Scott Alexander discusses how the clarity experienced when awakening from meditation-induced delusions mirrors his appreciation for simplifying philosophical concepts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his experiences with meditating while tired, which lead to increasingly complex and delusional thoughts. He then experiences a moment of awakening where he realizes the simplicity of the task. This feeling of clarity and simplification is compared to his passion for ideas like consequentialism, atheism, and capitalism, which provide similar moments of clarity in complex situations. While acknowledging that this feeling isn't an argument for these ideas, Scott expresses how fundamental this aesthetic is to his thinking. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces the concept of 'ambijectivity' to describe statements that are neither purely subjective nor objective, using musical and astronomical examples to illustrate the idea. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'ambijectivity' - statements that are neither purely subjective nor purely objective. He uses examples like comparing Mozart and Beethoven's music, or defining what constitutes a planet, to illustrate how seemingly subjective statements can have elements of objectivity. The post argues that ambijective statements are undefined over a set of possible meanings, and can be broken down into more specific, objective questions. The subjectivity comes from how we weight these different questions in composing the meta-question. This framework helps explain why some comparisons (like Mozart vs. a child's toy piano playing) feel more objective than others. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends logical positivism, arguing that despite its flaws, it points to useful ideas about dividing meaningful statements into scientific and logical categories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a defense of logical positivism, a philosophical stance generally considered outdated. He argues that while logical positivism may not be entirely correct, it points to a cluster of correct ideas. The post draws parallels between logical positivism, Hume's fork, and modern rationalist thinking, suggesting they all divide meaningful statements into something like science and something like logic. Scott argues this division is productive and helps identify meaningless statements. He then attempts to apply this framework to traditionally challenging areas like mathematics, morality, and counterfactuals. The post concludes by addressing the common criticism that logical positivism fails its own criteria, suggesting that its value might lie in its ability to facilitate productive debate. Shorter summary