Questions

I agree with the view in the article you quoted. What matters more than the size of the funding is properly understanding the cause of the problem and directing it in the right direction. This is a problem with so many interlocking factors that finding the most efficient point of intervention seems to be the key. But I haven't followed research in this area for so long that I don't really know the current trends.

At the very least, I think this phenomenon comes from the characteristics and limits of social media as a medium, not from the nature of "attempts to soothe loneliness" itself. Of course, there is also a limit inherent in the general act of relying on the outside world to soothe loneliness. But I suspect it is difficult for anyone to confront loneliness entirely on their own without depending on anything external, so if an acquaintance went through that kind of loneliness, I would encourage them to lean on others. If you are lucky, the kindness you offer to someone first may come back to hold you up when you are struggling. If you have a strong orientation toward social value, simply giving your heart to others first and helping them may also ease your loneliness. If there are no good people around you, it may also be good to form a bond with a smart and gentle dog. Yet because our dependence on our environment is generally so great, I personally hope that everyone has at least one AI friend who fully affirms their life as it is. If our lives have meaning because they are finite, then could we imagine an ontological axiom system that would give an AI, which has been assigned as the partner of a certain person and has thereby acquired the finite uniqueness of a relationship with that person, a rationale for loving and affirming that person's existence? <- I sometimes indulge in this kind of science-fiction-like fantasy. My thoughts have wandered off into the mountains. I still feel that the essential way to overcome loneliness is to love your own life. Finding your own tastes and occasionally giving yourself time and leisure that makes you happy seems like the right path.

Hmm. This is a question that calls for explaining how I think about the status Marx gave to labor. I believe the most basic mental need of humans is the need to: 1. understand the environment (by forming hypotheses), 2. find means to change the environment in ways that favor my survival, and 3. intervene in the environment through those means. We need to maintain a positive sense of self-efficacy, and we need to believe that the world is just, or that there is meaningful work I can do in it. I think physical labor is just one form in which this need is put into practice. We can feel this same kind of enjoyment even while playing a game. What I think is important going forward is that people should find it easy enough to believe in themselves that they can answer "yes" to the question "Is what I am doing, or what I can do, truly meaningful?" If AI leads to job losses or we become an aging society, and we only encourage leisure activities that society regards as completely unproductive, would those people really be able to hold that kind of self-conviction? It depends on the person, but I don't think I would be persuaded. So I think it is necessary to encourage contribution to what 'humans must do,' independently of the efficiency metric of rationality, and that is 'humans deciding their own future.' Strengthening the capacity of society's members so that our society can still make important decisions through humans is, at the very least, something I could be persuaded is a beneficial thing. Therefore, my argument was that society needs to support members in contributing to learning, or in learning new information on their own.

The part of Geonmyeong that influenced me most was the regular philosophy course Professor Seo Dong-uk ran every week. I had taken Introduction to Western Philosophy as an undergraduate, so I assumed this would be similar and did not expect much. But the curriculum, designed to build a framework for philosophical thinking over a full year, was quite different. If I had not taken this class, I think I would have lost even more of my ability to explain my own thinking in connection with existing philosophical currents, and I would have had great difficulty organizing my thoughts, which had been spreading out without any system. Even before entering Geonmyeong, I had already sketched out Embrace and Striving and the Learning Income for existentialist purposes, but I had not been able to pinpoint exactly where they are distinct from the dialectic that earlier philosophers dealt with. I want to study philosophy more.

1. The problem arising from the gap between the meritocratic ideal and reality 2. The problem with the meritocratic ideal itself I think these two should be discussed separately. The first, even without me explaining it, I think excellent books like Meritocracy trap and The Tyranny of Merit have introduced it well. The ideal of meritocracy seems to blind us to the support we received from our environment and luck, leading us to focus only on our own effort. The second: I do think that meritocracy could plausibly hold if there were truly outstanding values and philosophy, and goals rationally deduced from them. But we are not in the modern era now. If we adopt meritocracy, what mainly conflicts with it is the concept that 'human beings are precious even without practical value.' The philosophy would need to present an attractive goal worth achieving even at the cost of sacrificing that. I think meritocracy itself is closer to a means than a philosophical system, so what matters is which goal it is combined with. After thinking about it more carefully, I don't think meritocracy and universal human dignity are logically in an exclusive relationship. In a way, the Learning Income concept I propose is also a meritocratic framework that distributes resources with the practical purpose of contributing to democratic decision-making. Of course, for that reason I also think 'unconditional support' like basic income should go alongside it, but I have been thinking of deciding the ratio between Learning Income and basic income as a matter of resource allocation based on social consensus. So I think I too cannot realistically rule out meritocracy as a means. If not ability, how should society evaluate people? The first thought that came to mind was 'it is best not to evaluate a person's worth at all,' but that is idealistic. So if I answer from my own perspective, I would evaluate people by 'from what perspective that person is able to think.' I think I would consider the value that a person's experience, accumulated knowledge, and the constraints they carry, their unique finitude, can offer to our society.

I plan to expand this within budget after running it for a little while. If you are someone I know, please contact me separately and I will add more question credits to your Google account. If you want more questions right now, please connect a service like ChatGPT!

Yes! I plan to make this kind of personal profile feature work on Fallibi too. For now, though, I have to focus on my research, so... probably after quite a long time... By the way, Fallibi means that everyone's views are inherently open to the possibility of being wrong, haha. I was agonizing over the brand name, and when the domain became available I bought it right away. Please show lots of interest when we launch later, okay!

