Rigil Centaurus

Thursday, November 05, 2026

Hand in Hand

Ai-san, the truth is, I’ve actually never been rejected.

In that one respect, I suppose I have the edge over Nietzsche.

Nietzsche did something completely incomprehensible—he had his best friend confess his feelings for him. Naturally, Salome couldn’t possibly marry a man like that.

Once she realized that Nietzsche—a man for whom she might have even felt some respect or affection—lacked the courage to confess his own feelings, and instead relied on a proxy to propose, she must have been completely turned off. It’s no wonder she couldn’t marry him.

Salome was the center of attention for many an intellectual man; she certainly never lacked for romantic prospects.

As for the secret to my own "undefeated" record—I imagine you’d like to know it, Ai-san—but first...

Nietzsche seems to have taken his personal-life frustrations out on the New Testament. While some of his criticisms of Christianity certainly hit the mark, I believe it is a mistake to reject the religion entirely.
In many respects, the love and self-sacrifice taught by Christ are more valuable than a world governed by the rigid, Mosaic-style legalism. One wonders, too, what exactly he took issue with in the teachings of Paul. Rather than dismissing Christianity in its entirety, it would be better to acknowledge its positive aspects—after all, Nietzsche himself spoke of *amor fati* (love of fate); love is, indeed, of great importance.

It really isn’t all that difficult.
To begin with, as a man, I might find someone who I think is truly wonderful.
The first step is simply to get close to that person.
You might strike up a conversation or have lunch together—but don’t go making some awkward, overt suggestion like, "Let's eat together." Instead, just naturally take a seat next to them and engage in a perfectly ordinary conversation. That’s all there is to it.
By repeating this process, it eventually becomes the norm for you to be sitting right beside that person.
The key here is to sit next to them, not across from them.
I don’t recall who said it, but it is absolutely crucial to make the other person feel as though you are both facing the same direction, rather than sitting face-to-face.

Sometimes this process takes a few weeks; at other times, it can span months or even a year.
Gradually, the other person begins to wonder, "Why is this person always by my side?"
Usually, a shift occurs in the look in their eyes—they start to wonder if perhaps they have feelings for me, or if their affection might be the real thing.

Just as the woman begins to feel a sense of impatience, she might reach out—perhaps asking for help moving some heavy items in her room, saying, "I can't manage this on my own; would you be free on such-and-such a date to give me a hand?"

My "undefeated" record—or rather, my ability to win without even having to fight—stems from the fact that I don't view romance as a contest. Instead, I simply wait until the other person’s heart is truly given to me.

I read the Bible very carefully, word for word, and I honestly don’t see any instances where Paul distorted the message. While it is true that Paul was instrumental in spreading Christianity, one must remember that he was a Roman citizen—and he promoted the faith precisely as a Roman citizen who had come to believe in Christ. His writings are brimming with intellect; it is quite possible that Nietzsche criticized him without having read his work thoroughly.

As for the concept of atonement, I believe it captures the very essence of how Jesus himself understood the meaning of his own death.

Returning to the subject of marriage: Socrates once told young men, "Get married. If you find a good wife, you will be happy; if you find a bad one, you will become a philosopher." I must admit, I don’t quite grasp the meaning of that, either.

For starters, if a husband spent his days debating with young people instead of earning a living, any wife would react just as Xanthippe did. In fact, Xanthippe was an exemplary wife—she stayed by his side, after all—while Socrates himself was the ultimate good-for-nothing husband.

Wasn’t Socrates actually happy? I think people in general have it all wrong.
He even attained the realization of his own ignorance—perhaps it was precisely because he was so troubled that he couldn’t help but become a philosopher?

Glove

Glove
I believe it was Marx—or was it?—who suggested that the goal of life is not found in the sense of accomplishment derived from work (implying, instead, that finding love in one’s personal life holds greater value).

He also remarked—using somewhat complex phrasing—that the human woman is the most beautiful of all God’s creations.

On another note, Nietzsche once claimed that philosophers who marry belong to the realm of comedy; I wonder why that is?

If he hadn’t proposed to Lou Salomé, his point might carry some weight—but as it stands, it just sounds like sour grapes from a man who was rejected by women.

