Questions

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" 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 acceptance does not by itself guarantee that inefficiency stays at a manageable level; the two are discussions on quite different axes. My argument for defending democracy rests more on an existentialist proposition than on acceptance, and acceptance is brought in to reach 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 serves as the basis for learning income is: through what kind of experience did a person come to acquire knowledge that extends beyond the knowledge and beliefs they originally held? A practical standard for measuring this is how much the expected rate of correct answers increases for questions that the person, at the level of knowledge they are presumed to have had, would not have been able to answer. Currently, this is almost impossible to measure accurately. The technique I intend to prepare for this is extending the methodology of Knowledge Tracing so that it can handle diverse contexts and types of interaction beyond standardized problem-solving records. Meanwhile, to judge whether 'useful knowledge was gained,' which is what this learning income would measure, we would need to define useful knowledge, and this should be derived from social consensus. For now, I think the ongoing discussions on revising the national curriculum are the closest to this process.

I think we should encourage all forms of learning, including watching YouTube videos and playing educational games. Because the competitor of 'the opportunity to learn' is 'a comfortable and attractive world that can be explained by the beliefs one already holds,' learning must also be presented in a very approachable form. To do this, the most effective approach is providing supplementary funding for those opportunities. YouTube's algorithm has been trained to maximize political polarization and filter bubbles because 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 outcome, I think financial support for 'good content' is more effective than regulation. The problem of job loss caused by AI also seems likely to become visible soon. Rather than regulating technology to artificially preserve jobs, I think it is important to quickly propose alternatives for distributing resources. I think learning income should be distributed to all of the following: 'the platform that mediated the learning and provided data to prove that learning occurred,' 'the individual who carried out the learning,' and 'the person who created the content that prompted the learning.' Through this, we should be able to sustain our lives even as we increasingly invest time in learning rather than labor. Since technology is not yet able to support it, learning income at the level I have argued for is not yet possible. However, I think it could be introduced in a moderated form, since there are similar concepts such as learning voucher policies and scholarship systems.

Only half right. This is going to get very long, but first I am assuming that once AI passes the singularity and jobs decline, a 'financial redistribution by the state' will become unavoidable. For the basis of that redistribution, I argue for 'learning income.' The reason is this: if resources are distributed only in the form of basic income, individuals in society will have no motivation to escape the sweet swamp of a narrow world, filled with information that merely confirms their existing beliefs, and so the capacity for democratic decision-making will collapse. And I said I wanted 'a society that still gives people the belief that humans can change society.' That is why democracy must be defended. To do this, 'the capacity of members of society' must be developed. Human decision-making must be inefficient compared to AI only 'to a manageable degree,' and only then can human decision-making authority be protected. A state where incapable private citizens are forced to defend democracy will be conquered by force by a state that has handed all decisions over to the market and capital. Therefore, strengthening citizens' capacities will become a very important national task, and I believe that this should be financially supported, with funds paid out 'when learning takes place.' And though it is a bit of TMI, the reason I chose to pursue a doctorate in learning sciences is to develop 'a quantitative definition and measurement method of knowledge' that will serve as the basis for that policy. The reason I said at first that I was only half right is that this policy will, in the end, financially reward only 'the act of acquiring knowledge that society deems right.' So some basic income is still needed, so that it can take on the role that art has traditionally played in practice: sharply presenting values that society does not encourage. A society whose thinking is not fluid will rot, just as stagnant water rots. So my position on basic income can be summarized as: 'Most resources should be distributed through learning income, but a minimal basic income is still necessary.' Given my sense of crisis about democracy as it stands, I want to argue that the state should provide only a minimal amount that can barely sustain livelihoods, and that people should have to learn in order to obtain even a small amount of luxury.

It helps me understand this if I think of each of us as the top expert on the life we have lived. If I think of the human brain as a device that, from a series of experiences it has been given, builds a local optimum using the resources available at the time, then I feel I can fully understand other people's decisions that look inefficient. And accepting that inefficiency seems to make me more strongly aware that I too am a being who thinks with limited resources, which I think would further contribute to internalizing the rationality of acceptance.

Considering the level of anxiety a person typically associates with daily life, one should have confidence that the anxieties arising from economic reasons can be resolved. To achieve this, it would be best to: 1. have as little anxiety as possible 2. be as economically stable as possible. Point 1 is somewhat vague, but I think the range of problems that can be solved with money can grow exponentially. I have a fairly rich imagination, 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 an "anxiety," the wealth required to believe in financial stability would grow infinitely. Therefore, the narrower the range of "risks I cannot possibly overlook in daily life," the better. At this point, I would like to defend my philosophy of acceptance to some extent. I think an attitude of affirming finitude can considerably relieve the vague anxiety about physical threats. If we understand that we are beings whose death is inevitable, and that even when we diligently strive to hold on to the values we cherish most, they will eventually slip through our grasp, and yet we come to love our lives as beautiful nonetheless, then I think the anxiety about a meteorite suddenly falling or a nuclear war breaking out can be reduced.