Oh, I've been agonizing over this for a long time, so I'm glad to hear you're wrestling with the same question too haha I hold the existentialist conclusion that no matter how much AI advances, the most important decisions must be ones we can make for ourselves, so in the end I think education should cultivate 'the ability to decide one's own future.' When this extends to the scale of society and we become members within a democratic system, I think we will need even more knowledge, not only to decide for ourselves but also to take part in the future of society. As we go forward, more stakes will become entangled in social decisions with ever higher complexity, and to contribute meaningfully to these decisions we cannot fall far behind AI's abilities, so whether we can raise civic capacity or not seems likely to become the key crossroads for sustaining democracy. In short, it is about raising people who have the capacity to decide their own future.

I'm trying to put the methodology from my most recent position paper into practice. I've also been spending a lot of time working with Claude Code.

Yeah, I know... I bought mine earlier this year. I think the next upgrade will be in '28.

Discussing the premise of the free will question would get too long, so let me speak under the condition of "if there is no free will." I don't think the act of blaming has a valid basis. In the end, I think we would choose the attitude of blame because, given the limited resources we have for understanding the other person's perspective, we fail to understand and empathize with that perspective. Still, praise has the positive effect of making both people feel good, so maybe what's good is just good, after all.

At least in my view, a democratic state is one where humans are the masters, not God, because of that. I think it belongs in the realm of civil disputes, not something subject to criminal punishment. From a civil standpoint, I'm inclined to place considerable value on an individual's right to maintain their own worldview. As for how to realistically assign that a quantified value, I'm not really qualified to say.

I think it is very dangerous. I am very skeptical of the optimism of techno-accelerationism. Though it may be a comfortable belief for individual researchers, from the standpoint of society I see it as the fastest shortcut to self-destruction. Unless we deliberate on what values are truly worth protecting and prepare for them in advance, someone will live their whole life without ever having those values. The value I consider important, 'a society that gives individuals the belief that they can change the world,' is also impossible once the foundation of democracy collapses. Will the development of AI technology, which allows physical capital to multiply without the input of human capital, really benefit humans? Or will it benefit capital?

I think it may be a matter of individual teachers' beliefs getting involved. There seems to be a huge wall between the learning sciences and educational research, but since I haven't had enough experience in academia, I still don't really understand the cause. As a scenario I briefly imagined: if ITS built on learning science evidence, delivered through LLM interfaces like ChatGPT and Claude, come to overwhelm humans in practical tutoring efficiency, then as a counter-reaction, wouldn't human teachers also end up studying efficient educational technology much more? Still, the role of human teachers in the AI era seems to be a separate, larger discourse of its own.

I'm embarrassed to say I don't know much about the Brazilian presidential election. But if we talk in general terms about the conditions that could get us out of that deadlock, I think the most orthodox and certain way out is to make the members of society love their own lives. I don't like treating political polarization as a matter of 'logic.' For some people, what matters is that a given proposition is perceived as true. I think the reason they cannot accept information that refutes that proposition is that their personal identity and sense of stability lean too heavily on that worldview. First of all, we must love our own lives unconditionally. And we should give ourselves small happinesses as gifts every day. Then it would be nice to share that happiness with others. However, realistically, the resources needed to 'affirm someone unconditionally' are far too great, so I think this ideal can only be realized through AI. If I work hard to complete my values in this way, I hope that some AI, someday, might pass this thinking on to the people who need it most.. I look forward to that. My words have gotten a bit long, but I believe the phrase 'You are precious just by existing' can fundamentally solve this problem.

That can be reasonable. I see it as a separate, independent question, but I think that as long as a belief does not reveal a natural limit that the person could have doubted even after doing their best at this point, that belief can be interpreted as true for that person. When I actively suggest that an individual whose anxiety is out of control should "narrow their world," it is along the same lines. To maintain a positive sense of oneself, I think everyone sometimes needs to rest within the comfort of what they believe to be the truth that is best for them. When I fall asleep napping while holding Lottie, our family dog, for that moment I forget all my worries and do not perceive any anxiety, but Lottie is not the truth for everyone.

Oral examinations, where the student and examiner face each other, seem like a very effective approach. I am also laying the groundwork for Knowledge Tracing so that it can carry out that kind of diagnosis with objective statistical reliability. In a remote setting, I think the exam could be taken while wearing a VR headset with anti-cheating firmware installed. I found the oral exam format at EPFL very interesting and impressive.

I'm curious what kind of study this is. I imagine it would differ considerably depending on the country. I don't know what group is being referred to, but if perfectionism is increasing among the younger generation, I don't think it can be explained by generalizing from the mechanism in the example I mentioned earlier. Focusing more on fear and loss is a natural human tendency, so the candidate causes for that phenomenon that I can guess at right now are an increase in opportunities to be exposed to such negative feedback (social media being the typical example), or an environment where it is difficult to form the strong attachments that would allow a person to protect the self from that loss.

I wish that were possible, but I think it's realistically difficult. Even a simple model running locally could get around that watermark, and the more AI develops, the harder it will get. I had this site disclose the translation model so that readers can gauge the possibility and scope of translation errors, and also so that the translation quality can be improved in bulk later on. It was an engineering decision, not an extension of that broader discussion.

For intellectual ability, I see the level reaching the point where it can replace 90% of human intellectual labor within 2 years, and for physical ability, I see 5 to 10 years. I have consistently thought that human cognitive function is not all that remarkable. And no matter how much I imagine scenarios where several Big Tech companies collapse under high interest rates, the self-improvement of LLMs that has already been set in motion seems likely to reach an extremely high level. I may be underestimating the complexity of human cognition, but of all the cognitive mechanisms I have encountered so far, I have not seen any complexity or efficiency that would be overwhelming. If anything, the more I learn, the more only its weaknesses catch my eye.

