The issue with this question is what it means to "think" for oneself. This is a major theme in philosophy, so let's explore it carefully.

French philosopher Descartes established the famous idea of "I think, therefore I am" as the starting point of modern philosophy. This theoretical thinking, which prioritizes the "thinking self" and starts from the "100% pure self," has led science and society to the present day. This is why adults are constantly chanting, "Develop the ability to think for yourself."

The British philosopher Hume disagreed with this idea that had existed since Descartes. In his book "A Treatise of Human Nature," he boldly pointed out that the mental entity that we tend to imagine as the "thinking self" is nothing more than a "bundle of perceptions." He argued that what constitutes us is information (perceptions) obtained through our eyes, ears, etc., and that the idea of a self as an entity not based on such things is something like a fiction.

The "ordinary one of them" that the questioner refers to can also be said to be a state of losing one's identity. Let's consider the issue from the perspective of the word "identity."

Identity is a philosophical term meaning "sameness." The dictionary definition is that an individual maintains unity and uniqueness in the face of change and difference. We use the word identity in our daily lives, but there is an image that "each person has one identity." This is probably also influenced by the dictionary definition of "self-identity."

However, modern Indian philosopher Sen looks at identity from a slightly different angle. A Nobel Prize winner in economics who has also tackled issues such as poverty and violence, in his book "Identity and Violence", he uses identity to mean "identity with others". As opposed to "self-identity", "identity with others" seems quite strange, doesn't it? However, Sen's idea is that we have various "identities" with others, and we live at the center of these overlaps. You may be able to understand it if you put yourself in his shoes.

You all have multiple characteristics, such as being enrolled at Waseda University, participating in student club activities or part-time jobs, and your home country or region. The same goes for hobbies, gender, place of residence, etc. And each of these characteristics is shared by other people too. You are not the only Waseda student, right?

What was revolutionary about Sen was that he considered the overlapping of characteristics to be "individuality." And he said that the more characteristics there are and the more complex one's characteristics are, the more distinct one's individuality becomes. For example, Goethe, the man of letters, was a poet, but also a politician, natural scientist, and painter, and possessed a variety of characteristics. If Goethe were to disappear, there would be no one else who could do the same things. That is why other philosophers have argued that Goethe was individualistic.

Generally speaking, we feel that something is unreasonable when it is something that goes against our ideals and does not make sense in the real world. In that respect, the questioner has an idealistic perspective. Here, the ideas of the realist Hegel can be helpful. His perspective may bring about a change in our way of thinking.

First, I will talk about the two major streams of thought that have existed in the world of philosophy since ancient times: idealism and realism. Idealism says, "If there is a gap between ideals and reality, then let's strive for the ideal." Representative figures of this school are Plato of ancient Greece and Kant of modern Germany. For example, Kant is a believer who thinks, "Even if there was no person in the world who never lied, humans still should not lie."

Realism, on the other hand, says, "Because anger occurs in the real world, the reasons for it are also real. Let's face it in reality." The German Hegel is a prime example of this. He was active after the French Revolution, a time when the whole of Europe was burning with idealism. At that time in France, a young man became angry and stabbed a poet suspected of colluding with Russia to death. Elimination is an extreme example of idealism, moving from an unreasonable reality to an ideal world, but at the time a growing number of people in France defended the young man. However, Hegel dismissed French public opinion as shallow. He argued that people should not resort to terrorism such as elimination, but should have confronted why problems like espionage suspicions arise and sought solutions in reality.

His famous words are, "The rational is the realistic, and the realistic is the rational." Based on this idea, he placed importance on the attitude of improving the unreasonableness without denying reality itself. He did not think of reality and ideals as separate.

War and peace are the most important themes for humanity, but the point we should consider when asking this question is whether "everyone getting along" is really a condition for peace. Kant, who was mentioned earlier, gives us a hint this time.

Kant, who built the foundation of modern philosophy with his thorough logic that does not allow for contradictions, wrote a book called "Perpetual Peace" in his later years. "Perpetual peace" is a state in which there is no possibility of war ever happening again. To achieve this, he discussed not respecting the spirit of philanthropy such as "everyone getting along," but the "rights" that guarantee freedom. What does this mean?

Rights mean that "what is mine and what is yours are different." When someone tries to take something away from you, you say "no," right? The reason "everyone gets along" is not good is because the boundary between "mine" and "yours" can become blurred before you know it, and someone will try to take advantage of that situation and take away rights. Kant believed that freedom is at the very foundation of rights. He said that the distinction between "my freedom" and "your freedom" is at the core, and that various other rights exist on top of that.

In his book "The Ideals of the University," the 20th century German philosopher Jaspers argues that at the core of university learning is a "fundamental desire for knowledge." To put it in one word, it is a rather nerdy desire to "know, not for any other reason" (laughs). According to him, academics do not have to be useful in life or business. However, "The Ideals of the University" is still highly regarded as an exemplary theory on universities. Let's consider the significance of universities and academics from his perspective.

The question "What is the significance of the existence of universities in society?" is similar to the question "What is philosophy?" Imagine the world as a tree. Academic fields related to cutting-edge technology and social activities are the branches and leaves. They progress every day, growing toward the sunlight. A characteristic of these academic fields is that the results are the "answers" to "questions" such as "What is the optimal system for improving welfare?", "Why do earthquakes occur?", and "When will deflation end?".

But sometimes, we go back to the trunk or roots of the tree and ask ourselves, "What is happiness, even before we consider welfare?" This is philosophy, which is characterized by the reverse route from "answer" to "question." We can answer the question, "What time is it now?" by looking at the clock, but we delve into areas where we don't even know if the answer exists, such as, "What is time anyway?" You can't do this unless you have a lot of free time (laughs).

The role of universities is also like the trunk of a tree. Society, on the other hand, is the branches and leaves. For example, companies develop new products and cutting-edge technologies by focusing on activities in various areas such as IT, automobiles, finance, and welfare. However, as the branches and leaves continue to evolve, they also encounter challenges. For example, today, with the rise of generative AI, the question of "what role should humans play?" comes into question, and there comes a time when we must return to the roots. The same goes for economic disparity, the environment, and human rights issues. This is when the role of universities in society will be demonstrated.