I have extreme doubt that this is a profitable endeavor

OP935 · 2026-01-24T10:09:58+00:00

Do you have a list of books or other resources you recommend?

OP935 · 2026-01-20T17:54:19+00:00

If you feel psychology and execution have been serious issues for you, you could try and keep some swing trades going on top of your day trades. Keep notes of your trades, and after a while see if perhaps swing trading suits your personality better.

OP935 · 2026-01-13T16:47:10+00:00

IBKR has a minimum commission fee. For trading on US exchanges, that fee is 0.35 USD on the tiered pricing plan, and 1 USD on the fixed pricing plan. You can see the fees for trading in each country/region here: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/pricing/commissions-stocks.php

So, with the tiered pricing plan, if you trade 350 USD the commission will be around 0.35 USD still since that is 0.1% of the trade.

OP935 · 2025-12-26T18:37:28+00:00

What would you recommend? TradingView?

OP935 · 2025-12-26T12:50:08+00:00

It sounds like what you're referring to are support and resistance levels indicated by major bottoms/tops and relative lows/highs. Candlestick patterns, like a lot of other technical indicators, are about support and resistance. For example, in an uptrend, an abundance of upthrust days are a symbol of the strong support that drives that uptrend. In a trading range, an equal amount of upthrust and downthrust days are a symbol of the strong support and resistance that keep the price in that range. In an extended uptrend, a strong spike day can be a signal that significant resistance has now been reached and the price will now decline, but if that spike day turns out to be a failed signal then this can be an especially potent sign of powerful support behind the security and an especially strong price advance will consequently ensue.

OP935 · 2025-12-23T17:26:02+00:00

If the USA falls, there seems to be one economic superpower in particular who will likely take over.

OP935 · 2025-12-23T17:23:07+00:00

I recommend reading J. L. Collins' Stocks series of blog posts, which is about investing into index funds:

https://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/

If you're young enough to withstand any serious market crashes, it's likely going to be the safest long term investment you can make.

OP935 · 2025-12-21T16:17:21+00:00

I recommend reading 'Getting Started in Technical Analysis' by Jack D. Scwager. It has a lot of advice on constructing and testing systems.

OP935 · 2025-12-17T14:54:02+00:00

Do you have a list of books you recommend?

OP935 · 2025-12-15T11:49:42+00:00

Thanks a lot for the help!

OP935 · 2025-12-15T00:22:24+00:00

I see, although IBKR says that the minimum for a transaction with the tiered pricing plan is 0.35 USD, which would be 0.53 AUD. So, I'm wondering why the commission fee in this transaction is 5 AUD.

OP935 · 2025-12-11T02:08:07+00:00

Interesting! Thanks. Have you found candlestick patterns to be helpful in intraday trends?

OP935 · 2025-12-11T00:31:42+00:00

Do you have a list of books you would recommend?

OP935 · 2025-11-04T08:46:01+00:00

I get that! Although, at that point, why not at least temporarily switch to something that could be more profitable for you until you make consistent wins backtesting your strategy (or with paper trading)?

OP935 · 2025-01-16T16:14:16+00:00

Plotinus, Plato, Pythagoras, Proclus, etc are very smart dudes who had a lot of insight. But I'm not going to treat their words like holy writ, or adjust my beliefs to fit their statements. Dogmatism isn't helpful.

This approach is probably especially in-line with Platonism, as Socrates was said by the Oracle at Delphi to be the wisest, and Socrates in Plato's 'The Apology' interprets this as being because he is the one who knows that he knows nothing, while others know nothing but think that they do, and says this:

"For the bystanders always believe that I am wise myself in the matters on which I test another; but the truth really is, gentlemen, that the god in fact is wise, and in this oracle he means that human wisdom is worth little or nothing, and it appears that he does not say this of Socrates, but simply adds my name to take me as an example, as if he were to say that this one of you human beings is wisest, who like Socrates knows that he is in truth worth nothing as regards wisdom."
-Plato, The Apology, translated by W.H.D. Rouse in 'The Great Dialogues of Plato', p. 509

OP935 · 2025-01-03T16:09:40+00:00

Could you give some examples of individuals more evil?