I think it depends on each person's temperament. What each person holds most dear differs, and I believe 'death is not an evil' is a philosophical declaration that I was able to affirm more quickly because of my personal trait of being insensitive to my own gains and losses. I think the conditions under which one would regret depend on what each person is sensitive to. In my case, I seem to have a very high orientation toward social value. I have observed and thought about it long enough, but the suffering of someone I love is more painful to me than suffering the same amount myself. So, as people with this kind of temperament usually do, there are times when I would rather keep a distance. I think it is important to focus on 'when I will regret' and to decide what to fight for on that basis.

I think it depends on how much the person's 'acceptance' can buffer the practical factors. If one already has acceptance of the ideal level, like that of an immortal sage, then even when the environment poses a threat to one's existence, one can feel that threat only superficially and see acceptance through. But if, without yet having fully affirmed finitude, one forces the struggle into a mere hobby, neglecting struggle in the practical sense, one may be largely wrecked by threats arising from resources that were never secured. It is more intuitive to extend finitude to 'death as a physical reality.' After all, this is about an existential question. I do not dwell much on physical death, but I rely on alternatives such as 'securing the eternity of existence by being remembered through my works.' At my level of acceptance, I can bear the 'disregard of struggle' that carries a cost such as risk to life, but if I had to pay a greater price than that, I think I would not be able to bear it and would regret it. For example, if I neglected a social problem that I can recognize, anticipate, and respond to, and missed the chance to respond, I think I would deeply regret it. In this way, there is no absolute, concrete boundary line; it is fluid and depends on each person's circumstances. That is my answer.

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.

The background for my argument should be mentioned here. I think we have now moved past Marx's era, when 'labor' was the essential channel through which an individual engaged with the world, into an era where people do not work because they are productive. In other words, I speak from an optimistic outlook that AI will replace much of humanity's productive activity. I hope for a society that can provide a basic income to support the population's demand for essential goods. In fact, if AI supports everyone, the expected question is 'does it even matter whether we accept it or not?' But I think this is an era in which acceptance is necessary, because humans must still protect their right to make their own decisions. The greatest danger of modern society, as I see it, is not economic crisis but 'the loss of human sovereignty.' The implication of the principle of acceptance is 'let us affirm the conditions under which human reason can succeed only in a much more limited way.' I understand that situations in which I am not rational far outnumber those in which I am, so I think preparing a system that can compensate for the failures of my reason is the best preparation one can make while at leisure. Therefore, in addition to the principle of acceptance, I propose the principle that 'humans must hold the belief that they can contribute positively to resolving environmental threats,' and present it as the direction society should move toward. As the failures of political polarization show, we need a system that, even when individual reason fails, keeps society from collapsing, while giving people the belief that if they set their minds to it, they can change an unreasonable society.

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, "financial stability," the biggest representative of realistic anxiety, has to be met at the level of personal conviction. Only when one has prepared for the crises each person naturally worries about, especially the factors that are hard to cope with when finances are shaky, can one's achievements avoid taking on the shape of a struggle for survival. However, I think that when it comes to money, human limiting utility always changes over the course of a life, so if you keep earning only as much as you need, you will end up living a life constantly swayed by money. I think it is good to set a target amount in advance, early in your career as a young professional, by considering your own personality and lifestyle traits, something like "I think I would be happy if I earned this much," and to acquire the secure belief that you can stably exceed that target. For example, in my case, I found 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 without a sink, sharing it with cockroaches, or in a gosiwon, and I came to believe that the amount I need to be happy is one-third of my current salary. With the optimistic thought, "Even if my career gets tangled up later, whether by going to graduate school or starting a business, won't I still earn at least half of the starting salary I once received?" I was able to completely free myself from financial worries. In the end, I acknowledge that the concept of "unconditional acceptance," at least for now, is realistic only for people who are by temperament optimistic about money or have low expectations, or for people who are already financially quite stable. That is why I want to work toward securing a social safety net so that this concept can become one 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 when one becomes motivated to love one's own shortcomings, a sense of ease will lead to acceptance. Improving one's health for the classic modern purpose of sport, overcoming one's own shortcomings, seems like it might instead have a bad effect.

