters less resistance and has a higher chance of success; over time, rationality and goodness become linked. Rationality is also unrelated to success or failure—the key lies in cognition. As long as the three points of rationality are met, even failure can be rational. Furthermore, rationality is not tied to the magnitude of value. Greater benefit does not necessarily mean greater rationality; rather, within the available options, rationality lies in choosing what is most suitable for oneself.

Rationality is not a guarantee of success; its core lies in recognition. Benefit is not the inevitable result of success, but rather the standard by which we judge whether an action is worthwhile. A rational act must carry the intention of pursuing benefit; otherwise, it is nothing more than arbitrariness or emotional impulse.

Epicurus said: “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” Death, as a state, essentially means the passing of life and the time that follows. Mere ending does not harm a person. The reason death is frightening lies in the tricks of human imagination.

From what I have observed, there are three main reasons why humans fear death:

First, pain. This is easy to understand. Pain evolved as a reminder of the body’s condition. Death is the worst state the body can reach, so approaching death often brings unbearable suffering. Yet pain can be avoided. To avoid being blocked, I will not expand on this point here.

Second, the influence of ingrained ideas, expressed as regret. When facing death, people often think: I have not yet done certain things; I cannot let go of someone; I care about how others will judge me. But everyone must die. Not only is there nothing one can manage after death, even in life one cannot have everything as desired. To understand impermanence is to understand that regret is inevitable. Accepting impermanence removes this source of fear.

Third, the fabricated “afterlife” of religion. People fear going to hell. The afterlife is an extremely effective tool of socialization and power. To make people fear death is to make them love life. Further, reincarnation explains the shortcomings of this life and compels people to live cautiously, accumulating merit to secure a better next life. In this way, dissatisfaction is reduced and social stability maintained. In my view, reincarnation is the most cruel idea in human cultural history, with the afterlife close behind. Both prevent people from becoming themselves, wasting their only life within dogma.

Suppose humans could live forever—would death then cease to be feared? No. This is the same mistake as the claim that death gives life meaning. Both commit an error regarding time. Neither depends on death itself. The first grants humans endless time to experience everything without end, removing the urgency that death brings. The second treats death as a deadline, thus giving life “meaning.” Wrong. It merely makes people aware of limited time, motivating them to attempt what they otherwise would not. But that can still be meaningless. Meaning must always be created by humans.

I believe the latter is more worth learning from. At least it honestly faces the fact of life’s finitude and encourages people to do what they wish. The former is nothing more than the ultimate fantasy of those clinging to life or power, teaching people to live timidly, never daring to realize their desires, always waiting for “next time.” They become machines of endless experience, stripped of human selfhood, reduced to walking corpses.

My personal view of death is as follows:

Death belongs only to the individual’s subjective experience. No matter one’s identity, no one can experience another’s death.

Life gives death its meaning. We must first exist to experience anything; thus death, as the end of all experience, naturally carries fear.

To evade death only invites greater disaster. One should face death and accept it. Death is not reasonable, nor unjust. It is simply the end when time has run its course.

Finally, I leave you with Nietzsche’s words: “We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once”

When it comes to truth, I believe that since the universe exists, there must be certain rules operating behind it, though they have not yet been revealed. Therefore, in this original state, truth itself is without meaning. Truth can be divided into the a priori and the a posteriori. The a priori refers to all the rules governing the operation of the universe, which have existed since the birth of the cosmos, such as the laws of physics. The a posteriori refers to the rules derived from the a priori truths. Truth can also be divided into descriptive and definitional truths: a priori truths are mostly definitional, while a posteriori truths are mostly descriptive. In my view, truth refers to laws that are repeatable, verifiable, and unchanging. It is not necessarily the answer to some ultimate question, but can also be something small and everyday, such as the sun rising in the east.