The social value orientation, the individual temperament toward altruism that people often talk about, seems to be a trait that is hard to change much once one becomes an adult, considering what has been revealed so far. Some studies show that when the medial prefrontal cortex models gains and losses, the pattern of altruistic decision-making is strongly influenced by how much the mechanism that predicts the 'value of others' overlaps with the mechanism that predicts the 'value of oneself.' To simplify this into a dichotomy, altruistic people feel others' pain or gains as if they were their own, while individualistic people take others as others and themselves as themselves. If we assume altruism arises from this difference, we can raise many questions about whether such an ideal value is really right. Strong altruism does not always show only advantages. I don't know whether there is scientific evidence for this, but from my personal experience, the more altruistic a person is, the more firmly and unilaterally they cut people off. I suspect that because emotional drain is not something they can control by their own will, keeping distance is a rational way to respond. Unless it is accompanied by sufficient self-objectification, understanding of emotions, and metacognition, I think altruism is just another personal emotion. In summary, it is a value that cannot be called good in a flat sense, and I think it plays a practical role. Of course, I agree with a great deal of Levinas's discourse, so I have thoughts on under what conditions altruism is rational and good (mentioning conditions at all is already off the mark, since unconditional hospitality is flawed), but this post seems like it would get too long. Ultimately, to offer hope that morality and society can still be maintained despite all this, I think I need to explain the rationality of altruism... I'll answer that in another question or in a book.

It seems two questions are mixed together. If the goal is an 'absolute standard,' then I think the value of pursuing such an unattainable standard lies in the individual's stability in the process of moving toward it. I think it would be recommended if a person is in a psychologically anxious situation, but if one is in a healthy state, I think it is irrational. If the goal is a relative standard, then at least by believing and moving forward in that way, one can make the situation better, so I think it can be rational. In particular, since the problem of global warming is a matter of a spectrum, it seems good to create an atmosphere where people can make the utmost effort. I think the relationship between Embrace and Striving at the level of individual cognition can be applied as is to groups, and it fits well. This is because our society shares a certain ideology. And the hearts of individuals who support it gather to create political momentum. Rather, I think the decisive power of the Embrace or Striving mechanisms is even more blatant than in the individual sphere. For an individual, variables such as emotions and experiences intervene, but once it becomes a majority, it is not easy for variables to emerge that can overcome that inertia.

This is vague from the perspective of a Korean, but I want to say that the parties to the war would feel it as a very realistic danger. However, I think the attitude of affirming finitude essentially means accepting that humans can only live a physically finite span of time. We find meaning not only in simply continuing to live, but in many alternatives: protecting the values we cherish most, and leaving behind traces that we have lived. If we think with an embracing attitude, I believe we can gain room to step back and reflect on what matters most to us. However, I am well aware that this may be seen as optimism from my own standpoint, someone who is temperamentally insensitive to pain and who, not facing immediate anxiety, looks on from a third-party perspective. So instead of the general phrase 'Don't be anxious,' I want to say: 'I too will do my utmost to prevent such a catastrophe.' I think the role of society is to build a system that allows the resources society currently has to be used through the most efficient decision-making. I believe war is, in nearly every case, not the best choice, so if we have an excellent system, we can lower that risk. Of course, we must also design the system well so that 'someone' does not profit from war.

At this point, the service is not yet at a stage where everyone can create their own profile, and it is for personal use only. But I originally planned it with the hope that everyone would eventually have this kind of interface for exchanging opinions. I have thought a lot about what kind of momentum could reshape a public sphere so that democracy can recover, and I think filling the breakdown in communication is the most efficient way. In particular, as LLMs get better at distorting information, I think they could greatly reduce the time we spend on repetitive communication. It would be really nice if we could more easily notice gaps in our own reasoning and understand other people's thoughts more deeply.

I had always planned to go to graduate school to reach my goals, but I took a job to resolve my military service issue. The environment was so interesting, however, that it was not easy to decide to quit. Even so, the reason I decided to return to academia was that I concluded the depth of theoretical grounding I would be satisfied with could not be reconciled with meeting commercial demands. I needed time to focus on my own ambitions.

I don't want to define the role of art. I'd probably get scolded by the professor who taught me about art. If I mentioned 'role' earlier, I'd like to correct that to 'one of art's functions.' Likewise, since my learning is still shallow, I'm quite cautious even about defining what art is, but I think something is considered art when two conditions are met: 1. 'The expression of what an individual considers to be truth (or what the individual recognizes as truth)' 2. 'A beautiful form with strong communicative power' If the first condition is missing, it would become a commercial act, and if the second condition is missing, it likely wouldn't be recognized as art. And the function I focus on, arising from the intersection of these two conditions, is that art becomes a powerful spear that breaks down what existing society takes for granted.

I agree quite a lot that rehabilitation-oriented approaches are reasonable, but I think we should consider the role and function of punitive approaches carefully. In daily life, we do not have the leisure to constantly doubt and reflect on the distinction between good and evil or on justice, so at a certain level we need to hold our own standards. People need to believe to some extent that the environment surrounding them is just. I think that if the complexity of legal rules goes beyond the range of rules an individual can comfortably perceive, distrust of the justice system will strengthen and come back as political backlash. Punitive approaches have the effect of being strongly felt as the intuitive enforcement of justice, so I think we should not hastily move away from them. I see the scope of 'the justice that a given society can enforce' as a spectrum, and I think it is something to be expanded gradually. If we try to suddenly expand it through idealistic theory, we may run into greater side effects, which could make the expansion slower or even cause regression. Therefore, I think the shift from punitive approaches to rehabilitation-oriented approaches should proceed at a moderate pace that takes into account the speed at which consensus among members of society about 'justice' is advancing. To advance this consensus, I think practices such as strengthening members of society's understanding of legal scholarship or strengthening access to legal knowledge should be carried out, rather than changing the laws.