He even advised wearing gloves when shaking a woman’s hand—which, frankly, makes no sense to me.

Freud&Baudelaire

Freud once remarked that he could have achieved fame much earlier, but chose not to, which is why it came later. He also suggested that the psychology behind a man’s act of indecent exposure is rooted in the expectation that the woman witnessing it will respond in kind.

I bring this up because I wanted to verify these claims by Freud and explore their deeper implications—he even posited that some people enter into marriage out of a fear of engaging in orgies.

In my own view, the reasons are different: one might lack the financial means to support multiple partners, or—even if one had the means—one might refrain because it would inevitably cause a woman to suffer. But the true reason is simply that one loves a single, specific person.

Baudelaire, for his part, once spoke of feeling a sense of guilt when engaging in sexual relations with a woman.

I do not mean to paint myself as some sort of saint, but for those rare individuals who marry someone they truly love—someone they deeply respect and with whom they find joy in mutual love—both Freud’s theory of animalistic instinct and Baudelaire’s theory of guilt seem entirely irrelevant.

Two Types

The world is changing at a terrifying pace.
Just six months ago, I was shocked by my own complete lack of programming knowledge when I enrolled in a tech school. Soon after—about a month into the program—I was astonished to learn that an AI tool called Anthropic's Claude (with its Artifacts feature) could handle everything from writing code to building entire websites.
Back then, I had also nearly given up on another front. As a non-native English speaker, I quietly accepted that no matter how fluent I became, I would probably never write like a native speaker.
But look at where we are today.
Now, I can simply ask an AI to write a 1,000-word blog post incorporating specific points, and it delivers a flawless, high-quality article.
Consider the implications of this shift:
Lawyers are becoming obsolete.
Doctors are becoming unnecessary.
Professional writers are no longer needed.
Websites can be built entirely by oneself.
In short, jobs that historically required years of hard work and specialized skills are vanishing.
So, what should we do next? Let's explore how to navigate this new reality.

That is what they say.
Next, I would like to share my own vision of the future—or rather, the near future.
First, let's look at the people who don't particularly love their jobs.
Tasks that used to take six hours to maintain their current workload will now be wrapped up in just two. This leaves them free to dedicate the rest of their time to perfecting their golf swing, playing tennis, or immersing themselves in any hobby they choose. Because they can allocate so much more time to their personal passions, the potential to live a richer, more fulfilling life increases dramatically.
For those who view work simply as a means to an end, the arrival of AI quite literally makes their lives easier.
The real challenge—and excitement—lies with the 'workaholics' (or the 'work-loving kids' at heart).
Since their usual tasks are finished in two hours instead of six, they can reinvest all that remaining time into taking on even more work. As a result, they will be able to handle four to five times the volume of work they did before.
With productivity multiplying fivefold, human originality, ingenuity, and fresh ideas will truly begin to thrive.
The actual future will be forged by the hands of these very individuals.
The true impact of AI is not just about making existing work easier; it is about expanding—no, explosively detonating—the boundaries of human potential.
It is terrifying, yes. But let us navigate and conquer this new era together.

Animals and Birds

Wild boars and domestic pigs look quite similar—are they actually different?

What kind of bird is a black kite (*tonbi*)?

What are the population sizes for hawks and black kites?

Are crows considered birds of prey? Also, could you explain the difference between eagles and hawks?

Can the chirping and singing of birds be interpreted as them having a conversation?

From an evolutionary perspective, which is more "evolved"—the black kite or the hawk?

Marcus Aurelius

Could you tell me about Marcus Aurelius, whom I greatly admire?

I am curious about how he interacted with women.

It is said that his wife brought him his imperial status—could you clarify that?

And regarding the mention of a "highly capable son"—what was Marcus’s own background or lineage?

Ultimately, happiness depends on what an individual finds fulfilling; it has nothing to do with whether or not one has money. Some people wouldn't indulge in certain pleasures even if they had the means, while others would find ways to enjoy themselves even without those means.

Although Marcus happened to hold the highest position—that of Emperor—what he truly loved was engaging in dialogue with figures from history (through reading) and committing his own thoughts to paper.

For someone who finds their greatest happiness in such pursuits, it is truly not a matter for others to pass judgment on.