I believe that meaning is man-made, something that is assigned. The definition of artificial meaning is utility, or a tool for rationalizing ideas. Its primary function is to respond to needs. Therefore, truth does not necessarily have meaning. Does proclaiming truth automatically give it meaning? Not necessarily. I believe the key to assigning meaning lies in motivation. Unless speech contains the motivation to endow truth with meaning, and unless meaning is connected with value, it is merely a declaration. For example, the statement “I believe truth exists prior to wisdom” has meaning—the meaning comes from the words “I believe.” Since meaning can be assigned by the individual, removing “I believe” reduces it to a mere declaration, without explicit assignment of meaning. Some may argue that the act of speaking itself carries motivation, but I think the real question is whether one can state truth without assigning meaning. I believe this is possible. Thus, recognized truth does not necessarily have meaning. Others may say that truth must be revealed, something to be approached. Yet humans can explore truth without need, even through accidental discovery.

In my view, the condition for linking meaning with value lies in utility or subjective recognition. Knowledge, then, is the name given to truth once it has been endowed with meaning. Of course, knowledge can be proven wrong, and therefore knowledge is not equivalent to truth. Humanity—or intelligence—cannot fully comprehend all the parameters and rules of the universe. In other words, Laplace’s demon does not exist. Thus, knowledge may be erroneous due to the limits of subjective cognition. Such errors include, but are not limited to, logical errors, definitional errors, and errors of scope.

Beyond truth and knowledge, there exists a vast amount of information unrelated to verifiable truth or to utility and recognition. Before truth is verified, and before knowledge is recognized or endowed with value, it is merely information.

This essay discusses only artificial meaning. What I consider “true meaning” was addressed in the first essay.

The definition of justice and evil in the second essay cannot fully correspond to moral judgments between individuals. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce good and evil to judge whether actions between individuals conform to morality. I believe the standard of good and evil lies in whether one harms the legitimate rights and interests of others. Harm refers to acts of theft, destruction, or attack. Legitimate rights and interests, in my view, are those obtained through one’s own efforts or cooperation with others, under the premise of not oppressing others. Rights and interests include physiological and psychological aspects, as well as all external possessions of the individual.

An individual’s rights within society belong to the relationship between the individual and the collective, and thus fall within the scope of justice and evil. Does a solitary individual then have no rights? It is simply that such rights are not granted and maintained by society—for example, the right to education, religious freedom, freedom of marriage, or the freedom to choose one’s occupation. Robinson Crusoe on his deserted island had none of these, because there was no one to interact with. Therefore, I define rights and interests as things possessed and maintained by the subject.

Some concepts are often confused with good and evil. “Good or bad” depends on whether a goal is achieved. “Right or wrong” depends on whether rules are followed. “Noble or base” depends on the degree to which one conforms to ethics. None of these are equivalent to good and evil.

As stated in the second essay, justice is a phenomenon that benefits survival. Once good and evil are defined, virtues are those qualities that promote good, while sins are those that promote evil. Together they form moral standards, from which ethics arises. Justice and evil, on the other hand, concern the maximization of collective benefit.

Ethics and Power Ethics is inevitably distorted by power.

Good and evil, as the foundation of ethics, carry the shadow of power but also have a biological basis. Modern science has discovered that when people see others suffer, mirror neurons in the brain are activated. These not only enable imitation but also empathy. Empathy is thus the biological foundation of good and evil. As groups grow larger, ethics begins to emerge—first within families, then in tribes and clans, and finally in civilizations and states.

Ethics, as a set of rules, is established according to purpose. It is therefore different from good and evil, which have a biological basis. I believe good and evil are not directly equivalent to ethics; more often, ethics borrows the language of good and evil to provide legitimacy. In essence, ethics is the consensus of the collective. And collectives inevitably generate power—or rather, they rely on power to maintain themselves. Ethics, being the most basic set of rules suitable for collectives, is inseparable from power.

As stated in the fourth essay, the power of rulers originates from the obedience of the ruled, and the ruled are in a game-like relationship with rulers. Therefore, ethics that serves power cannot lean entirely toward rulers; it must also provide benefits to the ruled. The most fundamental benefit for the ruled is the maintenance of order and the provision of security in daily life. Rulers, in turn, require stability to ensure their continued rule. Thus, ethics, as the foundation of law, provides a complete set of moral standards for both sides to reach consensus.

The evolution of ethics often occurs in this way: when a set of ethics no longer conforms to the standards of good and evil, it provokes dissatisfaction, conflict, or corruption within the group. This allows external or internal forces of justice to emerge, leading to a change in power. The ethics attached to that power changes along with it.