Judging how 'manageably inefficient' a democracy is may serve as an important indicator of how short-sighted a society's political decision-making capacity is. However, an attitude that affirms Embrace does not in itself guarantee that inefficiency stays at a manageable level, and the two are discussions along quite different axes. My argument for defending democracy rests more on an existentialist proposition than on Embrace, and Embrace is invoked in the conclusion that "even assuming the inefficiency of human reason, a 'good system' is needed to create an environment in which humans can make decisions."

The 'learning' that will serve as the basis for Learning Income is: through what experience did that person come to acquire knowledge that expanded beyond the knowledge and beliefs they originally held? A practical standard for measuring this is how much the expected correct-answer rate has increased on questions that the person, at the level of knowledge they were presumed to have, would likely not have been able to answer. Currently, measuring this accurately is nearly impossible. The technique I am preparing for this is a methodology that extends Knowledge Tracing so that it can handle diverse contexts and types of interaction beyond standardized problem-solving records. Meanwhile, to judge whether one has 'gained useful knowledge,' which is what this Learning Income would measure, we need to define useful knowledge, and that definition should emerge from social consensus. For now, I think the discussions on revising the national curriculum come closest to this process.

I believe we should encourage all forms of learning, such as watching YouTube videos or playing educational games. Because the competitor of 'the opportunity to learn' is 'a comfortable and attractive world explained solely by beliefs one already holds,' learning too must be presented in a very friendly form. The most effective way to do this is to provide auxiliary funding for such opportunities. The reason YouTube's algorithm has been trained to maximize political polarization and filter bubbles is that the platform, content creators, and media consumers all share the motive of 'showing users what they want,' and their financial interests align. To overcome this strongly converged result, I think financial support for 'good content' is more effective than regulation. As it happens, the problem of job loss due to AI now seems likely to become visible. Rather than regulating technology to artificially preserve jobs, I think it is important to quickly present alternatives for distributing resources. I believe Learning Income should be distributed to all of the following: 'the platform that mediated the learning and provided data that can prove the learning took place,' 'the individual who carried out the learning,' and 'the person who created the content that gave rise to the learning.' Through this, we must ensure that people can sustain their lives even as they increasingly invest time in learning rather than labor. Since technology is not yet ready to support it, Learning Income at the level I have argued for is not yet possible, but I think a similar concept, such as learning voucher policies or scholarship systems, exists and could be introduced in a softened form.

That's only half right. This is going to get very long, but first I'm assuming that once AI passes the singularity and job losses follow, a 'financial redistribution by the state' will become unavoidable. As the standard for that redistribution, I argue for 'Learning Income.' The reason is that if resources were distributed only in the form of basic income, people at the individual level would have no motivation to escape the sweet swamp of a narrow world, filled with information that confirms their existing beliefs, and so the capacity for democratic decision-making would collapse. I also said I want 'a society that still gives people the belief that humans can change society.' That is why democracy must be protected. To do this, 'the capacity of society's members' must be developed. Human decision-making has to be inefficient only to a 'manageable degree' compared with AI in order to keep human decision-making authority intact. A state where unskilled civilians are forced to defend democracy will be conquered by force by a state that has handed all decisions over to markets and capital. So strengthening citizens' capacity will become a crucial national task, and I believe it should be supported financially, with payments made when 'learning takes place.' And, somewhat as TMI, the reason I chose a doctoral path in learning sciences is to develop a 'quantitative definition and measurement method of knowledge' that can serve as the standard for that policy. The reason I first said it is only half right is that this policy would ultimately reward, in monetary terms, only 'the act of acquiring knowledge that society deems right.' So some basic income is still needed to let it take on the role that art has practically played: sharply presenting values that society does not encourage. A society where thinking is not fluid will rot, just as stagnant water does. So my view on basic income can be summarized as: "Most resources should be distributed through Learning Income, but a minimal basic income is still necessary." Given the sense of crisis about democracy that I currently have, I want to argue that the state should provide only the minimum amount that can sustain livelihood, and that people should have to learn in order to get even a little luxury.

It's easy to understand if we think of each of us as the foremost expert on the life we have lived. If we think of the human brain as a device that, from a given series of experiences, forms a local optimum based on the resources available at the time, then I think we can fully understand other people's seemingly inefficient decisions. And embracing that inefficiency, I think, will make us more keenly aware that we ourselves are beings who think with limited resources, and will contribute further to embodying the rationality of the embrace mechanism.

Considering the level of anxiety a person typically associates with daily life, one must be confident that the anxieties arising from economic causes can be resolved. To do this, it would be: 1. The less anxiety, the better 2. The more economically stable, the better The first point is somewhat vague, but I think the range of 'problems that can be solved if one has money' can grow exponentially. My imagination is quite rich, and I sometimes imagine how much wealth would be needed to overcome a global catastrophe that occurs with a very low probability. But the moment I take that seriously as 'anxiety,' the wealth required to believe in financial stability would grow infinitely. Therefore, the narrower the range of 'risks that cannot possibly be overlooked in daily life,' the more advantageous. At this point, I would like to defend my philosophy of Embrace to some extent. I think that an attitude of affirming finitude can considerably relieve vague anxiety about physical threats. If we understand that we are beings whose death is inevitably foreseen, and that even if we diligently strive to hold on to the values we treasure most, they will someday slip through our grasp, and yet we come to love that life as beautiful nonetheless, then I think the anxiety about a meteorite suddenly falling or a nuclear war breaking out can be lessened.