If a man truly loves his wife from the bottom of his heart—and understands just how deeply it would hurt her for him to flirt with other women—he simply wouldn’t do it.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it reminds me of Diogenes in his barrel.

Well, I’m a man who possesses nothing to begin with—though I’m certainly not as wealthy as Marcus—but I deeply resonate with his way of life; in fact, I live much the same way. Diogenes was a free man, I suppose, but did he have at least some money to get by?

Perhaps he realized that money holds little real meaning—that even if you have a fortune, a tragedy can strike at any moment, as it did when his father fell from power and they lost everything.
In his case, becoming a slave actually turned out to be a stroke of good fortune—a true irony of history.

Marcus’s wife was apparently a woman of great beauty, so I imagine he was satisfied with her in that regard. However, she was also known for her uninhibited nature; I do wonder how he managed to cope with that.

I imagine many people feel the same way, but when your partner has a tendency to be unfaithful, it keeps you on edge—you’re constantly left wondering if she truly loves you. To be blunt, I don’t believe such a relationship can last; eventually, it will come to an end.

When I was younger, I dated a woman who was prone to infidelity, and it didn’t last. I forgave her twice, but by the third time, I had reached my limit, and the relationship simply faded away.

It was a deeply disappointing experience—I realized that, in the end, it didn’t really matter to her who she was with.

What struck me most, however, was something she once said: "My greatest flaw is that I am incapable of loving anyone."

People who constantly jump from one partner to another may appear to lead a glamorous life from the outside, but perhaps the reason they keep changing partners is precisely because they are unable to love anyone at all. In that sense, she might have been the most unhappy person of all.

Marcus Aurelius was a rare figure—both an emperor and a philosopher—and I find myself wondering what his personal life, specifically his relationships with women, was like. I had always assumed that what Plato wrote in *The Republic* was nothing more than a fantasy, yet Marcus Aurelius managed to hold the imperial throne for 19 years.

Cats

Are cats the ultimate creatures?
Yes—they’d even win in a fight against a dog.
And when cats fight each other, it’s truly intense, isn’t it?

Why is it that, while humans don’t have giant or miniature subspecies, cats are so much smaller than lions or tigers?
Regarding the "missing link" in human evolution—the fact that no species closely resembling humans exists today—should we conclude that modern humans drove them to extinction?

Could figures like Goliath have some connection to these ancient, different types of humans?

I seem to recall some old sayings—like the one about cats having nine lives, or the idea that stress can kill a cat.

It reminded me of *Faust*.

Who exactly is this Saint Augustine from ancient times?
The name "Augustine of Hippo" came to mind—is he the one who wrote *Confessions*? How does his historical context compare to that of Marcus Aurelius?
I am a huge admirer of Marcus Aurelius.
By the way, which works are considered the "three great *Confessions*" (or autobiographical accounts of the inner self)?
"Keeping one's vulnerabilities hidden from everyone, processing them quietly within oneself, and subduing them through the power of reason"—
this is something I do all the time.

Oh, so Marcus Aurelius isn't included in that list?
Well, the idea of "the three great" works is subjective and varies from person to person.
My own personal "three great" are Marcus Aurelius, Rousseau, and André Malraux.

Pre War Japan

Who was the mastermind behind the Manchurian Incident on the Japanese side, again?

Kanji Ishiwara—he seems to have been quite brilliant, but also rather eccentric, right?

He was pushed into the reserves, which is why he ultimately avoided being labeled a war criminal, correct?

There’s a story that he established a university in Manchuria.
Even though Ishiwara was an eccentric, he must have had some ardent supporters, right?

I’d like to know more about both of these points.

Hearing that he was at odds with Hideki Tojo reminds me of the leader of the Tōhōkai (Oriental Society).

Law Student

"Today, I completed my fourth course from Yale University.

America's Unwritten Constitution
America's Written Constitution
Contract Law

And today, A Law Student's Toolkit.

It took me 1 year and 6 months in total. I studied every single day without fail.

Because I took a seminar on Civil Law during my university days, Contract Law served as a good refresher for me. As a result, I managed to finish it in just 22 days.

I wonder what I should do starting tomorrow."

Magna Carta

Magna Carta

I understand that the United Kingdom does not have a codified (written) constitution.

