all trade

She avoided starting conversation with me. That’s probably fair. Then I realize how certain episodes were facades. She is well-trained to satisfy in socializing with people. I can imagine her going on TV and conduct those interviews with comedians and actors. Perhaps she will turn out to be an actor. Although I am a bit sad about how those tiny interactions, the silent looks and breakout smiles, were not genuine. Honne, inner thoughts. Is Konatsu the same? Was my goodbye with Yuzuki something to look back upon? 

People notice character flaws in me and yet they are still okay with it. I appreciate that. It’s a thing to learn from. Do not avoid them for imperfections they may have but continue to engage with them to look for peculiarities that they were brought up to have. 

May be I sincerely thought that if I give my best, they would see more in my actions rather than my words. Try not to stab people with my words.

I don’t have a gift with language. That’s probably fair too. I am too pompous to really learn how to write. Bad, bad thing.  

Emilyons Emilys A million of me One single heart Beat

A single encounter One billion differ There’s no coming  Back

Hold one hand out Let me swing it roundabout Bid the grand crowd Bye

Such single act Can build a fact In it to feel it  Me

Intimacy Of Dramatic Lies How real it can Be

Love out Hate in Towards you towards me Dear stranger, please don’t  See

It’s the last that I see of you

Holy shit I’m able to read without much disturbance. Normally I would be in so much thoughts that I’m unable to read but today I just picked up a book without extreme disgust at the sight of letters. I’ve started reading a few books today. “Rich Dad Poor Dad” has a promising start. It talked about the differences between being poor and being rich. I ended up reading tons of review of this book even before finishing and well, I don’t think I should waste my time reading more of it. If anything it gave me a thought of be careful of what inspires you. You would have to be more incredulous of things that seemed to inspire you intentionally. I need to look at the receipts and further examine everything that is given to me. But I would think I’m sort of on the right track. I started reading Management 3.0, likely I’m look it over, looking for mistakes and see if any of it would actually applies to me. Library Wars seemed interesting enough and easy to read so I will continue that as my intake of fiction. A question for me would be, can I afford to be skeptical, analytical, looking for discrepancies in every info sources. I’m sure I can gather up evidence and argue against something but that would take time and effort. I need to rethink my intake of media, I shouldn’t consume as much since I should value quality of materials and having thoughts on it rather than mass consumptions and having little thoughts about it. 

Piano helps me focus more on the subject matter, enable me to read and think. 

Art Museum could be considered the new cathedrals. Different kinds of arts conjure up different feelings and therefore capable of healing people in the same sense religion does. However, that would need curation of contents and nowadays museums are focus on the storage of art rather than organizing arts into sections with different functions that connect us with those arts. 

Pragmatism is a valid concept. The rejection of debate is bad. Any ideas and labels are subject to discussion and dialogue

Being out of touch with our feelings is a common thing. The way society shaped or limited us to believe or feel certain ways about certain things caused the feeling and observing function of our brain to malfunction having the observing side turning a blind eye to the emotions.(questionable) Realizing our own feelings is a good things since it would help us realize others too.

People does not like being told what to do. Believe in them. 

I should build something for myself first before I invite people to join me. Don’t depend on others to do your work for you. 

A couple shouldn’t blindly trust each other. Partners shouldn’t assume that the other party is going to be faithful all the way. Interests in everything the other partner do is required at first in order for both to feel valued. Not trusting the other partner at first should be a normal reaction. 

This is going to be my reflection on the job I had at the diner. Here I was able to look inside the world of Japanese business. First of all, I will have to agree with my coworker that the Japanese has a crazy work ethics. They highly value the punctuality involve in the job. But it seems that once the job over, they instantly become so carefree. Perhaps it is because that this is work. In this place, I truly understand the meaning and importance of the division of labor inside a business. Everything has got to have a system in order to function properly and the chain of command at this restaurant is quite apparent. I only worked in the hall so I don’t have much ideas on how the kitchen staff operates but through observations, some things are made clear about the restaurant itself. 

