Learning to think is a difficult process

Learning to think is a difficult process

Problems with thinking are that people believe, that they should not practice or learn thinking. In some cases, people think that thinking is a skill, which is stable during all life. But the thing is that our image of the world is changing, and also when we would become older, and get more life experience, we would find another aspect from the very well known things.

Also, the way to get information is changing, and that thing would change our way to think about things. Life experience and mass media like the internet are telling things, what we ever imagined to become public. That thing what the Internet has been bringing in our mind is that there could be false information, what would be used to reach political goals. But the thing is that the biggest problem with the human race is that we are reading texts and look at the new, which feels comfortable for us.

That means that we should find also other ways to see things than just what is supporting our way of think. And another problem is that we let other people think for us. If we don't use criticism that news, what is meant for supporting the political or some other agenda are more effective than they even should be. There is sometimes seen the phenomenon, that everything that is supporting our political agenda should allow, and other opinions should not even be written, because they are disturbing our visions or opinions. in the media and other discussions is one thing, what people have forgotten when they are writing stories about things like military power.

That thing is that every nation uses it's landscape as they or their leaders want. That is the thing in the law. It is made by somebody for protecting something. But even if the law justifies something, we might not like that thing. Like the law is a different thing than follow the law. We are following speed limits because the punishment would be harder than what we might get to follow the limits, and being at destiny a little bit later. This is the reason, why we are following the law.

Also writing and speaking against law and agitating people to act against the law is dangerous because we might get prosecutions about those opinions, and here I mean that the lawbook doesn't think for us. But still, we follow the law without excuses. Or at least we would not show those excuses in public by driving with very high speed against traffic rules, or I hope that nobody does those things.

That would seem a very unusual problem, because of the intelligent people are sometimes put on the stand, and people believe, that everything, what they say is always well thought and argument thing, what might be only the delusion. Even the persons, who have the highest grade of intelligence must think all sides of the things, what they are going to say.

And when we are comparing the everyday way to think about things to the philosophical way to think about things, the last one is the deeper and takes longer time than the regular way to think about things. This is the thing, what we always forget. If we would practice the philosophical or deeper way to think in supermarkets, we would become a little bit, arduous people. When we have invented things, we must realize that every single invention has two sides, and they can be used in good or bad things.

Learning of thinking consist of a neutral way to think. The neutral way to think means that there might be something, what we don't like or what is against our moral and ethic point of the view. But we must not always show great emotions for those things. If we think about rock music, we must realize that even if we would not like the fans way wear their clothes of even rock music, we don't need to show great emotions for that kind of things.

The thing that somebody listens to rock music doesn't mean that those people would give them votes in the election campaigns. And if we would be at that concert we have not had to get angry about things, what we cannot see. While thinking about this kind of questions, we are sometimes meet persons who are asking, should we think this way about things like pollution and human rights. Here I must repeat myself and say, that there is little difference between a rock concert and human rights.

One of the worst visions in people's mind is the state, what convicts the breaking the human right in the lawbook but allows those things in real life. That means that biting a person on a cell might be prohibited, but those things would not ever prosecute.

This means that authorities have the right to do what they want to do. The biggest problems with human rights are civil wars, which are caused because of the corrupted government, which breaks human rights. In those cases also guerrillas would act against human rights and international law. International law is problematic in those cases because there is no mention, what is the legal government?

The thing is that international law mentions that guerrilla is criminal, what can shot immediately after capturing. And the thing is that in international law is mentioned that every state has a right to use every kind of weapons in police actions. So in antiguerrilla operations is legal to use even chemical weapons what are inhumane weapons. And then another problem with international law is that it doesn't mention or determine, how the government should come to power. There is forgetting one thing, and that is that nations are confessing nations and states not governments.

And that legitimizes also use of guerrillas or military forces to take the rule in the nation. The thing that the leaders of the state must not even get a single vote in the elections is also one of the problems in international law. But the law is the law, and there is no determination even the length of the season of the presidency. That allows the president to sit on the office even all the life, and there is no determination either the age of the president. Those things are really interesting topics for discussions about thinking.

30 years from Tiananmen

30 years from Tiananmen


1. What we have learned about this case?

When China transformed its economic system to the "socialistic marketing system", that means that the Chinese government has raised the economic level of the people in China, and that helps to keep society peaceful. And the large population of China would make it a good marketing area, would that cause a very embarrassing situation also in the western nations. If western nations would irritate the Chinese government, that would not allow making products in China.

The silence would tell that somebody shames that thing, what is embarrassing in the eyes of other nations because if the people don't stop to talk about Tiananmen, must western leaders follow the people, and transfer the production to some other countries.  The big economic value of China makes human rights and political system with Tienanmen case somehow difficult topic to talk. Because if the western governments would not respect China, they will not market their products to that area.

2. Violence was unnecessary

And otherwise, if the western nations would make trade contracts with China, that is interpreted as the acceptance of the political and human rights situation in China. But as we know, the good and clean facade helps people to forget things, what happened 30 years ago. There is a one really interesting thing about this case and its the violation against protesters were not necessary.

The weather in the summer in Beijing is really hot, and the protesters would not able to stay in their position in the extreme heat. The thing is that the reputation of the military in China gone, and also in other countries has been talking, that the military forces can be used against own people, and that was removed the shield of those organizations, that they could be used only against foreign enemies. Tiananmen was the case, what made Eastern block nations afraid their governments and caused the situation, where people forced to begin the uprising against the communist nations.

3. China would want the same position, what the Soviet Union had in the cold war era. 

Without hygienic abilities, those people would leave from the place, and after that, the police could arrest them without any attention of the foreign countries. The thing, what makes this case a little bit embarrassing is that it would disturb the trade between China and western nations. China needs co-operation with western companies, that it can get new technology for its military systems.

But there are more problems also in the internal politics of that country. When China released markets it dropped the bottom off from the ideological excuse for the one-party policy, what was argued with communism and Marxism-Leninism. But when the markets opened, the thing what remained was the dictatorship.

4. International law is not controlling the internal affairs of nations. 

The thing is that growing economic situation in China guarantees that the society in that country is peaceful and that releases resources for foreign affairs, like strengthen and modernization of the military forces, what are the really good equipment for strengthening own position in the international field of politics.

The problems with the relationship with western nations are that the rulers of China use those relationships as an argument that the western nations support the one party policy of China. And this kind of things is mentioned as the internal affairs of China. In international law is not mentioned about, what kind of political system is allowed in nations.

5. The foreign technology benefits the military forces of China

That means China has juridical right to be a one-party nation, and there is nothing, what would deny that thing. Tiananmen case is a purely internal affair of China, and that's why there is nothing wrong in that case. So the police acts are internal affairs, and if China would not justify those happenings, that is the own business of that nation.

One of the things is that China has grown the export and also opened new military bases including overseas bases tells that it really want to reach the position, what the Soviet Union had in the past world. And this would make it a stronger actor in the international arena, what people have ever thought. This is a very problematic thing in international politics because every nation has the legal right to defend itself and forward own benefit.