Religion as the First Systematic Ethics Religion was the earliest form of systematic ethics, and it sanctified those rules. Often, it was enough to attribute certain moral principles aligned with good to the gods in order to form ethics. In this way, people were spared from questioning the rationality of ethics, since it was decreed by a being higher than human wisdom and ability. Public doubt thus became unreasonable.

Religion has always been tied to power. Whoever controls the interpretation and revision of ethics can consolidate authority. Later, divine power came to serve royal power. Many religious concepts are related to the maintenance of authority.

The afterlife—heaven and hell—teaches that the good ascend to bliss while the evil descend to torment. Reincarnation teaches that karma determines whether one enters higher or lower realms. These ideas often merge with the afterlife: judgment first, then rebirth. Original sin, for example, means that humanity is indebted to God.

Applied in the secular world, these concepts encourage fear of death, increase tolerance of suffering, ensure abundant labor, discourage the lower classes from criticizing unreflective reproduction, and prevent them from questioning the fairness of class boundaries or treatment. Especially pernicious is the idea that all suffering is one’s own fault—an irrational attribution that suppresses reflection and demands, greatly stabilizing society and reducing the distribution of resources to the lower strata, in line with the interests of those in power.

The Dual Role of Religion Of course, religion is not merely a tool of power. It also has positive functions:

Helping people face death

Encouraging moral behavior

Providing a degree of social welfare

Offering psychological comfort

These functions both support authority and benefit the masses.

In my view, religion is a transitional product in humanity’s path toward modernity. The benefits religion provides can also be found elsewhere, but the harms it produces are not necessarily replicated elsewhere.

**The Definition and Types of Fear ** Fear is composed of instinctive reactions and consciousness. Like other emotions, it operates primarily through imagination. Regardless of its form, the essence of fear is the dread of loss—loss of material resources, life, or immaterial things such as relationships, reputation, emotions, or states of being. Fear can be divided into soft fear and hard fear. Generally, soft fear is non-material, while hard fear is material. Soft fear refers to all fears that do not endanger life or freedom; hard fear refers to those that do.

Fear is subjective, for it is an emotion. It must first be triggered by a concrete object, then amplified and fermented by imagination. For the individual, there is no direct relation between a specific object and fear; everything depends on personal differences. Even collective fears require some kind of bond to connect them—whether learned through experience or inherited genetically. For example, humans’ fear of snakes.

**What Is Truly Worth Fearing ** Soft fear can transform into hard fear, and vice versa. The two can influence and compose one another. In the constant reversals of fear, there will eventually be an outcome. When does this final outcome arrive? It is when the fear of the fearful one dissipates—only then can the actual result of fear be seen. I believe that only what ultimately endangers freedom is truly worth fearing. The fear of losing wealth and other forms of soft fear are essentially magnified results of social conditioning. As long as one does not care about the opinions of others, such fears are not worth mentioning. The collective will always forget; one must eventually let go. In reality, the fears that affect an individual’s survival in society require the individual to solve problems, not to remain in fear.

**Obedience Is Everywhere ** In daily life, when people obey others, norms, or rules, at root it is fear at work. It is merely mixed with more soft fears. Countless human-made concepts serve as cages, and the opinions of others become wounds, together shaping the fears of the individual. Perhaps their share is small, but the root is always the fear of losing something. Under the guidance of reason, people choose obedience, even packaging it as other positive notions to make themselves feel better. From a utilitarian perspective, there is nothing wrong with this—it is simply the result of rational tools at work.

**Can Obedience Bring Benefits? ** Many choose obedience because it brings benefits. Avoiding punishment is one such benefit. But I believe this only holds under transparent rules. When rules are constantly changing, narrowing, or when the cost of obedience outweighs its benefits, then it is no longer worthwhile. Simply put: when a company is about to collapse and delays paying wages, there is no need to continue working. The greatest fear—unemployment leading to loss of income—has already been realized. To continue obeying at that point is purely negative return.

**The Root of Power Is Obedience ** Essentially, the simplest way to gain power is to exploit fear—whether fear of the ruler, of outsiders, or of other important values. This is because the essence of obedience is fear. Whether its use is positive or negative, the difference lies only in the fact that the negative is more direct. When people obey a person or a group, that person or group gains power. In reality, power is granted by the obedient to the ruler, and the magnitude of power is proportional to the quality of obedience.