There are two interchangeable heads of the restaurant, a man and a woman. (The man is extremely serious and rather harsh while the woman would always put on a smile and soothe everyone) One of the two, has to be there all the time in order to supervise the staff and the customer. These heads settle quarrels, concerns of both employees and customers; they would also manage the employment side of the job. They would do the hall staff, bringing food in and out of the inside, greetings, etc. In the hall, there would need to be at least 3 people plus one of the two heads, but there would always be more. One of those three, will be in in  charge of bring the customers in. The others two will be looking at water stations in order to serve the guests tea and water when they came in. This is called service, something extremely important in the service industry.*You don’t say* These people I would have to say is extremely good at faking a smile. Their attitude can switch from welcoming to just cold stare and observing eyes. Although, having to serve people for a living is not something to reach for. Of course, in this restaurant,  with no prior experience, you would probably have to work up the chain of command. First you would have to start with busiest and arguably the most disgusting job, taking care of leftover food. The waiters would bring the food in from the hal onto a 4 story shelf. The “gezen” would have to throw all of these leftovers away for the washing station person to put dishes in the machine. Primarily, I did that job. Sometimes you would get a perk that somebody left their drink untouched and you are able to sip some. However, most of the time, it was pure regulated, repetitive labor. I did not hate it since I signed up for it and it gave me some time to just think about what is happening in my life. I counted and at that position, working from 12:00pm to 4:00pm, I would do roughly about 366 trays of food. You could say that during those hours, there are around that numbers of customers coming in. With the food being not cheap at all, balancing about at least 1200 yen a person. The profit at that time would probably around 450,000 yen which is 4500 dollars. 

That spot is quite busy as you can imagine it takes time to separate all the different kind of trash, from unburnable, burnable, watery food, non watery food plus the different kinds of cups, bowls, dishes, etc. Furthermore, this restaurant is a restaurant that basically offers everything so there are so many different kinds of dish. What a nightmare that was. You would have organize those stuffs with considerable speed or else, the trays from outside would coming and coming and everybody will look at you with disappointed eyes(the worst thing ever). Moving up from that spot would be either the washing station or bring in and out the food trays. The washing station consists of two jobs, both extremely manual work. One is to put the dishes that the “gezen” organized into stuff to go through the dishwasher. This has to be done with organization skills since it would be easier for the other people to put those dishes away for the kitchen people to take and make food with. Working in the washing station either causes your hand to burn up of shriveled due to prolonged contact in water. These jobs are slightly less busy if done alone, but if one person has to carry out the both duties then hell, you have to be fast and furious in order to avoid stacking up of dirty or clean dishes. And it is so easy to slip. Goddamnit, I almost slip a number of times. However, despite being detailed and intricate, these are simple jobs that can be done by anyone if given some time to get used to. If it built up anything in me, I would have to say a pair of eyes on how to organize things faster and critical thinking skills as in how to make things work more efficiently. This did not require any conversational and communication skills though. 

The other part I did was making tea(very very meticulous)and bring the food in and out. It teaches me how to put on an image of myself, how to carry myself so that I would be visibly pleasing to the customers. I’ve learned some manners and that is also swell. Manners are probably the most important thing that you need as a waiter. You have to make the customer feel good. Not a very desirable job but still. Most customer in Japan doesn’t require conversations from the waiter so it was okay for me to go out there and say anything within the script. I didn’t get up to the position of taking orders since probably I’m not that used to being a waiter yet, plus my language skill is inefficient to please the customer. That would probably be the next step for me, had I stay there longer. After taking order, you would probably be the bridge between the hall and kitchen, managing food order and organizing trays of foods. I did observe the people doing this job a lot and it doesn’t seem to be that difficult if you have good reflexes and good communication skills. Then next thing will probably be making drinks for customers and serving tea. Serving tea means that you are the beginning impression of the customer as they settle down in their seats. Making drinks and desserts require remembering stuffs and it would probably take some training to memorize everything. However, I am uncertain how much time it would take for one person to climb up the chain of commands to be the head. 

This case of S and Y is currently in development and I'm having some problems deciding about what to do. I've been thinking a lot lately about the situation but I don't know if I'm emotionally invested or that it provide me a puzzle to solve. 

But that's not the only thing that bothers me. Now, I closer friend with the girl(compared to the guy) and from my perspective she is a smart and kind person who is capable of making the right decision. Yet, I wonder if I'm seeing her as the better version of herself rather than the true one. It would seem true since I have these expectations of her being more courageous or more emotionally responsible than she seems to be capable of.

This lead to the question of whether I should take on a more pessimistic view on human's capabilities and see them for the weak and lonely souls that they are or whether I should try to mold them into better version of themselves(or the way I would deem better for them to be). 