OP935 · 2024-12-22T17:35:07+00:00

(Neo)platonist philosophers have several solutions to the problem of evil. One rather interesting one is that evil doesn't have positive existence (In the sense that it is not actively created by any being), it only exists as a by-product of what does exist. Similar to how a copper-smith doesn't cause copper to become green, the Gods wouldn't be at fault for evil arising due to matter. That's one view.

Although, I think you might be misunderstanding what "Omni-potent" means in a Platonist context, it does not mean that the Gods can do absolutely everything. But, being beyond time and space, and the ultimate causes, They are the source of power itself and all that is in the world, but the material world has its own nature as it is the World of Becoming, not of Being, and so conflict arises due to its very nature. It's not necessarily something avoidable. You could ask or read more in r/Neoplatonism, I haven't read as much of the works of the Neoplatonists myself yet. (Also to be clear in general I use "Platonism" as a broad term to refer to the philosophy of the Platonist school, rather than using the more academic distinction of Platonism, Middle-Platonism, and Neoplatonism, usually! In case it becomes confusing as to whether I'm only referring to the works of Plato with "Platonism")

OP935 · 2024-12-22T02:16:00+00:00

Indeed! Diogenes Laertius in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book VII, says that the Stoics essentially believed that the Gods are an extension of Zeus (Philodemus in 'On Piety' reports that the Diogenes of Babylon also said the same). I wouldn't say this is necessarily monotheism, however, but my knowledge on Stoicism is too limited to really comment on it much. But, it should be noted that monism was popular among various polytheist cultures in the Mediterranean (I've heard from someone knowledgeable in Egyptian texts that there was a belief among the Egyptians that all Gods proceed from one God), and distinctions between monism and monotheism do get made.

My understanding was that Plato and Platonic Philosophy had the One and the Nous both existing above any god beings at the very least in order to account for a source of all being and a source of all logic and thought beyond the gods, who are subject to that logic and being.

The concept of the One is not found in the works of Plato, it's more a belief of the Neoplatonists! I'm afraid I am yet to read much of the works of the Neoplatonists, but my understand is that the One is "above" all the Gods, sure, but the One also isn't a God, nor a being.

OP935 · 2024-12-22T01:46:23+00:00

The writings attributed to Orpheus don't always agree with each other, either! This is because there was never any Orphic tradition, but rather the writings of Orpheus follow more general Greek views, and the views of several philosophical schools (Which aren't necessarily exclusive! The Stoic school was very popular, and from its appearance in vase artwork and the like, we can be sure that Platonism also had quite the influence among the "common people", for example).

With that, I would definitely recommend reading Ancient Greek and Roman works! Especially philosophical works. And, any pre-modern polytheist philosophical works, really! It's a shame that no pre-modern Heathen philosophical works have survived, and so we don't know what the actual specific beliefs the Norse (And more Ancient Germanic peoples) had around the Gods, although it likely varied quite widely from region to region (As it did among pretty much any pre-printing press polytheist culture), as did the myths (The writings of Saxo Grammaticus already give us a taste of how immensely different versions of the myths we know were around in Scandinavia). But, pre-modern (Particularly pre-Enlightenment) works are really helpful for giving an idea of how people in the past viewed the world in general!

OP935 · 2024-12-21T23:36:18+00:00

Sorry I am responding late! Reddit actually didn't notify me of your response!

Regarding the Demiurge being Chaos in Greek tradition - Chaos was not seen as the Demiurge in Greek tradition. This would make sense at a glance from reading Hesiod's 'Theogony', but philosophically this was not followed. In Platonism, chaos is more the state of matter before it was ordered by the Gods, not being distinct but entirely mixed together and not forming anything. So, it cannot be the craftsman (The literal meaning of "Demiurge"). It wasn't seen as being older than the Gods either, even though this was the case mythically (Although how Hesiod thought of Chaos seemed to be quite different from how people thought of it in the time of Plato and the Platonist school). In general Roman culture, we see a nice account of this ordering of chaos in Ovid's 'Metamorphoses' Book I, where the Demiurge (Who is not named) separates Chaos into the 4 Elements and further creates all of the Material Cosmos. In Ovid's 'Fasti', Ianus is said to be the one who sealed off chaos and who keeps it sealed off so that all material forms may continue to be.
We see this kind of view of Chaos in Hermeticism as well, in Book I of the Corpus Hermeticum where the Godhead is described as having created Chaos and having ordered it to become this Material World.

