When the attitude of 'an axiom of loving human finitude' collides with 'an obsession with solvable problems,' which principle should take precedence?

That is a central question. It corresponds to what I call 'acceptance' and 'struggle.' Acceptance is exactly as defined. Struggle, more precisely, is defined a bit more broadly as 'an attempt to overcome human finitude.' I believe that 'when acceptance and struggle conflict, always prioritizing acceptance' is a reasonable and sound moral proposition, and the core of my philosophy. Even when we pursue struggle, if we do not positively recognize the resources we currently have to address the problem (including cognitive resources), our view of the problem becomes constrained. Because human perception is distorted by an orientation toward 'representing a threat as a problem that can be resolved,' the more we perceive an object as a 'threat,' the more our perception of the problem is inevitably distorted. Therefore, the act of struggle itself, that is, the act of solving problems, becomes more irrational than it would be if acceptance were prioritized. Instead of 'recognizing the actual problem,' it becomes a struggle that 'remains within the problem space represented by one's own belief system.' And the more resources we devote to a struggle that is not accompanied by acceptance, the harder it becomes to achieve acceptance, because our cognition wants to justify it. Therefore, I think the most rational stance is to build a solid foundation of acceptance and to struggle with an agency closer to that of a hobby.