In the past, I have tried the second method multiple times but only ended up failing, causing the relationship with those people to slowly disintegrate. Plus, if I don't know if I'm able to trust a person and keep an interest on a person whom I know is flawed and bound to failed in certain emotional areas. Both options seem to be equally bleak in their own sense and currently I'm at loss of what to do. 

It was one of the most captivating cinematic experience ever.

One of the theme I found within this movie was the exploration of the human portrait in front of the media. Both the book and the movie plays around with the narration of the story switching between Nick Dunne and Amy Elliott and sometimes confuse us the readers with whose version of the story is the true. Although there are probably many versions of this story type being done before and the readers and the viewers did find out what was truly happening in the end, the mystery elements of the movie and the book is still well-done. The first part of the movie is truly a mystery and it makes question a lot about the characters involved. However, in the second half of the movie, when we actually got to the perspective of Amy Elliott, the mystery element somewhat disappeared and now become a full-fledged mindfuck, thriller experience. Punctured throughout the movie were scenes where Nick Dunne opened himself to the media and how those around him were open to media. Nick Dunne said that the media disliked him and then liked him and then hated him and then they loved him. Human is malleable, the truth is malleable, the picture of human is even more malleable. In the end of the movie, Amy Elliott planned her return in a spectacular manner after she knew she couldn’t win against Nick Dunne. The last part of the movie was arguably the worst part of the movie since the return of Amy was poorly planned and perhaps could have been examined to a much further detail. I do not believe real life is similar to the return of Amy since there would be journalists who would notice the obvious inconsistencies and exploit it heavily. I watched a piece of comedic social commentary piece by John Oliver on Journalism and how the papers are dying so the fact that true journalist would rip Amy and Nick apart easily was stuck on my mind. There were so many inconsistencies within Amy’s story. Despite of that, I could also understand how the image they portrayed was more interesting than who they actually are and perhaps they hide their true personality well-enough from the public eyes. The ending was perhaps cut short due to the almost 3 hours run-time movie but it was okay since they got a few points across in the last 15 minutes. Nick become what he said he wouldn’t become: a wife hitter. Nick also become what Amy wanted him to become, a fucked-up person who was able to control the masses opinion of himself. They complemented each other. Nick decided he would stay married with Amy because of the child, which earlier in the movie he said he hated that since they would become a couple who save their marriage by having a child. I wonder how that child will become in the future, living in the middle of two people who hated each other. 

The Intimacy of Holding Hands

I think holding hands is more intimate than sex  as this age. It is perhaps even more intimate than hugging. It represents a bond that you can keep for a long time. It represents the fact that you want a connection to the other person and that person accepts it. A hug is not as intimate since a hug can easily means friendly hugh but handholding is one of the thing that symbolizes relationship. However, it could be fucking disgusting when your hands start sweating...A kiss can be also seen as intimate but perhaps it is not right for the public eye but hand holding is the most intimate thing a couple should do infront of  public. Maybe a few pecks on the cheeks but if too much then it becomes annoying. 

The Lack of  A Definitive Group of Friends.