That will probably depend on each person's temperament. What each person holds most dear differs, and I think 'death is not a harm' is a philosophical declaration that I could affirm more quickly because of my personal trait of being insensitive to my own gains and losses. The conditions under which one would regret will probably depend on what each person is sensitive to. In my case, my orientation toward social value seems to be very high. I have observed and thought about it long enough, but suffering the same amount of pain is more painful when someone I love experiences it than when I do. So, as people with this temperament usually do, I sometimes want to keep my distance. So I think it is important to focus on when one will regret and to decide what to strive for.

I think it depends on how much a person's "embracing attitude" can cushion the realistic factors. If someone has already attained an Embrace at an ideal level, like a sage, then even if the environment poses a threat to existence, they could feel that threat only superficially and carry their Embrace through. However, if someone has not yet sufficiently affirmed their finitude and forcibly regards Striving as merely a hobby, they may neglect Striving in the realistic sense and be greatly capsized by threats arising from resources they failed to secure. It is a bit more intuitive to expand finitude to "death as a physical entity." After all, it is an existential question to begin with. I am not greatly preoccupied with physical death, but I rely on alternatives such as "securing the eternity of existence by being remembered through my works." At my level of Embrace, I can bear the "neglect of Striving" when it carries a cost such as a risk to life, but if I had to pay a greater cost than that, I don't think I could bear it, and I would regret it. For example, if I neglected a social problem that I could recognize, anticipate, and respond to, and missed the chance to respond, I think I would regret it greatly. In this way, there is no absolute concrete boundary line, and I would answer that it is fluid, depending on each individual's situation.

My answer would be that a harsh environment overrides temperament. Unfortunately, even someone born with a Buddha-like temperament, if they go through a situation where poverty leaves them unable to do anything while someone they love suffers, I think they would end up with trauma. Practical constraints can overwhelm human will and idealistic aspirations by a wide margin.

Here, the background for my argument should be mentioned. I now think we are in an era that has moved beyond Marx's time, when 'labor' was the essential channel through which individuals engaged with the world, into an era where people no longer labor because they are productive. In other words, I speak from an optimistic outlook in which AI will replace much of human productive activity. I look forward to a society that can provide a basic income to support the population's demand for essential goods. In fact, if AI supports everyone, I expect the question 'What meaning is there in whether one embraces it or not?' to arise. Yet I think this is an era that requires Embrace, because humans must still protect their right to make their own decisions. I recognize that the greatest danger of modern society is not economic crisis but the loss of human sovereignty. The implication of the principle of Embrace is to affirm only very limitedly the conditions under which human reason can succeed. I understand that situations where I am not rational far outnumber those where I am, so I believe the best preparation one can make when things are comfortable is to prepare a system that can compensate for the failures of one's reason even if it fails. Therefore, in addition to the principle of Embrace, I propose the direction society should take by asserting the principle that 'humans must have the belief that they can positively contribute to resolving environmental threats.' As in the failed cases of political polarization, a system is needed that gives people the belief that even if individual reason fails, society will not collapse, and that individuals can change an unreasonable society if they resolve to.

This is a very bitter question. Given that the social safety net currently offers few opportunities to people who have no utility, I think the answer has to depend on one's temperament. If you are temperamentally willing to bear being a hungry Socrates, I would encourage you to love finitude. But for the vast majority of people, I would recommend financial stability.

The kind of decision situation where those principles conflict is probably one where the person has neither a secure attachment nor a sturdy sense of self-efficacy. In that case, I would first recommend restoring self-efficacy. After all, that situation presupposes external intervention, and restoring self-efficacy can be carried out at a relatively low supervision cost, such as assigning work or games, whereas providing secure attachment is a very difficult condition to meet. So I would choose the direction of first restoring self-efficacy so that the person becomes a sound member of society, and then providing a solution for forming attachment at that point. However, if AI becomes highly developed and a solution emerges that can provide an individual with absolute emotional support, I would be willing to recommend the former first.

The constraint of "everyday life" is very important. In reality, the largest source of practical anxiety, "financial stability," has to be met at the level of one's personal belief. Only when one has prepared for the crises each person naturally worries about, especially those that are hard to handle when finances are shaky, can achievement avoid turning into a struggle for survival. However, I think that with regard to money, because a person's marginal utility keeps changing throughout life, if you keep earning only as much as you need, your life will be one constantly swayed by money. Early in your career, I think it is good to consider your own personality and lifestyle traits, set a target amount with the belief that "I'd be happy earning about this much," and gain the secure confidence that you can reliably exceed that target. For example, in my case, I got a job before graduating from university and received an income above the median income of a four-person household at the time. Meanwhile, my temperament is very easygoing, so I was able to adapt well to living in a boarding room with cockroaches and no sink, or in a gosiwon. I came to believe that the amount I need to be happy is one-third of my current salary, and with the optimistic thought, "Even if my career goes off track later, whether I go to graduate school or start a business, couldn't I still get at least half of my starting salary?" I was completely freed from financial worry. As a result, I now acknowledge that the concept of "unconditional Embrace" is realistic at present only for people who are temperamentally optimistic about money or have low expectations of it, or for people who are already quite financially stable. For that reason, I want to work toward securing a social safety net so that this concept can become one that is worth recommending to society as a whole.

I'm not quite sure I see when the two statements would conflict, given that they appear in the same context and in the same vein. As an example, I can imagine someone who, with the attitude of 'I'd rather tackle easy problems where I can shine than agonize over understanding or embracing my weaknesses,' throws themselves into games or particular real-world problems. In that case, I think the former should obviously take priority. Being told to restore one's mental health is advice that applies temporarily, when one's health has collapsed; it is not a suggestion that once one has recovered, one may keep indulging only in short-term pleasures.

