Even if he sees it that way, what use is it to you?

"Even if he sees it that way, what use is it to you?"Suttanipata908

There is a conference to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Fukuzawa Yukichi's "Encouragement of Learning," so I was asked to go and do a stand-up comedy, and so I came. I won't be singing or dancing, but please bear with me.
I will leave the content and historical background of "Encouragement of Learning" to other professors, and I would like to talk about universal matters.
I have recently been studying molecular anthropology again, and I decided to look up the Mongolian fold in more detail, so I searched the Internet.
The Mongolian fold is a fold-like part of the upper eyelid that covers the inner corner of the eye. It was so named because it is often seen in the human population that was once called Mongoloid. Anatomically, it is called the epicanthic fold. This trait is not only found in people who were called "Mongoloids," but also in the San people of southern Africa, who are considered by molecular anthropologists to be the ancestor of Homo sapiens.
So I did a search, and I was stunned to find a huge number of websites for cosmetic surgery clinics.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at some of the sites, and they were basically saying that if you remove your Mongolian fold, you'll be beautiful.
I started to think deeply. What on earth is this cosmetic surgery?
Would someone look at themselves in the mirror and think, "If I get this Mongolian fold removed, I'll be more beautiful. Then I'll be able to accept my own beauty more. Then I'll feel radiant" and go to a clinic?
Or would they go with the thought, "If I get this Mongolian fold removed, I might have more opportunities for people to see me as beautiful. Then I'll feel radiant"?
I think most people feel both. But if we had to choose a ratio, I think many people would say that the latter feeling is stronger.

If that is the case, then people who perform cosmetic surgery have a business to have someone see things in a certain way - in this case, themselves.

If that is the case, Buddha-Shakyamuni would say to him:

"Even if he sees it that way, what use is it to you?" Suttanipata908

I think Buddha-Shakyamuni was trying to say something along the lines of, "Is it possible to feel happy when you hear religious or philosophical doctrines from others? Isn't it our business to know what and how we see things ourselves?" However, I see another aspect here.

It is an ethical aspect. That is, it could be seen as saying that it is ethically wrong for someone to interfere with the way others see things in a certain way.

In Wittgenstein's terms, it would be the same to say, "That act is not beautiful." Buddha Shakyamuni would probably say that it is a wrong act because it does not contribute to the peace of mind of either party.

These days, there is a proliferation of cosmetic companies that appear to target middle-aged women.
These cosmetics, of course, place value not on health but on beauty -- on how others see you.
According to them, it is self-evident that aging is negative, that an aged appearance is ugly, and that youth is beautiful.
What if someone asked them the following?
"Was aging really that negative? Did Vincent van Gogh's Uncle Tanguy paint ugly things because he was fascinated by them?"
They might respond:
"Probably not. But there are people who want it, so why not sell it?"
Well, that's true.

There is a video of Joseph Goebbels giving a speech at what appears to be a Nazi Party rally - I'm not sure exactly where - saying "good government needs good propaganda." Immediately afterwards, the audience bursts into laughter. I saw in that laughter a kind of remorse, as if to say, "Is it really OK to say something like this so openly?"
But I wonder whether Goebbels or the Nazi Party members of the time had any ethical concerns about "interfering with how someone sees things."
A German translation of the Sutta Nipata was published by Fausboll in 1889, and in 1911 a version with detailed annotations by Neumann was also published. Goebbels received his doctorate in literature from the University of Heidelberg. Heidelberg University is well known for having had professors such as Hegel and the pioneer of comparative religion, Max Weber, but it is questionable whether Goebbels studied philosophy or comparative religion thoroughly. And when it comes to primitive Buddhism, they may have never even heard of it. Incidentally, the title of Goebbels' doctoral thesis was "Wilhelm von Schütz as a Playwright: A Contribution to the History of Romantic Drama." Words like "boring" and "mediocrity" are simply insufficient to describe it.

We will explore these points on another occasion, but for now, we can agree that people involved in publicity and advertising may not have much of an ethical concern about "intruding on how someone sees someone."

Now, those who want to remove the mongolian fold through cosmetic surgery may argue against Buddha Shaka Muni.

"No, no, that's what I care about - how he sees me."

So, who wins this contest? As for me? If I were the referee, I would give the victory to Buddha Shaka Muni. The winning move was a brilliant and clever twist. Some of you may have some objections, but I would like to leave that for the Q&A session that follows.

I'm sure I'll soon be met with a jeer, "So what does your story have to do with 'Encouragement of Learning'?", so I'd like to move on.

I think that many of these people who want to remove mongolian folds don't have the idea of ​​whether there is an ethical problem with others interfering with what one person sees in a certain way. Perhaps some of them have never thought about ethics themselves.

When I was working part-time a long time ago, I pointed out that there was an ethical problem with a certain aspect of the work and that it should be improved, and someone who called himself my supervisor -- I don't remember approving it -- came over and said, "May I have a moment?" I was taken to another room, and he began searching the Internet for the word "ethics." Yes, he had never studied ethics or thought about it.

In fact, there may be quite a few people like this. Perhaps we need to hold another symposium to explore the causes.

What would happen if a person who has studied anthropology or biology was told by someone, "You have mongolian folds and are not beautiful"?

He would not feel good about it. But he would be able to think that his mongolian folds might be the result of natural or sexual selection, so he might not get angry or upset. At the very least, he would not run off to a plastic surgery clinic the next day.

It would not be surprising if he were to feel moved by the idea that his mongolian folds are the culmination of his ancestors' efforts to live.

What would happen if a person who is a fan of Buddha Shakyamuni, who rereads the Sutta Nipata and Dhammapada whenever he has the chance, and who also studies ethics, was told by someone, "You have mongolian folds and are not beautiful"?
He may not get angry, but he may protest, saying, "What harm does it do you that I have a Mongolian wall? Your actions are not right. It is of no use to you or me. I have a feeling that I want to tell you what Buddha Shakyamuni said, so I will tell you. Don't look at what others have done or have not done. Look at what you have done or have not done." Either way, I guarantee he will not make an appointment at a plastic surgery clinic.

This seems self-evident to me, but there is something that not a few people not believe. That is, everything has many sides to it.

To the question that a child asks when he enters elementary school and is suddenly told to study, "Why do I have to study?", I would like to answer as follows.
Studying academia -- and by study I mean studying a wide range of fields and comparing and linking them -- is useful because it allows you to see things from multiple perspectives. Studying academia will keep your mongolian folds and your mind at peace.

So, I hope this brings my "Encouragement of Learning" to a happy conclusion. Now let's have a chat over tea like humans, as we are both people who, unlike AI, appreciate humor.