I have just realized this just now but currently, I have no group of people that I feel much comfortable to say that I am with them. It is not that I am willing to just join them in whatever endeavor that they are pursuing because I am rather dandy with it. It is just that I am not sure of whether certain people whom I would say are in my circle, consider me in theirs. It is such a harsh feeling to experience. Back in 8th grade, 9th grade or even the beginning of 10th, I had my own circles. Whether it is the Good Kids in eighth grade, two 9th and two 7th in ninth grade or the band in 10th. I consider those people circle because I was at ease from rejection when I’m with those groups. I feel that I was in control of my behavior more. Although self-contradicting, as in the facts that my behavior might be governed by the social circles, I think I can be free and true to myself when I am with them, sarcastic, being goofy, laughing naturally, etc. all of those fun stuffs. In the end of tenth grade, I felt rather separated from my usual pairings. Maya, Howon, Yuniba, Juno were distancing themselves from the others and why would I get in the way of that. I understood the feelings of being a couple now, in a sense,  and also the feelings of others when couples are around. They became undoubtedly uncomfortable despite of the fact that both of the couples are your closest of friends. However, the couple don’t mind shit. They just don’t care about whether you are there or not, unless you show noticeable trace of loneliness or dissatisfaction. They are rather cooped up within their own sphere of lovey-dovey moments, when they are with their partner, of course. When separated, each person becomes much more tolerable, and they possess the initiative of being someone who doesn’t only focus on their partner but also care about their friends. However, having trusting relationships with a single person or two people within a group, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are part of it. Say I can say with some amount of certainty that I can trust Yuya and Marcie but that doesn’t make me a part of their group. Say I am friend with Maya and Yuniba but it doesn’t mean that they really care whether I am there or not, since each of them got their own. I do wonder what will happen to Yuniba now, once Juno had left. I would certainly want to observe the visible changes that will happen to her. Let’s do some speculation about the future, what will the lunch table looks like in the future. Maya will seat with Howon and Yuniba will be third wheeling, and I will only be there sporadically since you can say that I have grown out of that group and have became rather tired of Maya and Yuniba. Maya is a sincere person and we would get along in the sense that together we might have power to accomplish things within school since we both have been there for quite some time. However, you can say that I do not agree with Maya’s philosophy? Perhaps that is a strong word to say and perhaps that might be false since I might be very well be jealous of hers’ philosophy and how that have led her to a more successful life than mine, quite objectively. She’s got this philosophy of knowledgeable pristineness but also when to have fun and when to be serious. To be honest, I haven’t made that distinction yet, my life is fun but like my father said, it needs to come into shapes(by making plans of course). It’d seem as if she’s got her life planned out for her and she follows that philosophy and plan quite tightly and of course, there are changes and waves midway, but still, she is quite someone. Despite of that, it doesn’t mean that I can stand her. Sure, talking to her might still be fun and making fun of her won’t stop giving me laughs but her tendency to disregard people and superficially or not. I know that she is a kind person and I know I wouldn’t be bored talking to her(ever), but it doesn’t mean anything because the opposing party might still get hurt from it. Also, one thing I noticed is that I have lost interest in her life. I simply does not care and simply does not have interest to know much more about her now, hence the lack of interest of actually talking to her. Does it make me a shallow person, may be, but I still trust her with certain conversations, it’s just that she will not be my first choice if I need to confide. That is one thing though, I have never clearly, clearly stated my feelings to Maya. I have never straight out: “Will you give me advice on this personal crisis that I am having”. Now, about Yuniba...I really don’t feel much for her now. You can say I have certain negative feelings about her that I can’t rid of. She is just so...inefficient. Sure, she is good at certain things like treating people well and make them feel welcoming but I just can’t stand her behavior anymore. I think she is one of the reason why I am at a state of complacence. I know that she is smart since she had shown behaviors of that and I am sure that she’s got great genes from her parents. However, it doesn’t change the fact that I am too used to her being this person. I am too used to that bad parts of her that I was appalled when I could compare her with people who came from other schools. Yuniba is not putting much effort into things that have significant values(to me) and I am really not in favor of that. Also, she is not someone who can do things on her own. Now I know that nobody can, but at least she need to take affirmative actions in her own life and to be really honest, I haven’t really seen that in her. I am fully aware of the positive qualities that these two possess but I don’t want to stay in my comfort zone and I am very much itching to get out of it and perhaps I already did. However, leaving the comfort zone had lead me to a strange place. I am a lot more open about my feelings that I was in 9th grade, I truly converse with my surroundings much more than I did in 9th grade and I think that it is a good thing. Perhaps I am being too self-centered when I say that my conversation and behavioral patterns had categorized me in a gray zone. I try to debate and be intellectual similar to Gaston and Maya yet I am not as sincere and open hearted as Gaston and not as coordinated and pristine like Maya. I joke and throw sarcastic comments around similar to Amira yet, I have more confidence and not as discrete as her plus I believe I am on the happier(for the lulz) side of the coin. I have similar interests to Sarah and perhaps share the creativity and part of contents of speech(drawn to dark, weird stuffs) yet I am not as dedicated as she is and does not go one more step like she does. I’m louder and more excited than Juno yet less decisive and slower reflex compare to his. I might do something similar to Allen but I am cooler about it and create an image for myself to not seem creepy. Perhaps the thing here is that I am not invested enough in all of my pursuits, relationships and studies. Perhaps if I do, I would garner a much clearer version of myself and would be know for something within the class. I have to create a brand for myself, something positive and would remind people fondly of me. In order to have a group of friends, I need to know which group I belongs to first. 