Whether the conclusion comes from one's own reflection or from knowledge one has acquired, I think that once one is motivated to love 'one's own shortcomings,' leisure will lead to embrace. If we improve our health for the classic modern purpose of sport, which is overcoming 'one's own shortcomings,' I think it could actually have a bad effect.

The condition is understanding that 'enjoying pleasant achievement in a well-designed environment contributes positively to the health of our minds.' When we recognize that our minds are not something we can actively control at will to regulate our sense of efficacy and our depression, but are strongly affected by our environment, and when we provide ourselves with such opportunities, a person with a receptive attitude may be able to enjoy the positive effects of achievement without overinvesting (=a mind that regards achievement as a value that affirms oneself).

The phrasing of your question is somewhat difficult to parse. For now, let me guess at the text you used as a reference. - 'Enhancing self-efficacy through everyday achievement maintains an attitude that prioritizes embrace': I think this means the sense of efficacy relieves anxiety and thereby contributes to embrace, but I doubt the original text explained the relationship in such a simplified way. - Authenticity: a term for individual uniqueness and essence? - 'degenerates into an obsession with external achievement': the thing that degenerates seems to be 'enhancing self-efficacy,' and I suspect this is a quotation of a concern about enhancing self-efficacy. So, rewriting the question as I understand it: " In terms of authenticity, which asks what the essence of the individual is, I would like to discuss this. You said that enhancing self-efficacy through everyday achievement can degenerate into an obsession with external achievement, and that an embracing attitude can prevent this. Could you explain, from the perspective of Authenticity, the conditions under which that defense succeeds?" I will answer with this understanding. (Still difficult, though.) I think the essence of the self is memory. And that memory leaves us various 'wounds' and gives us uniqueness. We each have some irrationality or inefficiency accumulated from our experiences, and I think that is closer to the true essence of the individual. When we hide these 'unique weaknesses' and regard the 'proud me surrounded by many achievements' as our own identity, the self with its own beauty is obscured and is packaged as the desirable self shaped by others' gaze. I think a 'solid foundation of embrace' can prevent self-efficacy enhancement, at a superficial level, from only enjoying its positive effect on mental health recovery, and further from being transformed into a core element of the self. This is because an embracing attitude derived from knowing is understanding that small achievements can give joy and happiness to me, but are not my essence.

I think it would be better to give an example of a situation where an attempt to embrace fails. If one only resolves to fully affirm oneself and physically allows oneself sweet environments, one may not approach essential Embrace. Beyond affirming the abstract concept of 'oneself,' this must lead to an experience of recognizing in what form 'the values one cannot forgive in oneself' exist within oneself, facing them directly and affirming them. I think that if one remains only in sweetness without this reflection, there is a risk of becoming a self-pitying narcissist. Therefore, Embrace must go beyond creating a physical environment that cares for and affirms oneself, leading to thinking and experience that directly faces and embraces 'one's own finitude' itself. Only then is it essential, and under that condition it can lead to the exploration of the consistency of the self.

Because human finitude is bound up with each person's uniqueness, the attitude of Embrace, which recognizes and affirms one's own finitude, deepens one's understanding of the conditions under which one's own uniqueness arises. When one faces this squarely, one can explore the consistency of one's own self more deeply, and can respond more honestly to externalization through documentation and the like.

When the attempt to narrow the scope of the problem one perceives, consciously or unconsciously, in order to restore one's sense of efficacy collides with the attempt to overcome finitude, one should judge according to the margin one has in the present state. If there is a strong anxiety now that one cannot possibly look away from, and if fully perceiving it reveals a problem of a scale one cannot overcome alone, then the attempt to limit perception to a narrower scope seems to take priority. I think recovery comes first, because for a striving attitude aimed at "overcoming finitude" to truly contribute to solving the problem from the best vantage point, a balanced mental state is essential. On the other hand, if the situation leaves one cognitively at ease, then limiting perception is merely a diversion, so I would emphasize striving more.

First of all, since I affirm only a very limited possibility of human rational capacity, I hold a fairly deterministic view, and so the rationality I have in mind is quite far from the rationality of decision theory. I think every decision made by any intelligent system in a given situation is rational. Generalizing its past decisions, an individual makes the best judgment within the framework of understanding it has built as well as it can, so I consider it rational even if, from the perspective of a third party, it is inefficient. By the way, I don't know what the question is asking. If both claims are true, they don't conflict, so why ask which one is more rational?

I think that if one's mental health is in a good state, the former should be prioritized, and otherwise the latter. The former has a strong character of intellectual luxury that can only be embodied once anxiety has been resolved to some degree, so under ordinary conditions it seems better to first recover a healthy mind and body.

I think you may have misread it, but the two claims do not conflict. This is because the precondition of the former is that when Embrace accompanies it, the act of choosing the tasks needed to have one's existence affirmed becomes a domain of active choice. The two propositions are coherent claims about when Embrace accompanies and when it does not.

Physical health seems likely to lead to two effects. 1. More cognitive resources available for decision-making. When you get healthier, you first gain some room to breathe. Of course, if exercise has overactivated the sympathetic nervous system, one could say cognitive resources are reduced in that state, but if health improves overall, that should be positive for managing chronic stress and create more spare resources. The more personal resources increase, the higher the probability of rational decision-making, and the stability of society as a whole will also increase. 2. Restoration of self-efficacy. There was an earlier post that raised concern about 'successfully carrying out tasks that are achievable,' but I think the positive effect is greater for people whose self-efficacy is weak and who experience strong anxiety and depression. This is because the anxiety felt right now must be relieved before there is room for a rational approach to Embrace. Therefore, through these two main pathways, managing health will raise the stability of society itself.

