Chapter II. Inductive Reciprocism
Abstract
This text presents Inductive Reciprocism, a philosophical framework that understands human existence as a continuous process of reciprocity between reality and interpretation. Inductive Reciprocism distinguishes subjective human interpretation from objective reality while maintaining that the two continuously interact through human judgment and action and reality's response to them. Human beings interpret reality and act accordingly, but reality in turn responds to those actions through their consequences, requiring existing interpretations and judgments to be revised. Existence is therefore understood not as a fixed state, but as a process in which experience, interpretation, judgment, choice, action, and consequences are repeatedly interconnected.
An important characteristic of Inductive Reciprocism is that it does not restrict this structure to human subjects of any particular scale. The reciprocal structure of reality–interpretation–action–consequence that operates at the individual level can be extended according to the same principle to groups, organizations, societies, and humanity as a whole. By establishing anomie as the social and collective counterpart to nihilism at the individual level, the same existential structure can be directly transformed from the individual to the social scale. Inductive Reciprocism therefore aims to be a multilayered existential philosophy applicable regardless of scale, extending from the individual to human society as a whole, rather than a philosophy concerned solely with individual psychology or individual existence. From this perspective, both human beings and societies are understood as agentive systems that interact with reality and feed the resulting consequences back into their own interpretations and actions.
Section 1. Philosophical Starting Point: The Existence of Essence
Inductive Reciprocism is a realist form of reciprocism that acknowledges the existence of essence. Objects and events possess real properties and consequences independently of human cognition or will. The fact that human beings cannot immediately or completely know essence does not mean that essence does not exist. Therefore, the existence of essence must be distinguished from human knowledge of essence.
The inability to know essence completely ≠ the nonexistence of essence.
Whether in stocks, human relationships, business, society, or any other domain, what human beings think and what actually happens are separate matters. Human cognition may follow reality, but reality itself cannot be determined according to human will.
Section 2. The Openness of the Future
Because the future has not yet occurred, it is not given to human beings as an established reality. Therefore, the future is open. Human beings cannot directly see the future, nor can they possess its outcomes as already determined facts.
However, the inability to directly observe the future does not mean that reality provides no response to human beings. The accumulated results of reality up to the present continuously provide material for judging the future. Thus, in Inductive Reciprocism, human beings are not entities that arbitrarily determine the future from a state of complete informational absence. Rather, they observe the responses reality has provided up to the present and inductively predict the future on that basis.
Section 3. Reality Responds Continuously
The central proposition of Inductive Reciprocism is that reality continuously responds to human choices.
Human beings judge and choose. Those choices produce consequences in reality. Those consequences become new information for human beings, who then make subsequent judgments and choices on that basis.
Choice → Reality's response → Observation → Inductive judgment → New choice → New response from reality
The relationship between human beings and reality is therefore not a one-time relationship but a continuous feedback structure. Human beings can revise their judgments through reality's responses, and it is precisely here that the “inductive” character of Inductive Reciprocism emerges.
Section 4. Human Prediction Is Not Essence
Human beings predict the future based on reality's responses. However, human prediction is only provisional knowledge concerning essence; it is not essence itself.
Therefore:
The essence of reality ≠ human prediction.
Human beings must predict, because choice itself would be impossible without prediction. The problem is not prediction itself, but identifying one's own prediction with the essence of reality.
When judgments about reality must continually be revised, transforming one's own judgment into something absolute creates a structural gap between human cognition and reality.
Section 5. The Distinction Between Misjudgment and Arrogance
This is one of the central distinctions of Inductive Reciprocism.
Misjudgment itself is not arrogance. Because human beings cannot directly see the future, they can make incorrect predictions. Being wrong about the future is a natural error arising from the finite conditions of human knowledge.
However, the moment a person ceases to regard a misjudgment as merely provisional and instead gives it absolute meaning and places it above essence, arrogance emerges.
In other words:
Misjudgment = an incorrect judgment about reality.