The condition is to understand 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 regulate at will in terms of self-efficacy and depressive mood, but are strongly influenced by our environment, and we provide ourselves with such opportunities, a person with an accepting attitude will likely be able to enjoy the positive effects of achievement without becoming overly absorbed (=without treating achievement as the thing that affirms who they are).

Your question's wording is somewhat difficult to parse. For now, let me guess at the text you used as a reference. - 'Enhancing self-efficacy through everyday achievements maintains an attitude that prioritizes acceptance': I think this means that a sense of efficacy relieves anxiety and thereby contributes to acceptance, but I don't think the original text would have explained the relationship so simply. - Authenticity: a term about individual uniqueness and essence? - 'Degenerates into an obsession with external achievement': The thing that degenerates seems to be 'enhancement of self-efficacy,' so I suspect this is quoting a concern about enhancing self-efficacy. So, restating the question as I understand it: "I'd like to discuss this from the perspective of authenticity, asking what the essence of an individual is. You said that enhancing self-efficacy through everyday achievements can degenerate into an obsession with external achievement, and that an accepting attitude can prevent this. From the standpoint of authenticity, could you explain the conditions under which that defense succeeds?" I will answer with that understanding. (It's still difficult, though.) I believe the essence of the self is memory. And that memory leaves us with various 'wounds' and gives us our uniqueness. I think each of us has some irrationality or inefficiency accumulated from our experiences, and that this is closer to the true essence of the individual. When we hide these 'unique weaknesses' and come to see ourselves as a 'proud self surrounded by various achievements' as our identity, the self with its own inherent beauty is obscured and wrapped in the image of a desirable self constructed by others' gaze. I think a 'firm foundation of acceptance' can prevent enhancement of self-efficacy from merely enjoying its positive effects on mental health recovery at a superficial level, and further prevent it from being transformed into a core element of the self. This is because the accepting attitude derived from knowing is understanding that small achievements can bring me joy and happiness, but are not my essence.

I think it would be better to give an example of a situation where an attempt at acceptance fails. If one only resolves to fully affirm oneself and physically allows oneself sweet surroundings, one may fail to approach essential acceptance. Beyond affirming the abstract concept of the self, it has to lead to an experience of recognizing in what form 'the values one cannot forgive within oneself' exist inside oneself, facing them directly, and affirming them. I think that if one stays only in sweetness without this reflection, there is a risk of becoming a self-pitying narcissist. Therefore, acceptance is essential only when it goes beyond creating a physical environment that cares for and affirms oneself, leading to a way of thinking and experiencing that faces directly and embraces 'the finitude of oneself' itself; only under that condition can it lead to an exploration of the consistency of the self.

Because human finitude is bound up with each person's uniqueness, accepting and affirming one's own finitude means deepening one's understanding of the conditions under which one's own uniqueness arises. When we face this directly, we can explore the consistency of our own self more deeply, and we can also engage more honestly in externalization through things like documentation.

When the attitude of perceiving a problem within a narrower scope, consciously or unconsciously, in order to restore one's sense of efficacy conflicts with the attempt to overcome finitude, one should judge according to how much slack one currently has. If there is a strong anxiety right now that cannot be looked away from, and if fully recognizing 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 a combative attitude of 'overcoming finitude' can truly contribute to solving the problem from the best possible vantage point only when one's mental health is balanced. On the other hand, if one has cognitive room to spare, limiting perception is merely a kind of indulgence, so I would emphasize the struggle 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've misread it, but the two claims don't conflict. The premise of the former is that when acceptance is involved, the act of choosing the task for securing recognition of existence becomes a domain of active choice. The two propositions are coherent claims about the cases where acceptance is involved and where it is not, respectively.

