Laissez-faire and a Misunderstanding

It has been said again and again that Hong Kong’s success story owes to laissez-faire. Many laissez-faire supporters think that the value of money is objective, but most other things are valuable only for those who consider them important. In the same vein, environmental protection, heritage conservation, and art promotion are considered by many to be valuable only for those who love them, although these things, they think, may be valuable for everyone in terms of the money they may produce.

Having laissez-faire internalized throughout their lives, many successful businessmen in Hong Kong understand social development in the following way: “Talk less about historical value and conservation value as we always disagree about them; let’s think about economic growth since everyone needs it!” Here, “we” and “everyone” are being used, and these words (and the like) are frequently used in defence of laissez-faire. This shows that many defendants of laissez-faire believe their view to be sound as it is justifiable to every person (would they love Scanlon’s contractualism as soon as they read it?). We should then clear up a common misunderstanding, which is also a common self-misunderstanding — many laissez-faire supporters, actually, do not brush aside morality; at least, they cannot afford to do so in front of journalists. (First draft: January 9)

Self-honesty

Over the past few years, I have come to believe that there are two things that are of great importance for anyone who is honest to himself and wants to think better and better. Let me discuss the two things.

First, be prepared to give up what we believe. Every day, we (including me) spend a lot of time to think and speak in a way that shows euphoria of our self-image; this is not necessarily bad. But modesty is far more important than euphoria in many cases, especially when euphoria disallows us to think straight. As a philosophy student, I prefer to put my point in the following way: If you’re not prepared to end up becoming a philosophical anarchist, you can’t think very well.

Second, reflect constantly upon the way we are being critical, indignant, disappointed, euphoric, nonchalant, and so on. For example, we ask ourselves: why am I criticizing things in this way? Why was I angry in that way? Why did I seek people’s attention in that way? Sometimes—just sometimes, our answers are these: mostly because I envied; since I was too confident about my view; since I am not confident enough; because I am too lonely; etc. Reflection of this kind can be very useful, and should be done with a great deal of honesty. Honesty, however, does not require us to belittle ourselves either in the process of self-examination or after it. (First draft: January 13)

Worries and Happiness

A very good friend of mine kindly gave me some advice, since he was afraid that I might suffer from the melancholic feelings of “being unable to take a high post, but unwilling to take a lower one” (my translation of the Chinese saying “高不成、低不就”). His worries are very sensible, as I sometimes appeared to be cynical when discussing things about human life and philosophy — I spoke in a strong tone, and I showed my disagreement in one way or another when I disagreed with him or with others. In response, I said to him that I might sometimes suffer from those melancholic feelings, but on closer introspection later, I could not remember when I suffered from them, although my character has many other weaknesses that I would be abashed to discuss here.

I do have other worries, one of which is about my father: I fear that he would become long-term sick or even terminally ill, for if that happened he would probably be very pessimistic, and I would not be able to afford the medical expenses. As he is getting older and older and I was not able to purchase medical insurance for him, that worry has become a spectre in my mind. Other worries are much less disturbing; after all, I have learnt from some difficult years of my childhood not to worry too much about my future (though I should think a lot about it). My happiness, I think, is mainly based on these things: human relationships, aesthetic experiences, freedom and leisure, the pursuit of knowledge, and some simple satisfaction of desires. Money and fame may not bring happiness — for me, this cannot be just losers’ logic. Yet because of boredom and vanity, that has been treated by most of us to be a mere commonplace. (First draft: December 27)