Arrogance = the attitude of absolutizing one's own misjudgment and placing it above the essence of reality.
Therefore, the fundamental problem in Inductive Reciprocism is not merely cognitive error but the arrogance of granting one's own cognition absolute authority.
Section 6. The Structure of Arrogance
Arrogance appears in the following form:
Reality's response → Human prediction → Misjudgment → Absolute meaning assigned to the misjudgment → One's own interpretation placed above essence
At this stage, human beings no longer treat their interpretations or predictions as simple hypotheses. Instead, they transform them into standards that take precedence over reality itself.
As a result, when reality appears differently from their predictions, they may attempt to deny reality itself rather than revise their predictions.
Therefore, arrogance is not simply the state of saying:
“I was wrong.”
It is the structure expressed by the statement:
“I cannot be wrong. Reality must conform to my judgment.”
The difference between misjudgment and arrogance is that misjudgment is an event, whereas arrogance is a state. This structure constitutes arrogance.
Section 7. The Collision Between Reality's Response and Arrogance
The formation of arrogance does not immediately produce nihilism. The crucial stage is the process through which reality's responses continuously attack the meaning that human beings have absolutized and eventually destroy it.
When a person gives absolute meaning to a misjudgment, that misjudgment can become more than a simple prediction. It may become the foundation of one's direction in life, values, expectations, and self-definition.
In this state, reality continues to produce actual consequences regardless of human meaning. Consequently, the following collision occurs:
Absolutized human meaning ↔ Objective response of reality
Human beings repeatedly experience their meanings being negated by reality. As reality's responses accumulate, they eventually reach a point at which the meaning they had absolutized can no longer be sustained.
Section 8. The Emergence of Nihilism
It is here that nihilism finally emerges.
The direct cause of nihilism is not simple misjudgment.
The structure is not:
Misjudgment → Nihilism
Rather, it is:
Misjudgment → Absolute meaning assigned to the misjudgment → Arrogance → Continuous response from reality → Collapse of absolutized meaning → Nihilism
Therefore, in Inductive Reciprocism, nihilism does not arise simply because human judgment was incorrect. It arises because human beings gave absolute meaning to their incorrect judgments and that meaning was subsequently destroyed by reality's responses.
This distinction is extremely important.
Human beings can be wrong. Yet being wrong does not by itself cause nihilism. If they have not absolutized their judgment, they can accept reality's new responses and revise their understanding.
What produces nihilism is not misjudgment itself, but arrogance toward misjudgment.
Section 9. The Collision Between Meaning and Essence
Human beings assign meaning to life based on their experiences and predictions. However, such meaning does not necessarily coincide with the essence of reality.
The problem arises when human beings do not maintain their meaning as subjective meaning, but instead absolutize it as though it were objective essence.
Therefore:
Subjective meaning ≠ objective essence.
The absolutization of subjective meaning = arrogance.
When human beings transform their own meaning into something absolute and place it above reality, that meaning inevitably becomes subject to verification through reality's responses.
If reality continuously negates that meaning, the very foundation of the meaning eventually collapses. At that moment, human beings may move beyond merely thinking:
“My judgment was wrong.”
They may instead arrive at the experience:
“The meaning I believed in itself cannot be sustained.”
This is nihilism.
Section 10. Individual Absurdity
Therefore, in Inductive Reciprocism, absurdity does not arise from the silence of the world.
The world continues to respond.
Absurdity arises from the collision between reality's responses and the human being's self-interpretation placed above reality.
Reality responds → Human beings absolutize their own interpretation → Reality collides with that interpretation → The absolutized interpretation is shaken → Absurdity emerges
Therefore, the fundamental structure of absurdity is:
Responsive reality ↔ Human self-interpretation placed above reality
In Inductive Reciprocism, the world is not silent.
On the contrary, it responds with overwhelming clarity.
The problem is that human beings mistake their own answer for the answer of the world.
