Gender equality

 Is gender equality achievable?

Modern society calls for gender equality.

I question whether equality is achievable.

Let's eliminate the difference between men and women.

is this correct?

Isn't there a lot of difference between men and women due to gender differences?

Only women can give birth.

This is a big difference.

But there are probably many other big differences by gender.

Men and women are different creatures with different genders.

Any discussion of gender equality requires thinking about the biological differences between men and women.

We are divided into male and female.

It is imperative to consider this meaning.

It doesn't apply to everyone, but

Men and women are said to have different tendencies.

For example, in a conversation

It is often said that men want conclusions and women want empathy.

Not all people are like this.

However, it is true that many things apply.

Men tend to be stronger than women.

This is true.

In this case, it is more efficient to leave heavy lifting to men.

However, even men dislike carrying heavy objects.

Even so, it would be an outrage to say that men and women should carry heavy objects equally.

After all, physical labor is expected of men.

Women are said to be more capable of discerning colors than men.

This is because there are many cells that respond to color.

It's not that men can't tell colors,

The research results that women have more of these cells cannot be ignored.

Although few examples

You know that men and women are different.

If there is a gender difference, isn't it difficult to achieve equality at that point?

If you try to make a short person and a tall person the same height,

Both will suffer inequality.

If you fit a short person to a tall person, you will wear heel shoes.

The simple height will be the same, but the taller person will wear nothing.

Is this fair?

We are not deceived by the illusion of equality,

We need to accept and respect each other's differences.

We have strengths and weaknesses,

The ideal is to live in an environment that suits you.

It is important to consider the pros and cons.

This also applies to gender.

We are always different men and women,

We have to live with the fact that there are many different parts.

As long as they are different creatures, they cannot be the same.

Does it make sense to ignore it and cry for equality?

Trans-late

 I was thinking about the meaning of translating Japanese sentences into English. Because we can write philosophical texts in Japanese, if not in English. People often say that Japanese is ambiguous, but there is nothing too ambiguous to be communicated in a literal way.

So, what is the issue?

Why should we dare to translate Japanese into English?

It is said that the difference between Japanese and English is that subject and object are either undifferentiated or separated. Of course, Japanese is subject-object undifferentiated, and English is subject-object separated.

This all-too-famous point may also be found in individual words. For example, Japanese“MINNA（みんな)” can be translated into English as “everyone”. While in Japanese “MINNA“ means the whole of all people together, in English it means the total of "every (each) " and "one (one person) ".

As you can see, English makes a clear line between subject and object, whereas Japanese does not. However, even if we were to list all such comparatively simple facts, we would not be able to see the meaning of translating a Japanese sentence into English. 

What is essential is what the difference in the degree of delineation between Japanese and English does to our thinking through the translation of a Japanese sentence into English.

Then, we need to think about what translation is. Simply put, translation is the process of taking an object that has been expressed in one form and expressing it in a different form. In other words, translation is the process of reforming a Japanese expression into an English grammatical form to express the Japanese content in English.

If we look at the translation process in this way, the process of translating a Japanese expression with a low degree of subject-object separation into an English grammatical form with a high degree of subject-object separation means reconstructing a state in which the subject and object are not yet separated into a state in which they are separated.

More simply put, we Japanese speakers are made aware of our own attitude of not separating subject and object for the first time by applying the English grammatical form, for example, when we apply the English grammatical form of "everyone (every person)" to the Japanese translation of "MINNA”.

That is, we find in the expression "MINNA" a subject-object relationship unique to Japanese that we had never suspected before, just as a reaction to the use of English expressions.

Translation is a self-reflection through contact with different expressions. But it is limited by the language system of the target language.

To avoid repeated habits

 The concept of "capital" in Bourdieu sociology is as follows.

 

Among the terms "economic capital," "economic capital," and "educational capital," he focused on "cultural capital." Cultural capital refers to cultural assets such as books and works of art and is called habitus.

In a free society, children are given equal opportunities to improve their abilities, but it is said that the problem of how parents perceive learning as valuable and the tendency to like things will change.

And he states that if you value your family, habitus will repeat itself with cruel consequences.

 

In fact, according to the "Relationship between Parents' Income/Home Environment and Children's Academic Ability" report (March 2018) by the National Institute for Educational Policy Research, which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, there is a correlation between parents' income and educational background and children's academic ability. It is said that educational background is strongly influenced by mothers who spend more time with their children.

 

 

We analyzed that parents' "learning history" may have an effect rather than educational background.

Parents' "learning history" influences children's academic ability is whether the parents themselves have a history of experiencing intellectual pleasure through studying.

Mothers who have experienced discovering the true meaning of studying should not force their children to study, but rather try to find ways to make their children interested in studying and try to work out various ways based on the characteristics of their children. I think so.

On the other hand, I think that a mother who could not find meaning in studying when she was a student tends to make remarks to her children that could make her study "painful."

Academic ability is influenced by multiple factors in a complex manner, so it is not a fixed thing, but parents have a particularly large influence on children in early childhood. I think that the fate of my child will change in the future, and that I will be a little closer to solving habitus.