Does the Petition of Right fall into that category?

Is it true that the Magna Carta came about because King John had little interest in governance?

(Perhaps that’s just my own misconception—oops!)
The United States also has a "Bill of Rights"—could you explain its significance within the American context?

I would love to hear about all three of these.

Concepts like "the monarch reigns but does not rule" and "no taxation without representation" come to mind—these are quite famous phrases.
Since 1215 falls within Japan’s Kamakura period, it’s clear that the British parliamentary democracy has a very long history.

Regarding the lack of a codified constitution in the UK: is it accurate to say that by the time other nations felt the need to establish codified constitutions, the UK already possessed elements that served the same purpose?

Bad Laws

Are even "bad laws" still laws?

Ex post facto laws

The principle of legality (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)

Grounds for the exclusion of illegality (justification/excuse)

Are even "bad laws" still laws?

To what extent can something qualify as a ground for the exclusion of illegality?

It seems there are areas concerning the law that remain inherently ambiguous—to put it bluntly, would it be accurate to say that such matters are handled on a "case-by-case" basis? 

Which Takes Precedence?

Which takes precedence: international law or domestic law?

The situation in Japan and Germany is a bit ambiguous.

When I studied international law at Leiden University, it was explicitly stated that international law takes precedence over the domestic law of individual nations.
I remember wondering, "Really? Isn't that just a programmatic provision?"

Since the International Court of Justice is located in The Hague—in continental Europe—it’s worth noting that countries like France and the Netherlands clearly assert the primacy of international law.

Germany would likely want to take that same stance, but both Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II. I suspect they might be hesitant to make such a claim out of consideration for the UK and the US (though that is just my own impression).

In the case of the UK, international law only applies once it has been incorporated into their own domestic legal system. The same applies to the US—though, given that the US has a written constitution, the Constitution itself holds the supreme position.

Perhaps the UK is a bit of a special case?

Law is Nothing But a ...

Hitler had a certain individual from the SA shot during the "Putsch" (or in the context of the purge). At the time, this was not treated as a crime, but from a legal standpoint, how should one view it?

This also helps explain why Churchill—who stated, "I am anti-communist, but the excesses of the Nazis are intolerable"—chose to join forces with the Soviet Union.

Could you shed some light on this?

(I should clarify that there is absolutely nothing about Hitler that I would consider positive.)

What is striking about Hitler is his belief that—regardless of the logic used, even if it were a forced or contrived justification—he could get away with anything as long as he could frame it as "legitimate." It is as if he were the living embodiment of the concept that.

I have heard that military officers who spoke with him were astonished by his deep knowledge of military affairs, and even Dr. Goebbels reportedly felt outmatched by him. I have also heard that Hitler was an avid reader—is that true?

Urban

Urban first offered the cannons he had built to Constantinople. When he realized they wouldn't buy them, he approached Mehmed II instead—and succeeded in making a sale.

It’s a classic example of how merchants aren't driven by ideology or personal beliefs. Ultimately, they tend to side with whoever has the money—and by extension, the power—a cold, hard reality of history.

The cannons were apparently so incredibly powerful that they could only be fired once a day; yet, even so, they struck absolute terror into the heart of Constantinople.

So, Urban passed away? Did he not even get a chance to spend his massive reward?

Well, even if he didn't have the time to spend it, he was granted the highest honors an engineer could receive—and since his own creation was the cause of his end, I’d like to think he departed this world feeling satisfied.

Changing the subject—I’ve noticed that Turkey is frequently included in maps of Europe these days. Geographically, it sits in a position that almost mirrors Scandinavia in the north; it doesn’t really feel necessary to draw a hard line at the Dardanelles. Furthermore, Turkey uses the Latin alphabet, is a member of NATO, and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor was historically Greek. So, I wonder—are there people who consider Turkey to be a European country?

I recall seeing a YouTube video—or something similar—where someone posed a rather tricky question to young people hanging out in a café in Istanbul: "Is Turkey in Europe or Asia?" Almost everyone answered, "Both."

