I have always liked British philosopher Bertrand Russell's views on life and death. In his article "How to Grow Old", he compared human life to a river. The river was narrow and fast at first, full of personal desires, struggles and pursuits. Later, the river gradually widened and the water slowly calmed down. Finally, it flowed into the sea and lost its original independent shape. Russell believes that the way to overcome the fear of death is to gradually expand the scope of one's concerns and integrate one's personal life into the wider world. Because even if you die, the things you originally cared about will still exist.
Seeing that Cai Kangyong has recently been criticized by many Blue and White supporters for attending Shen Boyang's campaign, which has even affected China's original career and business interests, I thought of Russell's words. Cai Kangyong later also attended Chiang Wanan's election campaign. Obviously, his behavior cannot be explained simply by which political party he supports.
He himself made it very clear that the controversy caused by the Taipei City police's search of the gay bar in Ximending was one of the important reasons that prompted him to come forward. He cannot accept that after years of hard work, Taiwanese society has finally managed to prevent homosexuals from being regarded as a group that can be bullied at will, but it may go back to the past. He even asked, should young people aged 17 or 18 continue to suffer the oppression of the past?
I think many people actually miss the point. Many people in Taiwan are concerned not only about reunification and independence, but also about freedom, democracy and human rights. Supporting Taiwan's freedom and democracy does not mean that everyone must have the same national identity or political views. Caring about gay rights does not necessarily mean supporting a political party. When we are used to reducing all public issues to political positions, it is easy to forget that politics should be about solving people's problems, not about labeling everyone.
In 2019, when the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, it promoted same-sex marriage legislation, and finally the Legislative Yuan passed the same-sex marriage law. I wrote a lot of articles in support of same-sex marriage back then, and I wrote that some people even thought I was gay and received harassing messages because of it. I'm actually not a gay, I just think everyone should have the freedom to pursue happiness. Why can only gays support same-sex marriage? Don’t we care about women’s rights if we are not women? If you are not poor, can you not care about the injustice caused by poverty? People who are not politically persecuted cannot oppose authoritarian rule? This way of thinking about tying personal identity to public value is actually very strange.
I always believe that the meaning of freedom is not only that I can choose the lifestyle I like, but also that others can choose a lifestyle that I may not understand or even choose. Democracy is not just about regular voting, but also about allowing people with different positions to live without fear and discrimination. Human rights are not the exclusive preserve of supporters of any political party, but are basic protections that everyone should have. If we are only willing to stand up when our rights are violated, then what we really care about may not be freedom, but ourselves.
Another aspect worth thinking about Cai Kangyong's choice this time is that he is willing to bear a considerable price. He already has popularity, wealth and social status, and there is no need to prove himself through political activities. This incident has indeed seriously affected his career and business cooperation. He himself admitted that the loss was great, but he still said that he did not care about losing his reputation. He also said that he hopes Taiwan's elections can be rational, cheerful, and based on the facts, and that it does not have to be like having to eliminate the other party to win every time. If one's own losses convince more people that politics can be done differently, those costs will make sense.
This is very close to Russell's outlook on life. When a person first starts working hard, it is often to make himself live a better life and pursue wealth, fame, freedom and security. But if life always stays at this stage, no matter how many achievements you accumulate, you will still only care about yourself in the end. When a person begins to care about whether others can live freely, and is even willing to take the risk of losing his own interests so that others do not have to endure the pain he has experienced, life truly begins to flow to the wider world.
Russell even said that he wished he could die on the job because he knew that if he couldn't continue to finish, someone else would take over. This is a very profound view of death. The reason why people are afraid of death is, to some extent, because they are too obsessed with their own existence. They always feel that without themselves in the world, everything loses meaning. But Russell's idea is just the opposite. When a person no longer cares about just himself, death no longer means the end of everything.
The same is true for Taiwan's liberal democracy. Many of the rights we take for granted today actually did not fall from the sky. From lifting martial law, fighting for freedom of speech, to legalizing same-sex marriage, there are many people who have worked hard behind it. We still remember the names of some people, and the names of more people have long been forgotten, but the freedom they fought for still exists in our daily lives. Nor is it true that once these rights are obtained, they can never be retrogressed. Every generation has the responsibility to think about what kind of society they want to leave to the next generation.
When I supported same-sex marriage, I didn't actually get any personal benefits from it, but it caused some unnecessary trouble. But I don’t think that to support other people’s freedom, you need to prove that you belong to that group first. A truly free society should not require everyone to only care about their own interests. Otherwise, democracy will end up becoming a tool for different groups to compete for interests, rather than a system for everyone to live together.
I don’t think everyone has to take a public stand like Tsai Kang-yong, nor do I think being willing to pay the price means that all of a person’s political choices are correct. But I think how much risk a person is willing to take for the values he or she believes in does shed light on how important those values are in his or her life.
Life is, after all, a river flowing into the sea. No one can keep his wealth, power and reputation forever, and even his own name may eventually be forgotten by the world. But if we have worked hard so that some people no longer have to endure the pain they have experienced, and let some freedom and dignity continue, then even if the river disappears, the life it has nourished will still continue to exist.
What truly transcends death is not how many people remember his name after death, but that even if no one in this world remembers him, there are still people who can live with more freedom and dignity because of what he has done.
Cai Kangyong does not need those 17- and 18-year-old young people to thank him forever. He just hopes that one day, these children will not have to experience the pain he once experienced, nor will they have to wait for another Cai Kangyong to stand up.
The most precious thing about liberal democracy is not that it allows us to live only for ourselves, but that it gives us the opportunity to preserve the possibility of living a free life for those who are different from us and will never even know us.
This may be the true meaning of Russell's river, which finally flows into the sea.
(The author is a information security scholar. This article only represents the author’s personal opinions and has nothing to do with the teaching institution.)
