Through the discussion in "Globalization and Enlightenment thought (1)" and "Globalization and Enlightenment thought(2)", I have explained that we need to explain "why" for lots of variety of things. This time I would like to discuss how far we have to explain for those "why"s.
Considering lots of examples, my conclusion is that three things are enough to be acceptable. First is that it brings lots of variety of people to join the competition. Second is that it does not deny unlimited possibilities. Third is that it does not violates the social order or human rights. I will explain these as follows;
1.Bringing lots of variety of people to join the competition.
If you launch a project for "Mieruka (Visualization which improves the working process by visualize the problem and everyone can see the problem)", you almost always meet the person who questions that just "Mieruka" does not mean anything more than just visualize the work. Although such question might be true in some aspects, there is a possibility that such person has narrow view of globalization.
The purpose of "Mieruka" is to introduce lots of variety of people to join the competition. So it means a lot by just "Mieruka".
Google has the mission statements "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". This is "Mieruka" of all the information. Although lots of other companies which provide the search engine had become disappeared, the reason why Google is still alive is because of "Mieruka" of information.
YouTube also became the popular services, having overcome the copyright law. This is also because it gives a chance to lots of people to join the competition.
What I mean for the competition is that the system which provides lots of people to think like Descartes.
2. Unlimited is more acceptable than limited.
Although the fact that the entire human will die or all the thing will be disappeared is true, it will be more acceptable when you deny it. When you think of why you need to work or why you want to be promoted, it will have no meaning when you thought that all the thing will be disappeared when you die. Thinking that you will grow eternally will be more acceptable.
For example, when you want to discuss the "going concern", no one will discuss seriously when you insist that almost all the companies have been disappear so "going concern" is wrong.
3.The thing which does not violates the social order or human rights.
Although your explanation pass through the process of 1 and 2 above, it will not be acceptable when it violates the social order or human rights. You cannot upload the all the thing in YouTube when it violates the human rights or social order.
In plain words of 1, 2,3 above, it will be acceptable for the reason why something exits when you explain that such things exits for encouraging lots of people to be positive in order to compete for the equation of the method of thinking like Descartes. You can define "encouraging lots of people to be positive in order to compete for the aquition of the method of thinking like Descartes." as simply "the reason to live". If you want to succeed, you must check whether you have been giving other persons “the reason to live". For example, if you are musician who does not sell well, you need to check whether your songs or your performance gives “the reason to live" to the listener or audience and such performance or music is the one which you simplify wanted to sing or perform. I am not saying that some genre of" music such as cheering songs" are good since some people like "death metals" find " the reason for live" from listening such music but I just want to pointed out that your music or performance might be simply self-centered.
In summary, I have discussed the globalization and Enlightment thought three times. Next time, I would like to discuss “2. Unlimited is more acceptable than limited.
・Globalization and Enlightenment thought (1)
・Glolbalizationand Enlightenment thought(2)"