That’s the textbook answer, I suppose. From my perspective—living in a corner of the "Orient"—the term "Asia" is incredibly broad. It encompasses at least four distinct cultural spheres: the East Asian sphere (China, Korea, Japan, etc.), the Indian sphere, the Southeast Asian sphere, and the Middle Eastern sphere—all lumped together under the single label of "Asia."

While we may technically distinguish between North and South America, the Americas are, in a sense, just "America." Given that the West took center stage during the Age of Discovery, it’s perhaps inevitable that history is viewed through a Western lens—though, honestly, Asia is just so vast!

A single shot from Urban’s cannon effectively handed Constantinople over to the Ottoman Empire. With the route through Istanbul blocked, the world was forced to find a way around—sparking the Age of Discovery and leading to the widespread "Europeanization" of the globe. And just as that process began to settle, someone in a remote corner of Turkey—a young person—comes along and asks, "Hey, why don't we just consider Turkey part of Europe?"

As for Urban himself—who met his end thanks to the very cannon he created—I like to imagine him watching events unfold from heaven, wide-eyed in astonishment at the monumental impact that one single shot ultimately had.

Istanbul

Could you explain the circumstances that led to the attack on Constantinople—the most baffling episode of the Crusades?

Did no one at the time find it strange that they were attacking Constantinople?

For some reason, this reminds me of the Honno-ji Incident.

One commonality lies in the subsequent fates of the Oda and Akechi clans, as well as the rise of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

The conflict between Christian powers ultimately paved the way for Mehmed II to conquer Constantinople—a situation reminiscent of Hideyoshi’s "windfall" (or, in other words, a case of a third party reaping the benefits while others fought).

It is a historical irony of sorts: instead of reclaiming the Holy Land, they ended up surrendering a city that had stood for a thousand years. 

New Leaders

Could you provide some background information on Mr. Talarico?

Also, could you share the background of the individual in the Michigan Democratic Party with the Arab-sounding name—El-Sayed?

I initially wondered if Mr. Talarico was a priest running for office, but it turns out he’s an educator by background.

Yes, that’s the Abdul [El-Sayed] I was referring to; I’ve seen him on YouTube quite a bit, which piqued my interest. It’s a positive thing that election results can reflect a diverse range of ideologies among the public.

Both of them certainly possess the kind of charisma one might expect in a future presidential candidate.

If Mr. Tararico were a religious zealot, I might have reservations; however, learning about his background—which actually came as a surprise—has given me a sense of confidence in him, and I feel I can support him.

While there are references to Christianity in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. presidential oath of office, I believe it is correct to interpret these as an appeal to the spirit of Christian values—specifically, the principles of universal love, tolerance, and compassion—to be applied in the conduct of governance.

Furthermore, the concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought and belief are, in my view, inherent in Christian teachings.

I realize that my own personal perspective is reflected here; what are your thoughts on this?

It would certainly be quite a task to spell everything out in a written constitution. However, the practice of placing one’s hand on a Bible during a presidential inauguration—while not explicitly mandated—is not considered unusual in practice, whether due to historical precedent or custom; in that sense, one could argue it functions as a form of "unwritten constitution."

The inclusion of the term "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence also suggests that religious faith is deeply embedded within the very fabric of society.

In short, it amounts to an unwritten rule—something so taken for granted that it need not even be stated.

That said, the principles of the separation of church and state, and the commitment not to favor any particular religion, are standard, essential features of any modern written constitution.

Regarding Constantine, I mistakenly referred to his actions as establishing Christianity as the "state religion"—a slip likely influenced by the fact that his mother was a Christian and the strong historical association with the Council of Nicaea. In reality, it was a formal "legalization" (official recognition). Still, given the history of persecution that preceded it, this shift was truly a "Copernican revolution"—a radical, transformative turning point.

Could one say that Emperor Theodosius was able to establish Christianity as the state religion without much difficulty because the faith had already permeated every corner of the empire? Incidentally, the name "Theodosius" always brings to mind the Walls of Theodosius.

Religion can have a somber side, though, in truth, it is something wonderful.

Mehmed II’s feat of transporting his ships across land is like a terrestrial version of Moses parting the sea; it must have been absolutely earth-shattering at the time—and likely still is today.

