Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula. Author. Software engineer. I study the mind and build tools for thinkers. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code.
Option 1: when you create a discussion, an embed code is shown, which you can paste anywhere.
#4406·Dirk Meulenbelt, 7 days agoIf finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
You could use your own definition of justificationism that equates it to foundationalism. But then you’d want to explain that choice.
Regardless, we’re getting too bogged down on terms. I think at this point it would be easier for you to just change your article so it either uses established terms with their accepted definitions or explains departures from them.
#4406·Dirk Meulenbelt, 7 days agoIf finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
#2844·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoA Life Guided by Reason
In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.)
A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand summarized that philosophy as, “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”1 In other words, it says to mix reason and unreason; to stray from rationality arbitrarily; to be rational only sometimes. It claims that there is a necessary clash between reason and emotion. It is an attack on reason, an attempt to do the impossible – and it leads to dissatisfaction with yourself and conflict with others.
If you are rational only sometimes, if you stray from rationality arbitrarily, then you are irrational. There is no third option. This conclusion can be proven easily: if you tried to stray from rationality non-arbitrarily, ie, if you tried to come up with a considered argument for straying from rationality, you could only do so by following the steps in #2281. And those steps are the application of rationality again.
So it’s impossible to stray from rationality rationally. There is no gray area between reason and unreason. Rationality has an all-or-nothing character. This does not mean that reason has to snuff out all emotion. On the contrary: there is no necessary clash between rationality on the one hand and emotion on the other. Rationality means finding unanimous consent between emotion, explicit thought, inexplicit thought, and any other kind of idea.
If you follow the steps in #2281 consistently, then you are always rational. A life worth living is one guided exclusively by reason. Consistent application of rationality may be difficult at first, but with practice, it will get easier. Master it, and you will have a fighting chance of becoming what David Deutsch calls a beginning of infinity.
Ayn Rand. Philosophy: Who Needs It. ‘From the Horse’s Mouth’ (p. 110). 1975. Kindle Edition. As quoted previously.
#2281·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
So? How is that foundationalism?
So? How is that foundationalism?
#554·Tom Nassis, over 1 year agoVeritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.
But it never will, unless its users innovate.
How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?
#3419·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoIdea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
This seems overkill for now. If people want to do this off-platform and then feed it into Veritula, they can do that.
“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
#4262·Dennis HackethalOP, 25 days agoAnother idea: letting users post ideas to their own profile. Such ideas wouldn’t be part of a discussion.
Implemented as of ecc72ff. Check your profile.
This is the first idea posted straight to my profile, outside of discussions.
Acknowledge the contradiction between disregarding market developments and taking them into account
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But again, the idea is typically to invest regardless of market developments. I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
#4152·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoDollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
… regardless of market developments.
vs
You also get to react to developments …
A contradiction.
#4391·Dirk Meulenbelt, 9 days agoIndeed. Justification without finality is fake.
"X is true because of Y, but we can discuss Y"
Is functionally the same as
"X is true and we can discuss why"
But this sounds like you’re saying justificationism is necessarily the same as foundationalism. Whereas in #4392 you agreed it’s only a kind of justifiationism.
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) just links to an entire page with no quotes or section information. That makes verifying the information harder: readers would have to read the entire page.
Sources should be specific: either give a verbatim quote or link to a highlight.
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) links to a secondary source on Popper. Secondary sources on Popper are usually bad. Use a primary source – something Popper himself said.
The article says:
A follower of the philosopher Karl Popper would object: isn’t this just foundationalism in disguise? … Popper showed that’s impossible: any justification needs a deeper justification, and that one needs another, so you either chase reasons forever or stop at one you can’t defend.
I didn’t read the entire linked page, but based on a word search for ‘regress’, it attributes the infinite-regress problem to Hans Albert, not Popper:
[Albert] argues that any attempt at justification faces a three-pronged difficulty that is traceable to Agrippa: One alternative leads to an infinite regress as one seeks to prove one assumption but then needs to assume some new one…
#4386·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 days agoJust because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.
For a tiebreaker, consider this Wiktionary definition of justificationism (links removed):
An approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary…
Since this quote doesn’t mention finality, it sounds more in line with BoI.
#4385·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 days agoThe article says:
[Justificationism] is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.
This definition breaks with BoI. The glossary from ch. 1 says:
[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Note that this second quote says nothing about finality “beyond question”.
Just because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.