Wow!!! This is getting a bit too technically philosophical for me... Though, I like philosophy books. Though, it's kept as a brain excercise. I don't see it directly affecting how I trade, indirectly... maybe.
Very interesting post and study, Jack. Several traders talk to me about having this feel of inference for the market, and it is something I hope I may some day be able to have as well. I would like to ask you about what you know or believe to be the nature of inference and its attainment (I especially found the inference through sleeping interesting) if you are willing to share. I don't believe I can reflect on these psychologies personally, however; I am only familiar with more simple theories and applications. Thanks for the insight as well. I agree with you almost completely, Stefan. My point is that I believe philosophy is the pursuit to reason unattainable knowledge, which is logic and understanding at its purest and most noble forms. The sharing of philosophy should be the sharing and flow of ideas in the sense. Philosophical arguments serve great purposes in that they add, challenge, and qualify to the wealth of human reasoning, and yet it completely entirely destroys it. The arguments in philosophy are usually naive, where views are defended for pride and nothing else. People that believe in their faith will scrutinize and pick out some minor detail in a theory to assist in justifying their own beliefs rather than question them. If an argument is not conducted for these reasons, very few actually have a legitimate point, simply because most people are not rational or wise enough to construct one on their own. In essence, I believe the personal practice of philosophy and collecting philosophical ideas is absolutely beautiful, but the distractions of those who cannot understand nor practice it correctly, as well as those who can do this but succumb to the temptations of human pride and contentiousness and ambition makes the community itself a large pile of shit. The rational evaluations, qualifications, and refutes of theories serves a good purpose of greater information for future generations, but at the time just creates more nonsense; it is like listening to two people on CNBC having a heated squabble on why this will happen and the next why it won't; there are important tidbits, but both of them are fools and 90% or more of what they say is shit. The wise one sits patiently, collects ideas, and perhaps comes to the conclusion of what is more or less likely with an open mind to being wrong. The ideal philosopher should never come to a conclusion on the unknown besides to attempt to decide which situations are more or less likely, whilst supporting and refuting all sides of the arguments at all times. At this point I must admit that I have kind of lost sight of my point and also have the "I feel a lot better now" feeling of contentiousness, so in essence I am no more an ideal philosopher than anyone else, and have plenty of work left to do. This is why I decided not to write philosophy anymore; I don't agree with the structure of the philosophical community, nor am I any different than the rest of them. I just have individual progress to make.
I also think some statistics and math are useful, Cannot agree that college is a waste of time for anyone including traders. It teaches you how to critically think, plan, research, study and make sense out of things. I generally find non-college folks as more narrow minded, simplistic and limited. I do not agree that such folks are better off And since almost all traders fail, having a marketable degree behind you is very good
I agree completely. College serves as my backup plan, and I'm sure I will learn some things in investment finance I can use for one thing or another.
I'm talking about more of formal conclusions, like those given in logically structured arguments where premises are laid out to support the conclusion. Philosophers don't need to have an open mind (which we can only speculate if certain philosophers had or not) They need to give good arguments with sound logic. Philosophy is like a court of law, a huge conversation/debate between opposing sides, where the student is the judge. It's about persuasion, love of wisdom and the pursuit of the truth, regardless of whether the truth is fully attainable. If the arguments didn't have conclusions, no one would read them because they wouldn't make sense. Without valid arguments, it might as well be a mindless rant of opinion. (which would be the easy route most people take anyway, talk about disorienting the truth) Anyway, I'd recommend a class in modern philosophy to anyone. The debate between rationalism and empiricism made me experience and interpret things quite differently now. I'd have to say it might not be the most useful, but it is the most intellectually rewarding major.
Lol agree to disagree, Stefan. I do think that philosophy is very important though, and I will take more classes.
That you and the rest of the male straight class wanted to do her. and somehow connect it with your mother and penis envy. As you can see my philosophy professor was also good looking and hence my limited knowledge on the subject. Those breasts ...... on ther other side.....
the hottest chicks are always in psych courses! you won't find any behavioral finance there. behavioral finance is taught in the business/econ department. sausage fest.
My approach to Hume's point about induction is simple. Either induction (i.e. that the future is in some way related to the past) is true or false. If it's true, then relying on various lessons from the past to guide our behaviour (e.g. science) is the best approach, and other approaches are vastly inferior. If it's false (i.e. if the future is completely unpredictable), then relying on science etc is useless, however, all other approaches are equally useless. Thus in case A, relying on science and induction is the best option. In case B, relying on science and induction is no worse than the alternatives. Therefore relying on science & induction is the best option overall - you gain mightily if your assumptions are correct, and do not lose anything if you are wrong. Effectively you are buying a philosophical call on induction for zero premium. That is how a pragmatist, such as a trader, approaches philosophical problems. It is not always necessary to know the truth in order to make the right decision. Hume therefore does not damage scientific thinking at all, since all scientific thinking consists of conditional statements beginning with the phrase "If induction applies, then...".
I disagree. I can't think of any traders I have met or read about who were *too* sceptical about their market assumptions. No one ever lost money by doubting and testing their assumptions too much. Hume didn't jump in front of trains or take cyanide, and led a pretty productive life outside of philosophy. One presumes he found a way to incorporate scepticism into life, either improving it or at least not harming it.