But perhaps, I have been thinking about this all wrong. May be I don’t need a group, may be I can just float around within groups and create deep interactions with a few people from each groups. When I hang out, I would hang out with people who would guarantee a good time for me. 

One thing that I would say that, Sean is definitely liking Yuya, it would be very very weird if I was wrong since the amount of body touch is incredible and the sharing of information within close ears is just out of place. The tickling and the holding of wrist, the head pat and the thigh touching. It would be incredible if I am wrong but I am not sure if I should confront Yuya or Sarah about. I will probably ask Sarah’s about this because it is weird. Sean does not do this to any other girls, even Konatsu. 

Contemporary Solution to Skeptical Problem

1.Semantic Approach(meaning-based)-Hilary Putnam’s book: Reason, Truth and History. One of the goal in his book was to show that skepticism ultimately self-destructs. The words that skeptics used can convey the meaning that the skeptics want to convey. (This is a debate about definitions which can last oh so very long) In order to make you feel like you don’t know anything about the outer world, the skeptics need to use meaningful language to describe a scenario that might for all you know, actually be your reality. That is the condition for skepticism. Putnam said that the skeptics can only make their scenario meaningful only in a situation where that scenario couldn’t be reality. 

What is his general semantic theory? Putnam is an advocate for something known as “Semantic Externalism”. According to this idea, what gives your word meaning isn’t a matter of your inner idea or psychological state but rather your relationship to your environments. (Makes sense?) It is not about your idea of the word but rather what the word represents in your world. This could lead to some serious implications though, this means that if the media is able to induce you with environments that might lead to meanings of words and expressions being twisted, distorted or change in a revolutionary way or a stupidification way. 

While this semantic theory might be convincing, its response to criticism is doubtful. It said that the words being used can’t have any meanings to a brain in a vat who haven’t experience anything for real, only dictate by a supercomputer. However, it wouldn’t matter since the computer would have sufficient power to fake those sensations. The computer is creating the environment for the brain in a vat, therefore this whole reality(be it fake or not) is the brain in a vat’s number one environment, the one that is is truly experiencing compared to its real condition of being hooked up with a supercomputer. Also critics pointed out that we would only need to slightly modify the situation in order to defeat semantic externalism. By saying that we are just recently been a brain in a vat and all the words still have physical meaning for us.

David Chalmers take a more optimistic approach to the theory. He said that the situation of a brain in a vat isn’t much threatening. Most of your experiences are true, despite of being in brain in a vat. Looking at your computational hand is the same as looking at your hand, it is the belief that matters, not the actual reality. Whether is virtual or real, it is still a fucking hand, and it is the only hand that YOU know. We can still know things in our reality, whatever it is made up of, computer code, strings or particle. 

2. Defensive Approach

Most empire, wars and human endeavors can be explained using economics. All we have to understand is who wanted what! The American civil war was faught because the Southern states wanted cheap slave labors.

Statistically speaking, most human that ever live had terrible lives(metrics are life expectancy, child mortality, income per capita, etc.) The Industrial Revolution came and changed everything. (Adam Smith is first modern economist, book-Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nation)Adam Smith concluded that the source of prosperity was the division of labor or specialization.

Speacialization and the Division of labor is about different people having different tasks

This division of labor makes everyone more productive since they don't waste time switching between jobs and only focus on the one that they are currently doing. Adam Smith observed that "In every improved society, the farmer is generally nothing but a farmer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer. The labour necessary to produce any one complete manufacture is almost always divided among a great number of hands. (hmm, talking about the ancient age, in the society of hunteres and gatherers, they have a small scale division of labor, in fact there is probably something called the natural division of labor within the evolution of man kind and mammal kind since the female of any specie would generally have the task of raising the offsprings)(This make me think about the representation of the division of labor within an organization, since the people who are capable of doing multiple jobs, completing multiple tasks at once are generally praised and tend to gain respect. And perhaps it is easy to give all the tasks to someone who is capable of doing them both with relatively high quality than to give someone one tasks to do extrememly well in and risk the other tasks being done less well by other individuals. But perhaps that depends on the economics of that choice, what was the need and benefits, etc. To make an effective organization, perhaps it is necessary to create division of labor to the smallest position since if an organization is dependent upon a person who can multitask and taking care of so many things at one, that person will be too much of a liabililty to risk the safety of the organization to. This is definitely something to take notes of, if I am trying to create an organization. I wonder again that doesn't human naturally divide up the labor within a group? Is that a new concept that had risen or probably it is a concept recognized by Adam Smith. Human had the instinct to divide up the work since simply it would be the smartest thing to do.) While specialization is something that human had always done, the industrial takes this level to an extreme such as it had take so many people to truly create one single smartphone, all the way from the gathering of natural materials to the assembler.