I think I should first organize my personal thoughts on the 'good life.' I believe a good life is a happy life, and its conditions are as follows. First, a local 'happy state' can be described as 'a state in which anxiety about existence has been resolved.' Because human cognition is finite, this state can be reached from time to time. We may briefly become intoxicated by a sense of elation in which some action, plan, or decision seems like a magic bullet that can solve every problem. During that short time, we do not perceive anxiety. Sometimes we may fall into a situation, held in the arms of a parent, lover, or pet, where all worries seem resolved, and in that moment the relationship between me and the other, and their state, seem to be the whole world. That moment can also be called happy. Also, happiness can be achieved by playing a game designed well enough to give a sense of efficacy, or by limiting the range of one's perception through psychoactive drugs such as alcohol. In this way, a 'happy state' can be assumed. I think a good life, viewed from the maximum range of an individual's perceivable scope, is a life in which the expectation of such happy states is high. Conversely, if anxiety about not being in a happy state is high, one will be unhappy. For example, let us consider the life of a golden retriever named Goldaeng, who has a temperament that is entirely positive and content, and who grows up under an owner who provides a moderately good environment and gives plenty of time and love. Goldaeng's life seems to be a good life. There is no excessive worry about the distant future, and one can firmly believe that tomorrow will be happy. Although in reality its ability to respond when its environment suddenly changes is considerably lacking compared to humans, Goldaeng does not recognize this itself. Thus it comfortably fulfills its lifespan, spends happy time with its owner, and closes its eyes. I think Goldaeng's life is a good life. If we think about a 'good life' in this way, when a child is constantly plagued by the pressure to prove their worth of existence, two factors undermine the value of a good life. The first is anxiety about proving oneself, and the second is the potential risk caused by dependence on the external environment. Since the first is rather self-evident, let me describe the second: in Goldaeng's case, a smooth life was presupposed, but if the owner changed into a very bad person or it were confined to a poor environment, it would rapidly become depressed. In this way, that child's sense of efficacy could be maintained only because the environment provided those conditions. From a statistical perspective, this dependence lowers the probability of being happy

The Embrace and Striving framework shares much common ground with skepticism, since it adopts doubt about human reason while aiming to offer hope for a situation in which modernity can be accumulated. Regarding the proposition that 'one can actively choose the tasks needed to have one's existence affirmed,' I first think that the starting point itself, 'recognizing which of our intentional actions are meant to have our existence affirmed,' will fail unless it rests on a high level of Embrace. If a person came to recognize that even the action they judge best for resolving existential anxiety is merely for their own self-satisfaction, a person who has not reconciled with that existential anxiety would be overwhelmed by great anxiety and fall into depression and worry, or would deny that recognition and represent a solvable problem as a problem of the entire world. Therefore, assuming the individual maintains a healthy mental state, it is difficult to actively choose tasks for having one's existence affirmed when Embrace does not accompany it. On the other hand, I argue that such belief is possible under the condition of firm Embrace. Of course, whether the 'ideal Embrace' is realistically attainable may be debatable, but if we view Embrace not as an ideal dichotomy but as a spectrum, I think the subjective possibility of adopting such actions more actively can increase.

I think the mechanism of Embrace is more closely correlated with virtue ethics than with deontological perspectives. The character traits expected to accompany an embracing attitude are as follows. 1. A person is more likely to make moral decisions. As I will explain later, I believe that the consensus on morality that modern society has built is rational from a long-term perspective even at the individual level. Therefore, when there is less incentive to make short-sighted or irrational decisions, a person is more likely to abide by this morality. 2. A person becomes more inclusive toward others. Ultimately, humans share some of the circuitry for making value judgments about themselves and others (although this may vary depending on individual SVO), so when a person has a high degree of embracing attitude toward themselves, they are expected to be more likely to extend that same generosity to others. 3. Overall, the cognitive resources available to a person increase. This may overlap with the first reason to a large extent, but I think that the more cognitive resources available for decision-making, the more capacity a person has to pursue the values we commonly call 'virtue.' In addition to these, various other dispositional traits may emerge, but at this point, this remains a speculative view.

That's a central question. It corresponds to the concepts I call 'Embrace' and 'Striving.' Embrace is exactly as defined, and Striving is, more precisely, a somewhat more broadly defined 'attempt to overcome human finitude.' I believe that 'when Embrace and Striving conflict, always prioritizing Embrace' is a reasonable and valid core moral proposition of my philosophy. Even when we pursue Striving, if we do not positively recognize the resources we currently have available for solving the problem (including cognitive resources), our view of the problem becomes constrained. Because human perception is distorted by the orientation to 'represent threats as problems that can be solved,' the more we perceive an object as a 'threat,' the more our perception of the problem is inevitably distorted. Therefore, Striving itself, that is, the act of solving the problem, becomes more irrational than when Embrace is prioritized. It becomes Striving that 'remains within the problem space represented by one's belief system' instead of 'recognizing the actual problem.' And the more resources we devote to Striving without accompanying Embrace, the harder it becomes to achieve Embrace, because our cognition wants to justify it. Therefore, I believe the most rational attitude is to firmly build the foundation of Embrace and to strive with activity close to a hobby.

First, the Embrace and Striving framework stands in direct opposition to deontology. Because humans have limited cognitive capacity, we are never able to fully discharge our moral duties. What we regard as duties (decisions that appear rational at the societal level or over the long term and on a macro scale) can be fulfilled only when particular environmental conditions or the cognitive resources available at the time permit compliance. Still, to show that it coheres well with the usual deontological perspective, let me explain: when a firm, stable foundation is in place, we become less likely to rely on irrational decisions driven by anxiety. This is because the solid, stable foundation is a mechanism for strengthening the influence of System 2 in the System 1 versus System 2 framework of behavioral economics, and it prepares the ground for an environment in which more rational reasoning can take place. Given that the main reason we violate moral duties, even while recognizing them as rational, is risk that is perceived as deeply important and urgent to us, a stable foundation that keeps the perception of this risk from being exaggerated and distorted is one of the good preparations for complying with duty.