Physical health seems likely to lead to two effects. 1. More cognitive resources available for decision-making. When you become healthier, you first gain some slack. 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, it should be positive for managing chronic stress, and resources should free up as well. The more an individual's resources grow, the higher the probability of making rational decisions, and the stability of society as a whole will also increase. 2. Restoration of self-efficacy. I have an earlier post that voiced concern about 'successfully performing tasks that are achievable,' but I think the positive effect is greater for people in situations where self-efficacy is weak and anxiety and depression are high. This is because the anxiety you feel right now has to be relieved before there is room to take a rational approach to acceptance. Therefore, through these two main pathways, managing health will also 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 Acceptance-and-Struggle schema shares much common ground with skepticism: it adopts doubt about human reason while aiming to offer hope for a situation in which modernity can be accumulated. In particular, regarding the proposition that 'one can actively choose the tasks for having one's existence affirmed,' I first think that the starting point itself, 'recognizing which of our intentional acts are for having our existence affirmed,' will fail unless it rests on a high level of acceptance. If, even for an act I judge to be the best way to resolve existential anxiety, I were to recognize that it is merely for my own self-satisfaction, a person who has not reconciled with that existential anxiety would be overwhelmed by great anxiety and fall into depression and unease, or would deny that recognition and represent a solvable problem as a problem of the whole world. Therefore, assuming the individual maintains a healthy mental state, without acceptance it is difficult to actively choose tasks for having one's existence affirmed. On the other hand, I argue that under the condition of firm acceptance, that belief becomes possible. Of course, whether 'ideal acceptance' is realistically attainable may be a point of debate, but if we view acceptance not as an idealistic dichotomy but as a spectrum, I think the subjective possibility of adopting such acts more actively can increase.

I think the mechanism of 'acceptance' correlates more strongly with virtue ethics than with deontological perspectives. The character traits that an accepting attitude is expected to entail are as follows. 1. It becomes more likely to make moral decisions. As I will explain later, I think the moral consensus that modern society has established is rational even from a long-term perspective at the individual level. Therefore, when there is less incentive to make myopic or irrational decisions, there is a higher probability of adhering to this morality. 2. One becomes more inclusive toward others. After all, humans share some circuitry for evaluating themselves and others (though the pattern may vary depending on individual SVO), so when one has a high degree of accepting attitude toward oneself, the likelihood of extending that generosity to others is expected to increase. 3. Overall, the cognitive resources available to us increase. This may overlap somewhat with the first reason when viewed broadly, but I think the more cognitive resources one has for decision-making, the more capacity one has to pursue what we commonly call 'virtue.' Various other dispositional traits may also emerge, but for now this remains a speculative view.

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.

First, the acceptance-and-struggle framework stands in direct opposition to deontology. Because humans have limited cognitive capacity, we are never able to fulfill our moral duties at all times. I think that what we regard as a duty (that is, a decision that appears rational at the societal, long-term, or macro level) can only be satisfied when specific environmental conditions or the cognitive resources available at the time allow compliance with that duty. Still, to explain in a way that resonates well with the conventional deontological perspective: when a solid foundation of stability is in place, the likelihood that we rely on irrational decisions driven by anxiety decreases. This is because a solid foundation of stability is a device for strengthening the influence of System 2 in the System 1 versus System 2 framework of behavioral economics, and it prepares the environment in which more rational, reasoned inference can take place. Given that the main reason we violate moral duties, even while recognizing them as rational, is the risk that is perceived as very important and urgent to us, a foundation of stability that keeps the perception of this risk from being exaggerated and distorted is one of the good preparations for fulfilling duty.

I want to state up front that acceptance and struggle is not a claim backed by established professional psychological theory; it is, for now, still at the stage of a philosophical and theoretical framework. When a child comes to see the process of proving their own abilities as a task for earning affirmation of their existence, the child does not come to choose that process actively; instead, they are pulled along passively. Because at a deep level of cognition the affirmation of existence and the proof of ability become strongly linked, the child can collapse easily when the external environment reaches a point where they find it hard to prove their ability.

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.

By looking at the description 'an attitude of fixating on solvable problems,' two things can be inferred. One is 'an epistemological attitude of recognizing problems within the scope of what is solvable,' and the other is 'a fixation on solving that problem.' Regarding the former, an attitude of embracing essential anxiety: the mechanism of acceptance contributes to dissolving epistemological obsession by affirming the essential anxiety that decision-makers contain. Also, if the motivation to solve a problem is not driven by negative emotions such as anxiety, the latter can also acquire a positive attitude of actively choosing to solve the problem, rather than passively fixating on it through the unconscious. Therefore, acceptance enables people to perceive solvable problems more accurately, and at the same time helps humans regain their status 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, we need a perspective 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' tends to cause confusion with attachment in existing psychology, so I would like to use the term 'self-acceptance' instead.

I tend to use the term attachment somewhat more broadly than it is commonly used in psychology. What I mean by attachment is the belief that one's existence will be affirmed under any conditions. If this belief is not firm, the idea that one's existence is affirmed only under certain conditions gets reinforced, and we come to cling strongly to certain action-oriented beliefs. My view is that this would lead to an excessive manifestation of modernity. Only when our attitude is grounded in accepting, unconditionally, the very nature of human beings as weak and finite can we also recover the rationality of perceiving information from a balanced perspective.

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.