 

How to perceive landscape

 The theme I was reading during summer vacation was about landscape theory.

The reason why I decided to research this theme is that people have different ways of perceiving landscapes, and I was curious about how they perceive landscapes.

In my image, a landscape is a wide range of views that can be seen in a certain place.

After some research, I came across a very interesting discovery that I would like to share with all of you.

 

I learned that the way we perceive landscapes is very different between the Far East and the West, where we live.

First, I think there are few Japanese people who want to be in untouched nature and the wild.

Westerners, however, think that it is normal to feel what they call nature, a place with undeveloped wilderness and water.

The characteristic of Western landscape gardens is their "naturalness."

The nature that can be seen there is "artificial nature" that has been devised to look natural, not "raw" nature that has been left unattended.

To give an artificial naturalness, the landscape gardeners did not refer to "raw" but to landscape paintings as artificial.

"Trying to put on make-up to give the impression that you are not wearing make-up" must be distinguished from "not wearing make-up."

In contrast, it is quite common to call gardens and parks in Japan nature.

If it's filled with trees, flowers, water, etc., I think it's a natural landscape.

I think that both natures created by untouched technology and "well-organized nature" are included in the category of nature.

However, can I call parks, gardens, landscape gardens, artificial beaches, and hot spring baths “nature”? I have a question.

For modern people, nature is a place of vacation, and the landscape has become an object of affection and protection.

I think the environmental movement is part of that phenomenon. However, if you look at the scale of long history, this is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think the value changes with each era.

In other words, it is an example of a change in the composition of humans and landscapes, the relationships between humans, and the sensibilities of humans. Landscapes are not only visually evaluated, but also evaluated by the five senses and by the whole body.

 

I want to address the dominant sense in psychology.

Sense dominance is like a “brain habit” that tells us which senses we tend to use more.

The habits differ from person to person, so depending on what the person's sense of superiority is, the way they feel and input the same event will differ from person to person.

Human beings receive information through the five senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste), but the information obtained from which senses the head and mind react more easily differs from person to person.

Visually dominant types are particularly good at recognizing information through their eyes and understanding things through pictures, diagrams, and flow charts.

Hearing dominant types are good at capturing things by sound and are sensitive to changes in the voice of the other person. Tactile (physical) dominant types are characterized by being able to easily perceive what they have experienced with their bodies and what they have touched with their hands.

I thought that by knowing which of these three types I am closest to, I would not only have a different way of perceiving the landscape, but I would also be able to apply it to my daily life.

in view, to be visible

I was curious about the difference in direction between analog / digital photography and humans, which Paul, my friend, pointed out, and I thought about it for a moment.

I think there is a similar problem here between the sense of vision and the way of reason.

I focused on the verb model in the language.

There are active and passive voices of transitive verbs in Indo-European. When it comes to vision, it's "to see" and "to be seen."

In Indo-European languages, verbs determine the structure of the whole sentence. For verbs, the subject is defined (built-in) by conjugation changes, and the object is planned according to the corresponding sentence pattern.

That is, the verb "see" pre-plans the "seeing" subject and the "seen" object. This is, of course, the origin of dualism.

This is natural in Indo-European, but not in Japanese.

(This is something I'm curious about because my mother tongue is Japanese.)

Let me be specific:

The Japanese verb, which corresponds to look, watch, and see in English, is "miru", and its stem is "mi" (same root as the eye).

Correspond as follows.

 Active voice : I see you : Watashi-ha Anata-wo Mi-ru

 Passive voice : I'm seen by you: Watashi-ha Anata-ni Mi-rareru (-rareteiru)

See : Mi-ru 見る

Be seen : Mi-rareru 見られる

And there is another form of Japanese.

? : Mi-eru 見える

It seems very difficult and almost impossible to translate this into English, but the following case seems to be close.

In view, to be visible

Or, for example, a room with an ocean view.

Here, view is a noun or an adjective usage of a noun, which is expressed as a verb (intransitive verb) in Japanese.

Or, it can be said that the classification of verb-adverb-adjective-noun in Indo-European language does not exactly apply to Japanese.

What I pay attention to is that this state (mi-eru) corresponding to "in view, to be visible" in English is a state in which the subject-object are undivided, which corresponds to the phenomenon in phenomenology.

Adjectives are a function that indicates the attributes of what is expressed by nouns. But in Japanese, when it actually works in a sentence, it is not clear whether the attribute is an internal attribute of the object itself or a subjective one that is perceived by the subject. In Indo-European languages, there is still a tendency to emphasize the objectivity of target attributes regardless of the subject, but in Japanese it is an intermediate, mutual relationship.

We carry out our thoughts by language and, in that sense, unknowingly conform to the logos model, but when we refer to different types of languages ​​(in this case Japanese), we could consciously reproduce the hidden model?

It is about capturing vision in contrasting active and passive directions, and in an interrelated state before that direction occurs analytically.