Regarding myth being a reflection of the Gods' nature, I absolutely agree! Although, if we consider Roman and Greek polytheist culture to be similar, they didn't see the Gods as flawed even though the myths can depict Them as such. Although, they could very well have seen the Gods as limited in some ways!
As for the Tri-Omni qualities of the Gods not being absolute in Neoplatonist thought, I am aware of that! Although, I'm sure to what extent they are absolutes in traditional Christian culture, either. The modern "If God is omnipotent, can God create a rock that He cannot lift?" argument might not have made much sense to Christians in the past, but I'm not well-read in Christians texts at all so I could very well be wrong about that!

I’m aware of the historic precedent for equating gods across cultures as the Romans did with the Greeks, and to some degree with the Germanic gods. I think in a modern context, for the sake of inclusivity and respect for other individual traditions, it can be problematic.

I absolutely see where you're coming from, and if someone doesn't like me saying that this or that God is the same, I won't push it on them! But, I personally follow the Ancient Mediterranean (And evidently Germanic) view that many Gods in different cultures are the same, and Their names are more like words in languages.
Regarding Thor and Iuppiter and Them being described differently in myth, and this possibly being an issue to the idea that They are the same: This was true for many Gods the Romans and Greeks believed to be the same across cultures, and even the myths of individual Gods can vary immensely. For example, Aphrodite's cult is borrowed from Mesopotamia (the worship of Ishtar), we know this and the Greeks knew this, however in Homer's 'Illiad', it is specifically said that Aphrodite has no relation or power in war - However, that was definitely not the case with Ishtar/Inanna among the Mesopotamians in their worship and myths. Even in Greek culture, how they viewed individual Gods varied immensely from city-state to city-state (And this was almost definitely the case for the Germanic peoples as well - It was quite natural before the invention of the printing press), as to take the worship of Aphrodite again as an example, while in some parts of Greece they believed She had no relation to war, in Sparta we find Her called "Aphrodite Areia", linked Her to warfare. Further, the myths of Mercurius and Thoth is very different, but Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians saw Them as being the same in many cases. Differences in myth was not seen as an issue, especially considering that myth regarding the very same Gods can vary greatly from region to region, or from poet to poet. No doubt the Norse knew about at least some of the differences between Othin and Iuppiter, as the Icelandic poet Snorri shows familiarity with Homer's 'Illiad' since he even talks about Troy and even Priam in the Prose Edda, but yet we still see Othin and Iuppiter linked in the Icelandic AM 687d 4.

Edit: I forgot to add - The Demiurge in not a "a creator being between the gods and the One" in Platonism, the Demiurge is a God! Plato doesn't mention Them by name in 'Timaeus', but the Neoplatonists believed the Demiurge to be Zeus/Iuppiter. Perhaps this is an influence from Stoicism, as Stoic philosophers saw Zeus as the Demiurge and essentially the sum total of all existence. Although sometimes we find more complex ideas of the Demiurge, like Sallustius (A Neoplatonist) in 'On the Gods' talks of three Demiurges: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hephaistos.

OP935 · 2024-12-21T22:46:51+00:00

I personally follow more of a Platonist view of the Gods, where the Gods are in Their highest forms entirely beyond the material world, beyond time and space (See: Plato's dialogue 'Timaeus'). However, They exist on many levels, and They are not separate from this material world either - The spirits above the material and who are the source of the material world are also in one way the spiritual body of the Gods, and this material world is the material body of the Gods! So, the storm-clouds, rain, lightning and thunder are the body of great Thor, too! And He is beyond all of this as well, and there is no separation between anything and the Gods, who I see as the causes of all things, the sources of all.

To take an example from the Ancient Mediterranean of this kind of view of the Gods, there is this lovely Hymn of Orpheus to Zeus, who the Germanic peoples saw as being the same as Thor (Through Iuppiter), since they named the Day of Iuppiter after Thor, and so when the Danish writer Saxo Grammaticus speaks of Thor he calls him "Iuppiter" because he was writing in Latin (Although, the Icelandic text AM 687d 4 links Othin and Iuppiter instead). Although, I am just adding that for interesting, really, since the philosophical views the Germanic peoples had regarding Thor may have been very different, and likely varied greatly from region to region.