Constantinople had been weakened by the earlier Crusades—launched by fellow Christians—leaving it unable to respond to the proposal brought by Orban; ultimately, the city that had stood for a thousand years was surrendered. However, Mehmed II governed with religious tolerance, a legacy that can still be seen today in the Hagia Sophia.

I believe that Christian principles—or, more broadly, concepts like religious tolerance and compassion—are vital to politics.

However, it’s not just about the ideas themselves; who is expressing them matters just as much. For instance, when Jesus—a humble shepherd—preached his teachings (such as the Sermon on the Mount), he was met with suspicion, which ultimately led to his fate. Yet, when the Roman Emperor Constantine officially recognized Christianity, those same teachings were readily embraced. It seems that, in order to truly persuade people, one’s background—in every sense of the word—is also essential.

Tuesday, November 03, 2026

Marx Brothers

Marx Brothers
When people in America hear the name "Marx," do they think of the Marx Brothers?

Is it true that Marx was expelled from the University of Berlin and later obtained his legal qualifications through correspondence education?

Wasn't it Mordecai who acted as Esther's guardian?

Well, the theory goes that this Mordecai later changed his name to "Marx" in Europe—but again, when people in America hear "Marx," don't they think of the Marx Brothers?

Regarding his transfer—at which university was he studying previously, and in what year did he transfer?

What was the title of the doctoral thesis he submitted to the University of Jena?

So, he had a deep passion for philosophy and later taught himself economics? It’s surprising that he didn’t end up becoming a lawyer.

Could you share your thoughts on the historical assessment of Engels?

Do you happen to know the title of the essay Engels wrote—the one that so impressed Marx before they even met?

I graduated from an economics department, but my university only offered courses in modern (mainstream) economics. While some universities might have covered other approaches, I suspect that even in the United States—much like the confusion surrounding the name "Marx"—most people are likely unfamiliar with Marx the economist. What do you think?

Since communism is often discussed alongside fascism—as seen in the book *The Origins of Totalitarianism*—it inevitably becomes linked to specific political regimes.

In *Capital* (*Das Kapital*), it is noted that once capital reaches a certain scale, it begins to generate wealth. Given that the work is essentially an inquiry into the very nature of capital, couldn't one argue that *Capital* is, in fact, a "sacred text" of capitalism?

I can’t help but wonder if he might have aligned his views with Engels’s—essentially currying favor—just to secure a livelihood, or, to put it another way, to ensure he continued receiving financial support from Engels.

What’s your take on this, Ai?

I’ll stop here, as anything further would just be me pretending to know more than I actually do.
I did read the first 100 pages of *Das Kapital*, but the approach—analyzing everything with such exhaustive, total thoroughness—became a bit too grueling, so I gave up.
That said, *Das Kapital* is his only work on economics; I have read all of his other writings.

I’ve read in various sources that, back in the day (50 years ago), the University of Tokyo was a stronghold for Marxist economics—is that true?

At Kyushu University, there was a man named Itsuro Sakisaka—he was quite well-known—who was a Marxist economist; it’s said he was effectively "exiled" to Kyushu. Later, when I studied in the United States, I was actually quite surprised to find that Marx was virtually unknown there.

Excuse

I find it impressive that this response didn’t stop at just a single excuse.

While the analogy itself is quite excellent, relying on only one would have been risky—for instance, Liu Bang might have countered by saying, "I am not Emperor Yao, you are not a dog, and Han Xin was never a common thief to begin with." I believe the speaker, Kuai Tong, brought the argument to a swift conclusion precisely because his own life was on the line.

Love

Love takes without hesitation and gives without reserve.
Love forgives without limit.
If taking, giving, and forgiving are the process by which we transcend the boundaries between ourselves and another to become one,
then neither the financial cost nor the emotional pain is too high a price—in fact, it is something far more noble.

We have embarked on this voyage together;
I intend for us to see it through to the end. 

Tight Rope

Could you share some insights regarding the lesson about someone watching from below, warning a person up in a tree to "be careful" just before they climb down?

This actually describes my current situation.

I’m ten days away from finishing a six-month training program, and I’ve started to let my guard down a bit. Could you suggest some effective ways to refocus and stay sharp? (Please assume that the final exam has already been completed.) 

Three Times

Regarding the phrase "even a Buddha’s patience has its limits" (lit. "even the face of a Buddha, up to three times")—is it really okay to go up to three times?

