Sometimes, we go just feel say something make sense for our mind, but e go hard for us to explain am with clear logic.
For times like dat, we go just comot wetin dey our mind straight-straight. Pipo wey dey feel de same way go agree, but dem wey no understand or get different idea, dem no go gree with us.
If we no fit explain am with logic, we must find a way. If not, we go just sidon look as pipo dey argue or we go comot those wey dey doubt for de discussion. Dis one fit lead to kasala for society and be like violence.
On top dat, another problem fit come up when wetin we feel say make sense for our mind, we no fit explain am well with words. Pipo fit just label am as say na personal opinion, or say na just fantasy. If e get some uncertainty, dem fit call am optimistic or pessimistic.
But on de other hand, sometimes pipo wey get different opinion or wey dey doubt, fit explain their stand with logic. Dis one go put us for even worse position. If dem label our opinion as weak, like dem talk before, any other person wey dey listen to de argument go see our own as weak argument wey dem don label, while their own go be strong argument with logic.
De way we dey think say intuition and logic dey separate go make am worse – dat strong belief say logic dey correct and you no fit trust intuition.
But in reality, wetin we feel say make sense for our mind, for most cases, we suppose fit explain am with logic. Intuition and logic no dey fight each other; we just never find de way to connect dem.
De reason why pipo wey get different opinion fit explain their own with logic na because their initial assumptions, goals, or wetin dem believe about uncertainty dey different. So, to explain something wey you feel say make sense for your mind, with logic, under different assumptions, goals, and beliefs, no be contradiction.
Once both sides fit explain their points with logic, de discussion fit now focus on wetin to do about de assumptions, goals, and beliefs. Dis one go allow other pipo wey dey listen to de argument to talk their mind based on if dem gree with de assumptions, goals, and beliefs, instead of just judging by labels or how strong de arguments sound.
To explain with words wetin we intuitively feel say make sense, we must discover wetin I dey call "intellectual crystals."
De Way National Interest Dey Hold Us For Mind
Here, I go like show one example of an intellectual crystal. E dey about di dream of world peace and di logical explanation for national interest as against am.
Normally, world peace na something wey make sense to wish for, but when you look at how national interest really dey for international community, pipo dey quick dismiss am as just one dream wey no fit happen.
Simply put, national interest na situation wey dey favour one nation to survive and prosper.
If you get two choices, choosing de one wey favour you pass na decision wey dey align with national interest.
But when we talk say one choice dey favour one nation's survival and prosperity, wetin time are we talking about for dis favour?
Historically, e get times wey one nation losing a war make am survive for long run.
Also, one nation prospering fit, in return, make dat nation collapse.
Dis one dey show say national interest no fit dey predicted.
On top dat, di word "national interest" na wetin pipo wey wan push for more military power or hardline actions against other nations often dey use to guide decisions.
If you consider say national interest no fit dey predicted, e just be like empty talk wey dem dey use force pipo to make decisions for war—one choice wey get plenty uncertainty and pipo normally no dey wan choose.
So, if one truly desires de long-term survival and prosperity of a nation, focusing on national interest as an indicator no get meaning.
Wetin we suppose focus on na permanent peace, good governance, economic prosperity, and managing risks.
If permanent peace happen, domestic governance dey work well, de economy dey prosperous enough, and uncertainty fit dey managed to a reasonable level, then one nation fit easily get survival and prosperity.
Also, pursuing national interest no be progressive accumulation. E be like gambling, e go increase when e successful and decrease when e fail.
So, e no make sense to use national interest—one unpredictable concept wey dem dey use as empty talk for war, and wey no get progressive accumulation—as an indicator.
Instead, we suppose think and pursue ways to make permanent peace, governance, economic prosperity, and risk management fit for progressive accumulation.
Dis no mean say make we create indicators to measure and manage how much of dis things dey.
E mean say make we gather de knowledge and technology to achieve dis goals. And dis knowledge and technology, if other nations use dem, go work even more to our advantage.
For dis reason, gathering such knowledge and technology go become progressive accumulation.
But for de other side, de knowledge and technology wey dem pursue for national interest no get dis quality. Dis na because if other nations use dem, your own nation go dey disadvantaged.
In other words, knowledge and technology for national interest no fit dey progressively accumulated.
If we look at am dis way, pursuing national interest fit actually harm one nation's long-term survival and prosperity. Of course, e go get times for short-term wey decisions go just have to be made based on national interest as reality.
However, at de very least, a long-term strategy for national interest na just illusion and one foolish idea. For de long term, a strategy of securing survival and prosperity through progressive accumulation na de rational one.
National interest be like say e dey hold de long-term survival and prosperity of a nation hostage.
E be like de phenomenon wey dem dey call Stockholm Syndrome, where one hostage dey defend their captor psychologically just to survive.
E be like say we fit sometimes fall into dis kyn state of psychological captivity by convincing ourselves say no other way dey.
Natural Mathematics
Dis analysis no just be argument to say world peace good or to argue against opposite opinions.
E be an objective logical model, just like mathematics. So, e no mean say world peace make sense for all situations. For short term, e gree say ideas like national interest fit dey useful for many places.
Dis na because de effect of differences wey dey gather dey grow bigger as time dey long, but e dey small for short term.
On de other hand, for long term, e must reach a point where de idea of national interest no go make sense again. Dis na mathematical fact wey dey based on logic.
Even if e fit hard to write dis one out for formal mathematical way, de strength of its logical structure no go change even if dem no fit write am out formally.
I dey call de way to express such mathematically strong logic in normal language natural mathematics.
De example wey I give before strong because e dey based on a structure from dis natural mathematics.
By finding dis kind intellectual crystals wey get mathematical structures, we go fit logically explain wetin we instinctively feel say correct.
Conclusion
Of course, wetin we feel for mind no always correct.
But de idea say intuition dey always make mistake or no dey logical, no really understand wetin intuition truly be.
Anywhere intuition and existing logical explanations dey clash, e get high chance say intellectual crystals dey hide there.
By finding de mathematical structures wey fit express how we feel instinctively through verbal logic, we go dig out dis crystals.
If we succeed, we go fit present arguments wey no just sound good to de mind, but also dey logically correct.
And dat one, for real, go be a step forward for our intellectual growth, wey go make us dey move well well.