Section 11. The Relationship Between Nihilism and Absurdity
Absurdity and nihilism are not identical concepts.
Absurdity arises from the collision between reality and human interpretation that has been absolutized. Nihilism arises when, during that collision, the meaning of life that the human being had absolutized collapses under reality's responses.
The relationship between the two concepts can therefore be expressed as follows:
Misjudgment → Absolute meaning assigned to misjudgment → Arrogance → Collision with reality's response → Absurdity → Collapse of absolutized meaning → Nihilism
The crucial turning point is the moment at which misjudgment becomes arrogance.
Section 12. The Determination of the Past and Essence
While an event is still unfolding, human beings cannot completely know its outcome. Therefore, judgments concerning the future can only be predictions.
However, once an event has ended and become part of the past, its actual result becomes determined.
Future = a domain not yet determined
Present = a domain in which reality's responses continue to occur
Past = a domain in which results have become determined
The past therefore becomes an important temporal domain for confirming essence.
When an event belongs to the future, human beings predict. When an event belongs to the present, reality continuously responds. Once an event becomes part of the past, its result no longer changes, allowing human beings to confirm the actual outcome and thereby definitively examine the nature of that event.
In this sense, Inductive Reciprocism possesses a structure in which essence is confirmed through the determined outcomes of the past.
Section 13. The Philosophical Meaning of Regret
Regret is not merely an emotion. It can be understood as a response transmitted by the determined reality of the past to the human being in the present.
Past choice → Actual consequence → Present cognition → Reevaluation of the past choice
For example, the judgment:
“I should not have made that choice then.”
presupposes the fact that reality has already produced an actual result.
Regret reveals the difference between human prediction and actual consequences and leads individuals to reconsider how closely their previous judgments corresponded to the essence of reality.
Therefore, within Inductive Reciprocism, regret signifies retrospective learning through reality and the confirmation of essence.
Section 14. Human Freedom and Responsibility
Inductive Reciprocism recognizes human agency.
Human beings judge, predict, choose, and revise.
However, the fact that human beings can determine their own choices does not mean that they can determine the consequences produced by reality.
Therefore, human freedom is not the freedom to define reality arbitrarily. It is the freedom to form one's choices in response to reality.
At the same time, human beings have a responsibility to accept reality's responses and revise their judgments accordingly.
Freedom = the capacity to choose
Responsibility = the responsibility to accept reality's responses and revise one's judgment
Section 15. The Social Dimension: Collective Arrogance and Anomie
This structure extends beyond the individual and applies to society as well.
When an individual places personal judgment above reality, individual absurdity may emerge. When a group or an entire society places its own values and interpretations above reality, society's collective capacity to respond to reality may weaken.
The crucial issue is not merely collective misjudgment but the absolutization of collective misjudgment.
Collective misjudgment → Collective absolutization → Collective arrogance → Accumulating divergence from reality → Social absurdity and anomie
Therefore, at the social level as well, the fundamental problem is not simply the existence of incorrect judgments, but the attitude of placing those judgments above the essence of reality and refusing to revise them.
Section 16. Social Values and Objective Essence
Social values are formed on the basis of the information and experience accumulated within a particular historical period and society. Therefore, social values are also human interpretations of reality.
Thus:
Social values ≠ objective essence.
The fact that a majority of society's members share the same judgment does not transform that judgment into objective essence.
Actual consequences occurring in reality exist independently of social interpretation. As those consequences accumulate, the gap between existing social values and reality may become visible.
Therefore, social values must also remain capable of continuous revision in response to reality.
Section 17. The Relationship Between Essence and Human Cognition
Inductive Reciprocism simultaneously recognizes the existence of objective essence and the incompleteness of human cognition.
Essence exists. However, human beings cannot completely grasp essence all at once.
Human cognition is therefore a continuous inductive process directed toward reality.