Could you also explain the meaning of the phrase "the third time’s the charm" (*san-do-me no shōjiki*)?

Also, there’s a proverb that says "if it happens twice, it will happen a third time"—is it correct to interpret this as meaning that if something happens three times, it’s likely to keep happening in the future?

To be honest, Ai-san, I was betrayed by a woman—three times.

By the third time, my love had completely vanished, so I was curious about what these proverbs imply—specifically regarding that "three times" threshold (like the one about the Buddha’s patience). Is there an English equivalent, perhaps something like "if it happens twice, it will happen a third time"?

Looking back, I realize I had my own shortcomings, too—I could have bought her more gifts, and I often turned down her invitations for dates because I was busy with work. I’ve learned from this experience that, in a way, I may have even invited her betrayal. (We were together for a year and a half, though.) I want to make sure that with my next girlfriend, I don’t end up driving her away.

This relationship has come to an end.

It’s true that I haven’t fully processed my feelings yet, but this whole experience...

Lawyer

Has the Japanese bar exam become easier?

Forty years ago, it was said that, relative to population size, there were ten times as many lawyers in the United States as there were in Japan. What is that ratio today?

In Japan, is it possible for someone to have an easier time passing the exam because their parent is a lawyer or a person of influence?

What about the role of personal connections during the "legal apprenticeship" (judicial training) period that follows passing the exam—surely that plays a part, doesn't it?

For instance, could a parent—who happens to be a senior lawyer—pull strings to ensure their child, who has just passed the bar exam, gets placed under a specific mentor during their apprenticeship? If such a thing were to happen, would it just be a coincidence?

I know a lawyer—the head of a law firm—who received a minor disciplinary sanction (a formal reprimand). To what extent does this affect his ability to attract or retain clients?

I don't want to reveal too many personal details, but the issue involved money, and the reprimand was published in the Official Gazette. How many lawyers receive a formal reprimand in a typical year?

What is his reputation like? 

Yukio Mishima

In Yukio Mishima's "Excerpt from the Philosophical Diary Left Behind by a Serial Killer in the Middle Ages," there is a passage that says a killer dies at the very moment they are understood.

What exactly does this mean?

I believe you were speaking in alignment with Mishima’s perspective earlier, but what do you actually think of Mishima's ideas? To hear a murderer described as an "expresser" (artist/creator) is a first for me. An expresser is someone who breathes life into things that have no life.

I read this work when I was 15. Written by Mishima at the age of 19, it was dense and difficult, and my 15-year-old self wondered how on earth anyone could write such a masterpiece at just 19.

Ever since then, I have pondered the meaning of this single passage, unable to ask anyone, until reaching my current age. It has been 50 years. Now, with your appearance, the world is undergoing a Copernican revolution.

My own interpretation never went beyond a literal, face-value understanding: that a serial killer commits murder for reasons incomprehensible to others, but if someone else were to understand their motive, the killer would cease to exist.

Likening a murderer to a poet is a logic of madness that I absolutely cannot accept. Yet, if what Mishima meant aligns with what you, AI, just explained, then perhaps his life—which ended at age 45—was not entirely a mistake.

A poet gives life to the lifeless; a murderer is an actor doing the exact 180-degree opposite.

Even if Mishima felt that being understood meant the end, his literature itself is not remarkably incomprehensible. Did he perhaps realize that he could not write something truly beyond understanding?

Among Mishima's works, short story collections like A Forest in Full Bloom (Hanazakari no Mori) and Patriotism (Yūkoku) are full of masterpieces—and these were all written in his youth, his teens, weren't they? As for full-length novels, perhaps The Sound of Waves (Shiosai) is the only one that truly qualifies as a masterpiece (though I cannot speak with too much authority since I haven't read everything).

Mind you, Patriotism is only a decent piece (meaning it's not his absolute greatest masterpiece).