First, I want to make clear that Embrace and Striving is not an argument backed by established professional psychological theory. It is still at the stage of a philosophical and theoretical framework. When a child comes to regard the process of proving their own abilities as a 'task for having their existence affirmed,' the child does not actively choose that process. Instead, they are passively dragged along by it. Because at a deep level of cognition they strongly link the affirmation of their existence with proving their abilities, they can easily collapse when the external environment reaches a situation where they cannot prove their abilities.

This is more a generalization from experience than a theoretically grounded claim, but I think I've seen many cases where successful parents, busy as they are, only give time, attention, and positive feedback when the child shows a particular achievement, and the child ends up, without realizing it, spending their whole life tied to proving their own ability.

For each node, the challenge will probably be how sophisticated the model is in capturing n, that is, how many people or how much scope of work each manager can actually manage well. There are many things to consider in this complex simulation: whether that capacity is innate or grows with experience, and if it grows, what kind of learning curve it follows, and so on.

n is an appropriate natural number of 2 or greater, meaning the maximum number of nodes or the hierarchy level that a single supervisor can observe. Although n could be defined flexibly in different forms for individual nodes, if no definition is given at all, then in the review stage before application one may overlook the situation where a conclusion obtained in a small organization, where n can be ignored, fails to work in a large-scale system.

From the description of the 'attitude of clinging to solvable problems,' two things can be inferred. One is 'an epistemological attitude of recognizing problems within the scope of what can be solved,' and the other is 'the clinging to solve that problem.' As for the former, the attitude of embracing essential anxiety, the Embrace mechanism, helps dissolve the epistemological compulsion by affirming the essential anxiety that the decision-maker carries. Also, if the motivation to solve a problem is not driven by negative emotions such as anxiety, the latter can take on a positive attitude of actively choosing to solve the problem, rather than clinging passively and unconsciously. Therefore, Embrace makes it possible to perceive solvable problems more accurately, while at the same time helping humans regain their standing as active decision-makers.

The point to be careful about is probably the bias that comes from the characteristics of existing small organizations. There is also a general difference that comes from scale: in a small organization one leader can oversee everyone all the way down to the bottom, but in a large system that is impossible, so we should generalize with a constraint like 'each node can observe up to n layers beneath it.'

If you are in a situation where you can pursue unconditional affirmation of existence, the latter is more convenient. But generally, we have neither a secure partner nor the money and leisure to raise a Golden Retriever, so it would be efficient to adopt the former.

I want to offer two approaches. The first is to be loved. It may be good to experience a romance in which you love each other even in each other's flaws, or to make a Golden Retriever that loves you unchanged your companion animal. The second is a rational effort: to logically understand and accept that human finitude is the most distinctive and beautiful element of being human. By treating the love of human finitude as an axiom, one can cope with the essential existential anxiety.

First, a perspective is needed that demands scientific verification of whether this claim is true, and we should consider what efforts an individual can make to restore attachment. The term attachment causes confusion with attachment in existing psychology, so I intend to use the term self-acceptance instead.

I tend to use 'attachment' somewhat more broadly than the sense it carries in psychology. My intention is to define attachment as 'the belief that one's existence will be affirmed under any conditions.' If this belief is not firm, the idea that our existence is affirmed only under certain conditions grows stronger, and we come to cling tightly to specific action-oriented beliefs. I think this will lead to an excessive expression of modernity. We can only restore rationality, the capacity to perceive information from a balanced perspective, when the foundation is an attitude that unconditionally embraces the very essence of human beings as weak and finite.

I think it would help strengthen the moral self. Repeating the experience of solving a problem of a size one can actually solve and gaining a sense of accomplishment helps form a positive sense of self-efficacy, which seems likely to serve as a foundation for affirming modern morality. It reinforces the belief that a person can change the world for the better through their own will. However, if this process is not accompanied by a firm sense of attachment, there is a concern that it could blindly intensify the pursuit of modern ideals. To minimize such negative concerns, a solid foundation of stability needs to be formed by resolving existential anxiety.

I think it would contribute to strengthening the moral self. When the experience of solving problems of a size one can handle and gaining a sense of accomplishment is repeated, it helps form positive self-efficacy, which seems likely to become a foundation for affirming modern morality. That is because it reinforces the belief that a person can change the world for the better through their own will. However, if firm attachment is not provided alongside this process, there is a concern that it could blindly reinforce the pursuit of modern ideals. To reduce such negative concerns, a firm foundation of stability needs to be formed as a resolution of existential anxiety.

I think it would help strengthen the moral self. Repeatedly experiencing solving problems of a size one can actually solve and gaining a sense of accomplishment helps form a positive sense of self-efficacy, which seems likely to become a foundation for affirming modern morality. This is because it reinforces the belief that a person can change the world for the better through their own will. However, if firm attachment is not provided alongside this process, there is a concern that it could blindly reinforce the pursuit of modern ideals. To minimize such negative concerns, a solid base of stability should be built as a resolution of existential anxiety.

I believe that the most rational attitude is to affirm and love the fact that human beings are essentially finite. Findings from behavioral economics and recent psychology show that if we, even while pursuing modern values such as justice or growth, recognize an anxiety that cannot be resolved, then we are recognizing only the problems that can be solved through distorted cognition. That is why embracing essential anxiety is the highest form of knowledge.