While specialization made people more productive, it is trade that made them better off.

Trade is mututally beneficial and to understand the value of trade there is a model to show.

It is called the production possibilitites frontier, something very basic in economics textbooks. It shows the combination of 2 goods being produced using all resources efficiently. Anything below the curve is inefficient, anything above is impossible and on the curve is efficient. While this graph only shows 2 resources, in reality there can be much more, and it is possible to add more the curve, the main principle doesn't change and perhaps would only futher complicate the graph. (The Us would rather sacrifice 1 plane for 4 tons of shoes rather than only 2 while China would rather sacrifice 4 tons of shoes instead of 8 for 1 plane) Individual and countries should specialize in producing things in which they have a comparative advantage and then trade with other countries that specialize in something else. This trade is mutually beneficial. (This is really cool! It advocates for the fact that an individual in life has to get good at anythign that they have a comparative adavantage to others in order to trade their service well in society. Studying economics would be really interesting!)This concept is important. Politicians might say that "international trade" destroys domestic jobs, but economists say that essentially trade is mutually beneficial to all parties involve. The politicians are wrong in the sense that trade is not destroying jobs but it is guiding the economy towards the functions that it has a comparative advantage towards the other countries. Perhaps that mean that some jobs might be less desirable but in order for the country as whole to grow, it is necessary.

The Cartesian(A word describing anything related to Descartes) Way.

This is written on his book called "Meditations on first philoshy". Relating to the last problem of an evil genius trying to trick a person into sensoring all the wrong things(despite of that, if we still feel happiness at certain moments, how can we blame the evil scientist for anything? We are still happy), Descartes asked that can we know anything for sure? He asked: what about our own existence, surly the scientist cannot deny you of your existence? For him to deceive you about anything, you have to exist in order for the scientist to trick your sensors. Even if you are deceived, you are still thinking, therefore you still exist as a "thinking being". "I think therefore I am". There is one more thing man has a his disposal as a thinking being: whether or not he is being deceived, he realized the great diversity of ideas within his mind. Depsite of not knowing whether these ideas are anything real, he realizes that some of his ideas represent lesser and greater things, but his greatest of all is the idea of an infinte and perfect being. (how so?)The idea of a perfect being is so amazing that an imperfect being cannot create such idea.(definitely wrong, the idea of an infinite and perfect being is just something that can do everything us human struggles with. Since human is struggling everyday, we wish we could become a perfect being which would sovle all of our struggles. From then perhaps we would start to think about what if we could become more than perfect but infinite in the eyes of many. It is not such an amazing idea but rather a reaching one, borned out of suffering and envy). Descartes said that infinite ideas cannot be produced by finite beings but how can you consider anything to be an infinite? Descartes's argument stands that since the infinite ideas are produced by God, the kindest being of all, he wouldn't let us be in the clutches of an evil genius therefore that possibility did not exist. However, that leads into the discussions of God and how he can be kind or not kind and powerful or non-powerful. But by Descartes agrument, what if that being who controlled us, trying to deceive our senses is God and that he "knows" that being in that state is best for the human race since the actual world is filled with uncomprehnsible sufferings. We don't need to straight out deny the existence of the scenario but we can give reasons why it is not actual.

The Russellian(Bertrand Russell) Way

We can never have an airtight logical proof on how the bad situation is not possible. Bertrand thinks it is all possible, even that your entire life is just a dream. However we have good reasons why we should not accept that theory and no good reason to accept it(except if that reality is a good thing and if we still feel happiness then it doesn't fucking matter if life's a dream or not is it? Even in a dream, we would still be in a constant pursuit of happiness and nothing would ever stop us from doing that). Anything real beyond yourselves and your experiences.

There are two of many reasons why the common sense hypothesis should be accepted. Common sense hypothesis measn that our experiences come from ordinary physical objects.

