The Sentiment of the Weak, the Logic of the Strong: Can Knowledge and Action Be Unified?

 The Sentiment of the Weak, the Logic of the Strong: Can Knowledge and Action Be Unified?

How can a person with a sound mind exist in isolation in this world? No matter who they are, they likely need, to some extent, the sentiment of the weak. The vastness of the universe, the expanse of time and space, and the inescapable cycle of birth, aging, sickness, death, love, hate, and emotions—facing all this, every individual is weak. Fundamentally, the sentiment of the weak is necessary for self-preservation. How can a person with normal intelligence properly integrate into human society? No matter who they are, they likely need, to some extent, the logic of the strong. The biological principle of survival of the fittest, the sociological reality of the strong preying on the weak, and the personal desires and self-nature that no one can entirely ignore or negate—fundamentally, the logic of the strong is necessary for self-rescue. Can knowledge and action be unified?

Humans are contradictory beings. In this era, the rapid development of science and technology—particularly artificial intelligence and information technology—along with the fragmentation of information and the individual’s sense of powerlessness, likely intensifies this contradiction. The greatest benefit of this intensification might be that it significantly accelerates the cultivation of independent personalities. Yet isn’t the greatest problem also rooted in this? For an individual, developing an independent personality too early means having to independently reconcile their own contradictions—balancing the sentiment of the weak and the logic of the strong—at an earlier stage. But can this reconciliation truly be accomplished solely through an independent personality? This process is likely a very slow one. Too slow, and it risks inertia; too fast, and it may breed restlessness. Can knowledge and action be unified?

Society, too, is a contradictory entity. In this era, the dramatic advancement of science and technology juxtaposed against the relative lag of social humanities makes this contradiction even more pronounced. Even in democratic, free, and open societies, this contradiction seems unavoidable. Globally, there are still far too many authoritarian, despotic, and closed societies addressing—or rather adapting to—the rapid development of science and technology in their own bizarre ways. In the short term, their approaches might even appear more efficient, because when the development of science and technology is entirely controlled by societal power, there’s little need to consider so-called social issues. Or rather, when science and technology become tools of societal power, social problems become invisible. As for the costs, that’s another matter altogether. Can knowledge and action be unified?

Humans and society will always exist in a state of contradiction. No matter what kind of person they are, as long as they have a heart, they’ve likely heard of—or even confronted—social issues they wish to avoid but are powerless to change. The difference lies only in the scale of the problems. No matter what kind of society it is, as long as it exists, there will likely be people—whether actively or passively—trying to pull it backward. The difference lies only in their numbers. The relationship between individuals and society is likely always a grid-like structure: individuals form small societies, and these small societies, square by square, form larger ones. The essence of this grid can be seen as boundaries or as ties. Geography, class, culture, industry, wealth, interests, and even emotions—all are boundaries and all are ties. But the strongest, and perhaps ultimate, boundary and tie likely lies in thought—in the human heart. Yet, be it the heart or thought, these ultimately lean more toward knowledge, don’t they? Where has action gone? Can knowledge and action be unified?