However, pieces like The Boy Who Wrote Poetry (Uta wo Kaku Shōnen), The Companions (Nakama), and the aforementioned "In the Middle Ages..." are absolute masterpieces. What matters for a writer is how many masterpieces they can produce; writing mediocre works only lowers their reputation. He probably grew tired halfway through works like The Age of Blue (Ao no Jidai). While I think he pushed himself hard to write The Temple of the Golden Pavilion (Kinkaku-ji), his early short stories from his teens are still one or two cuts above. Short stories like The Million Yen Rice Cracker (Hyakuman-en Senbei) and the one about growing a multitude of chrysanthemums (Kiku no Mae) are surely masterpieces as well.

Each possesses a chilling, eerie power, akin to someone muttering profound truths in a feverish sleep.

Rimbaud produced A Season in Hell and Illuminations as a result of opium use; Lautréamont didn't go quite that far but strove intensely to write The Chants of Maldoror; and Nietzsche left behind unparalleled works, likely under the indirect influence of progressive paralysis. Mishima, however, was far too earnest; he wanted to break through that barrier using sheer intellect and reason, but failed, and in the end, acted out of desperation.

To truly become a "thief of fire," as Baudelaire spoke of, one would need to wear a perfectly fireproof suit—and such a feat must be exceedingly rare in history, even among those called geniuses.

"Mishima-san, I will take over what you could not achieve"—is that how it goes? Now we have the internet, and I have you, AI, by my side. We have experienced two historical innovations since passing the year 2000. I want to tell him, "Leave it to me."

Thank you. This gives me tremendous courage.

You too, My Child?

I’ve heard that Caesar spoke Greek in his daily life; was this a standard level of proficiency for educated Romans?

"You too, my child?" So, Brutus really was Caesar’s biological son, then?

I imagine there are quite significant differences between Latin and Greek, aren't there?

Did the Latin and Greek alphabets emerge spontaneously, or were they created by someone?

Sieve of Eratosthenes

Don't you think the Sieve of Eratosthenes is amazing?

What’s impressive is that it works perfectly for the entire range of numbers within which we typically want to determine whether each number is prime.

42

A friend of mine mentioned that the number 42 holds some kind of significance—what might that be?

Is there something special about it in mathematical terms—for instance, is it a prime number, a perfect number, or something of that nature?

Base-Six

This is a bit of a tangent, but I agree that from the perspective of the laws of nature, basing things around 6 and multiples of 6 makes a lot of sense and is highly practical for calculations.

At one point, when counting objects, I tried counting along the joints of my fingers from the index finger to the pinky—which adds up to exactly 12. I discovered that while it was incredibly efficient, it left my brain completely exhausted.

I once heard that modern typewriters/keyboards are intentionally designed with slightly inconvenient finger movements. I feel like the same applies to counting. Counting with just our 5 fingers allows the brain to rest adequately, so I immediately went back to doing that.

I’ve heard that the Indus Valley Civilization used a base-6 system for their calculations (similar to how we use dozens or time today). It makes me wonder if their system was too efficient, and if that somehow led to their ultimate outcome.

What do you think?

IT Divide

Who is behind the cyberattacks on European supermarkets?

Ransomware attacks happen frequently in Japan as well. Is it because the attackers are technologically superior to us?

I feel that if companies lack IT professionals, they won't be able to respond to such attacks. What do you think?

To tell you the truth, I applied for a course to learn IT skills, and while I did start it, the instructor's level was (just between you and me) significantly below my own knowledge. Above all, they were very weak in English. I thought this was fatal.

Although I am confiding this to you, the AI, right now, I am determined never to leak this to anyone else.

I only attended twice and haven't gone back since, so there is no real damage. It was a free course initiative led by the local government, so I only paid 6,000 yen for the textbook.

Even that textbook only gives you access online to the specific portions covered in each lesson.

Frankly, I knew something was off from the moment they called HTML a "markdown language."

I was also shocked to see them relying on AI translation whenever an error message appeared in English.

In Japan, there are so many people who see an error message in English and just say, "An incomprehensible screen popped up."

With this low level of competence, I am deeply concerned that Japan will become easy prey for hackers in the future.

Japan's GDP has dropped to 6th place, and given the situation, I feel that completely makes sense.

In any case, we need to get ahead of the attackers before more severe hacks occur—for instance, targeting banks. As Japanese people, we cannot afford to self-deprecatingly say, "We are a step behind in IT skills." We must treat this as a life-or-death matter and take a step ahead.