First, this common sense view is simple, it is the best and most systematic explanation of the regular patterns that we experience in life.

Second, common sense is our starting point. The existence of the outer world is one of the instinctive beliefs which all knowledge ultimately based upon. If we truly based ourselves on common sense and our instinctive belief, we can form a perfectly consistent scienctific story for every idea we experience in real life, including dreams and the skeptical hypothesis.

He believes that skeptical arguement is powerful enough to instill within us a sense of doubts about our common sense beliefs but ultimately, our reasonable judgements are still strong enough to count as knowledge.

Critics would say that how can he be entitled to say that the world we are exoerience right now is simplest and most systematic, how would he possibly know that?(because it is the only one that we know? if any critics can come up with any other proposals for what a simpler experience reality would be then the criticism would stand but otherwise. However, it might be more simple and more systematic to say that all of our experiences came from a single evil genius in his own reality. In that case it would explain how it would be really simple since we cannot compare him to the reality that we experience now, making him much much more simple because he would be the creator of our identities. Nonetheless, perhaps it wouldn't be simple at all since the process of creation of our expreiences could involve a whole other reality into it and thus making the situation a lot more convoluted than a single evil genius deceiving us all.)Other critics have said that with doubts, can you say you truly know something? Sure it might be advanatageous to listen to common sense but that does not prove that we know anything at all since, we are not "sure" of it

The Moorean(G.E. Moore) Way

Moore said that we don't need to prove the God is real, nor need to infer to best explain our experiences, we just need to look at your hand. The proof is that:

Here is one hand. (and there's another)

Hands are external objects, therefore external objects are real.

To the normal people, the global economy seems like a giant hulking, mind-boggling mass that posed problems to the world continuously and seemingly unresponsive to the small problems of individuals.

Perhaps that is why people don’t fight back when they are asked to work overtime without pay or being threatened of firing when asking for a raise. The normal people think that the status-quo is better than the alternative, having no job, no raise is better than no job.

However, it is threat like these that functions the US economy since the 1980s. The top 1% is getting infinitely more money than the middle class. How could such a small % of people, in a democratic society, could convince the rest to perpetuate a system that buttress the hold of the top 1% on the country’s economy.

The way to do it is to create an economic theory, a story that makes the exploitation of the common people seems like the solution to the country’s economy. That’s what economy is, a story that we tell ourselves, that tell us what decision to make about our own resources.  

However, is it really? Is it really just a story? Sure the economics is based on human decisions but I do not think it is as simple as a story. It is a belief I would say. It is a belief that we were told or created ourselves(in the case of economists or politicians) in order to guide our decisions about our own resources. It is a belief. That is the importance of economic theory, a belief that can create such a ripple through out society since it directly applies to society. Politicians use these beliefs, perhaps most of them are based of careful calculations and specualtions but in the end, it is beliefs that this system is gonna execute these changes on society and perhaps it is the poiltican’s role to wisely chooose the right one to regulate a society that is safe to function in, and without any major scarcity in any main aspect of life.  

To change the economy, you have to change this belief or implement a new one. We have to create a new belief that the current system that we have now is not the right one for us, it is detrimental to our quality of life. It might be hard since so much power had already consolidated in the hands of so few powerful people, there are still chances of savoring it.  

Take the case of the mininum wage. Currently in the USA the federal minimum wage is $7.25 which equates about $15,000 a year. Interestingly, back in 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60 but including inflation, it is was $8.54 in 2014 dollars. That is $1.29 more than the 2016’s minimum wage. Meanwhile, the worker’s productivity had never stopped growing. If we calculated the minimum wage relative to worker’s productivity then, by now, that wage should be around $21.72 in 2012. What happened?(it would be interesting to calculate the minimum wage of the EU, Russia, China, Japan, etc. in different times and calculate the inflation to see how the situation of the minimum wage in each powerful countries in the world is.)

In lack of federal actions, the states started to have their own minimum wage, California enacts a 15$ minimum wage that planned to be effective by 2020.(which made sense by the way, I would think that a state where the silicon valley is located would have a reasonably high minimum wage). This is part of a new belief, a belief that growing the middle class wages would organically help the life of mass by increasing their purchasing power, hence the demand in markets, without simply holding on to speculation of a better life or economic bubble.

Strange combination of words. Will read more and discuss more.