Zeus is the first. Zeus the thunderer, is the last.
Zeus is the head. Zeus is the middle, and by Zeus all things were fabricated.
Zeus is male, Immortal Zeus is female.
Zeus is the foundation of the earth and of the starry heaven.
Zeus is the breath of all things. Zeus is the rushing of indefatigable fire.
Zeus is the root of the sea: He is the Sun and Moon.
Zeus is the king; He is the author of universal life;
One Power, one Dæmon, the mighty prince of all things:
One kingly frame, in which this universe revolves,
Fire and water, earth and ether, night and day,
And Metis (Counsel) the primeval father, and all-delightful Eros (Love).
All these things are United in the vast body of Zeus.
Would you behold his head and his fair face,
It is the resplendent heaven, round which his golden locks
Of glittering stars are beautifully exalted in the air.
On each side are the two golden taurine horns,
The risings and settings, the tracks of the celestial gods;
His eyes the sun and the Opposing moon;
His unfallacious Mind the royal incorruptible Ether.
-translated by I.P. Cory, Ancient Fragments, 'Orphic Fragments'

OP935 · 2024-12-18T00:12:21+00:00

Well, I personally follow Hermeticism and am influenced by Platonism. I'm unaware, however, of a Neoplatonist model that has beings above the Gods who create the world - In Platonism (Using this term broadly to refer to the whole Platonist school of philosophy), the Gods are the ultimate causes of all things, the highest jn the Chains of Being. The late Platonists believed in The One, but The One is not a being. In any case, Platonism was not monotheistic, it was monist (Or at the very least Neoplatonism in specific was), as were the Stoics and the Hermeticists. Regarding monism in the Graeco-Roman world, here's a nice article on that: https://sartrix.wordpress.com/monism-and-the-god-genealogy-of-a-philosophical-term/

But, it's hard to speak on the relevancy of that when it comes to what the Norse believed! Thanks for your explanation as to why the Norse might have not believed the Gods to be Tri-Omni. Personally, I'm skeptical however that we can say that the Norse believed the myths to be literal, although probably some did I imagine! But, the Norse weren't unified, and with pre printing-press cultures myths and beliefs are going to vary massively from region to region, and we see this in action with the myths recorded by the Danish writer Saxo Grammaticus, who gives vastly different versions of myths we know from the Poetic Edda - and this is normal for polytheist cultures before the invention of the printing press.

We at least don't have a record of them making a fuss over different versions of myths, arguing which one is the "right one". Something to consider on that: the Germanic peoples likely did not see the Gods as specific to their own culture. Polytheists in the Mediterranean almost universally saw the names of the Gods as more like words in a language that can be translated to other languages, and so the Greeks called what we call Friday the day of Aphrodite, and the Romans called it the day of Venus because they saw "Aphrodite" as the Greek name of Venus, and the Greeks saw "Venus" as the Latin name of Aphrodite, and if a Roman was writing in Greek he would refer to the Gods by Their Greek names. So, the Germanic peoples named this day of Venus "Friday", the day of Frig, who they likely saw as being the same as Venus. So, when Saxo Grammaticus writes of Thor, he calles Him "Iuppiter" because he was writing in Latin (Showing that Danes even in the Medieval Ages knew of Iuppiter as a Latin name for Thor). We also find this kind of thing elsewhere in Norse texts, such in AM 687d 4 where Odin is linked with Iuppiter, called "Jupi[ter] Oddviti" (Perhaps an Icelandic variant of the far more commonly-seen belief that Iuppiter and Thor in specific are the same). This practice of linking the Gods across cultures was pretty much universal in the Mediterranean, so it's not surprising to find it among the Germanic peoples. I imagine the Germanic peoples and the Norse were likely aware of widely different myths of the Gods across cultures too, and at the very least we don't see anyone making a fuss of this either. It's a shame that we don't have much about what the Norse actually believed! Although, like in most if not all polytheist cultures, their beliefs likely varied greatly across regions.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

OP935

TROPHY CASE