**What is the quality of obedience? ** It is the ability of the obedient to maintain the system, and the integrity of the system under the ruler’s authority. Rulers may be multiple or singular. Each level of obedience derives its capacity to maintain the system from its subordinates and from its own managerial ability. The integrity of the system depends on the degree of division of labor, with the aim of establishing a self-consistent system.

**Evil Power and Just Power ** Evil power primarily uses violence to create fear, thereby maintaining the normal operation of each level of the system. This is common in groups without resources. When power acquires resources, it tends to shift toward the “just” use of soft fear. Yet this remains unsustainable, greatly weakening the possibility of the group’s survival.

Just power also employs fear, but relies more on soft fear. Compared with evil, it destroys less trust and better sustains the group. The difference between the two lies in the obedient: the more capable a group is of facing fear, the more just the power it generates. This is because there is always a game between the obedient and the ruler. Only when there is a balance of strength can order be maintained without causing suffering to the obedient.

**The Origin of Ethics ** I believe this is the origin of ethics: a tool in the service of power. It has been preserved only because it benefits the majority. And the transformation of ethics is essentially the replacement of one tool with another, more suitable to the development of the times.

The Practical Value of Diversity Exceeds Its Symbolic Meaning

In this essay, “diversity” refers to tolerance toward matters of little consequence. Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial: it promotes intellectual progress and technological development. Its fundamental role lies in enabling different ideas to complement one another, thereby fostering innovation. Yet diversity on its own brings no real benefit; rather, it can plunge a community into chaos. The proper place of diversity should be as a margin of flexibility under an inclusive standard. Only through the guidance of standards, combined with the vitality of diversity, can a community move toward a better future.

Since humanity cannot unify its thoughts, diversity necessarily exists. But its true value lies in maintaining the balance of the entire system. Simply put, systemic balance is like ecological balance: each ecological niche interacts with others to ensure smooth functioning. Likewise, the balance of nations and even the world resembles an ecosystem — requiring careful adjustment and avoiding drastic changes. For example, in 1859, twenty-four rabbits introduced from England to Australia multiplied uncontrollably, causing severe ecological invasion and devastating agriculture and land. Applied to nations, the lesson is the same: never, for the sake of temporary impulses, shake the foundations or destroy the entire system.

Whatever does not defy the laws of physics may one day come to pass.

Nothingness is reality

Nothingness is the essence of reality. Nothingness means lack of meaning, and the universe only gained meaning after the emergence of intelligent life. Meaning is the product of thought, the understanding of nothingness by consciousness. Only with the self does meaning exist. Since ancient times, humans have had various thoughts and religions. One school says everything is void, another says there is original sin. Nothingness is not the end, but the origin of all thought. If there were a specific meaning, then the multitude of thoughts would not have emerged. The definition of meaning is utility, or a tool for rationalizing ideas. In my view, true meaning is only one kind — an innate kind, not dependent on external things. It is like a frequency or pattern that emerges without matter or existence. If a god has predetermined everything, that still is not true meaning. That is merely a human projection onto a power — some force beyond human comprehension, vague and ambiguous. God is merely another form of consciousness. Any meaning that cannot exist prior to existence is not true meaning. Is the meaning set by god worth following? No, because it is still a fabricated meaning dependent on existence. It can be changed. It is imposed, only difficult to comprehend due to its power. Therefore, all existence, all existence in parallel universes, has no meaning. Only intelligent beings create fabricated meaning to comfort themselves.

Theoretical Supplement Meaninglessness of Determinism and Inevitability of Choice: Determinism is the inevitable result of natural law and initial conditions, carrying no inherent meaning. Choice, as a phenomenon within deterministic paths, will inevitably occur in some form whether or not humans exist. It is not proof of free will, but a natural expression of causal evolution.

Initial Probability Field: Refers to the primordial probabilistic distribution that existed prior to the emergence of the universe, whose state already encompassed all subsequent contingent events within a single universe, and which, through the unfolding of time, manifests as determined necessity.

Full content on medium. Don't worry, I'm not doing this for money.