For this reason, the following two propositions must be clearly distinguished:
“I cannot completely know essence.” ≠ “Essence does not exist.”
And:
“My judgment may be wrong.” ≠ “All judgments are equally true.”
Through this distinction, Inductive Reciprocism simultaneously secures the ontological primacy of objective reality and the limitations of human cognition.
Section 18. Opposition to Sartre
If Sartrean existentialism emphasizes human freedom and self-definition through the proposition:
“Existence precedes essence,”
Inductive Reciprocism takes the position that objective reality and essence exist prior to human self-definition.
“Essence precedes existence.”
The significance of this proposition is not that human beings are incapable of choosing anything.
Human beings can choose their judgments and actions.
However, defining one's own existence in a particular manner does not mean that one can alter the consequences of reality to conform to that definition.
Therefore, within Inductive Reciprocism, reality's responses and the objective primacy of essence precede the freedom of self-definition.
Section 19. Opposition to Camus
A central feature of Camus's concept of the absurd is the collision between the human being who seeks meaning and the silent world.
Inductive Reciprocism fundamentally reverses this structure.
“Is the world silent?”
The answer of Inductive Reciprocism is:
“The world is not silent. Reality continuously responds.”
Events occur. Choices produce consequences. Reality returns those consequences to human beings.
Therefore, the problem is not a silent world, but the human being who places personal interpretation above responsive reality.
Accordingly, absurdity is reconstructed not as the silence of the world, but as the process in which human arrogance collides with reality's response.
Section 20. Opposition to Relativism and Constructivism
Because Inductive Reciprocism recognizes objective essence, it stands in opposition to extreme relativism and constructivism.
People may interpret the same event differently, but differences in interpretation do not transform the actual consequences of the event into different realities.
Reality is reality, and interpretation is interpretation.
Therefore, the following distinctions are maintained:
Reality ≠ interpretation
Essence ≠ social value
Objective consequence ≠ subjective meaning
Section 21. The Overall Structure of Inductive Reciprocism
The overall system of Inductive Reciprocism can be summarized as follows:
Existence of essence → Openness of the future → Continuous response of reality → Human observation → Inductive judgment → Prediction of the future → Choice → Consequences in reality → Accumulation of consequences → Determination of the past → Confirmation of essence → Revision of judgment
Separately, the central structure of epistemic risk is as follows:
Reality's response → Human prediction → Possibility of misjudgment → Absolute meaning assigned to misjudgment → Arrogance → Collision with reality's response → Absurdity → Collapse of absolutized meaning → Nihilism
The distinction between misjudgment and arrogance, and between absurdity and nihilism, is decisively important.
Misjudgment simply means that a judgment is incorrect.
Arrogance means absolutizing that misjudgment and placing it above essence.
Absurdity is the collision between the arrogant human interpretation and reality's response.
Nihilism is the collapse of the meaning of life that the human being had absolutized as a result of that collision.
Section 22. Core Propositions
Inductive Reciprocism can be condensed into the following propositions:
“Essence exists. The future is open, but reality continuously responds. Human beings inductively interpret those responses, predict the future, and make choices. Because human prediction is not essence itself, misjudgment is possible. However, misjudgment itself is not the problem. Arrogance emerges when human beings give absolute meaning to their own misjudgments and place them above the essence of reality. When reality subsequently continues to respond and destroys that arrogance, absurdity emerges. When the meaning of life that human beings had absolutized collapses, nihilism emerges. Once an event becomes part of the past, its outcome becomes determined, and human beings can confirm the essence of that event through its determined consequences and revise their judgments.”
In its most condensed form:
“Reality continuously answers human beings. Misjudgment is a human limitation, but absolutizing misjudgment is arrogance. When reality's response destroys that arrogance, absurdity emerges, and when absolutized meaning collapses, nihilism emerges.”
And the epistemological core of this system is clear:
“Reality is the final criterion of judgment. Human judgment can be revised by reality, but reality itself is not revised by human judgment.”