• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Tag Archives: rationality

The Culture Punch of Philosophy

24 Wednesday Jun 2026

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aristotle, Christendom, culture, Enlightenment, gods, History, literacy, nature, philosophy, Protestantism, rationality, reality, science, teleology

Fragment 224, Word count: 2,070.

Tags: history, reality, culture, gods, teleology, Christendom, Enlightenment, rationality, nature, science, literacy, Protestantism.

The Ancient Greek Reconceptualization

Ancient Greek philosophers re-conceived their culture’s system of reality as a whole by marginalizing supernatural personalities, notably the Olympian gods, in their explanations of the world. Those gods were not disembodied spirits, although disembodied spirits were also represented in the culture. The gods of Mount Olympus had bodies including the appetites of human bodies, but they were not ordinary flesh and blood since they had the power to change shape and appearance. They were in principle immortal and had individual and collective superpowers, but as personalities they were not so different from normally embodied persons. Humans who did extraordinary deeds caught the attention of the gods and sometimes inspired divine admiration and support and sometimes malice. Heroes were the favourites of certain gods.

There were materialist philosophers who denied the existence of gods, but for Plato, Aristotle, and others there were still important supernatural forces in the world, and those forces had the character of personality since they were teleological, with the future-directed orientation of caring ideality: attentive, inquisitive, judging, and thinking. Both Plato and Aristotle gave importance of the highest order to a god or gods in an obscure but conceivable dimension of the world: Aristotle’s first unmoved mover and Plato’s One and the Demiurge. These were still very god-centred views of life and the world, but the nature of deity was transformed from that in Homer. Aristotle’s god is pure intellect, thinking thinking about thinking, pure actuality without matter (potential, for Aristotle). Aristotle associated this deity with the “fixed stars” visible in a clear night sky, and his conception of cause/ effect in nature was still god-focused since the unmoved mover, located at the top of the layers of the spherical cosmos (with planet Earth at the bottom/ centre), was an ultimate cause of everything. Changes, impulses, or motions passed from Thinking at the top, down through the layers of fixed stars, planets, and finally into the sublunary world inhabited by humans. Also, in Aristotle’s view, every substance is defined by its own internal essential teleology or final cause, a destiny toward which it strives as if pulled or called from the future. Plato’s Demiurge is very much like pure intellect eternally contemplating the unchanging Ideal Forms, which each send out images of themselves in layers of decreasing accuracy and stability, down to the layer of ceaseless change familiar to ordinary experience. Plato’s divine One seems also to exist under another aspect as the Form of the Good.

Although Plato and Aristotle were not materialists, it is clear that the materialism of Stoicism and especially Epicureanism was meant to free people from fear of gods and enable individual self-possession. This was an important theme of ancient philosophy, and the rough rationalism of Plato and Aristotle was part of that effort. Socrates, teacher of Plato, was executed by the democratic polis Athens for offending the gods, so this was not a trivial pursuit. The philosophical effort was to transfigure gods from unruly personalities into transcendent metaphysical moorings or shorings for the barely stable world of ordinary experience. The gods of the philosophers were more natural regularities rather than capricious supernatural personalities, and that was the dawn of a less terrifying construct of fundamental reality, based on an intuition that traditional conceptions were over-complicated, over-personified, and mostly expressions of fear in the face of the vast mysteries of human existence.

The philosophical sects or schools of ancient Greece were very focused on particular teachers, each with special messages and a specific legacy of ideas, and although texts were written and the messages launched into the literate social milieux of aristocratic young men of the polis, the larger cultural uptake of these ideas was minimal. In the Hellenistic era Stoicism and Epicureanism did become somewhat unmoored from direct contact with the line of successors from a founding teacher, and attracted more interest among a wider public. Philosophical views became familiar and respected enough within the community of the comfortably literate to require some degree of homage from rival systems of ideas, including the new religion of Christianity. Early Christianity was deeply informed by especially Platonism and some Stoicism. Christian authors were outright hostile to Epicureanism, which asserted that if gods exist somewhere they have no interest in humans, and that rationally chosen pleasure is the primary good.

Early Modern Enlightenment

Descartes’ generation of early modern philosophers again re-conceived fundamental reality, banishing Aristotle’s substance-essences and final causes from inanimate objects and from nature at large. These Baroque era rationalists were still in the belly of Christendom’s very totalitarian hive-mind beast, which used lethal force to impose an orthodox metaphysics featuring prophets of a personal father-God in the sky, supported by writings from Plato and Aristotle. Augustine of Hippo was grounded in Platonism, and Thomas Aquinas had structured Aristotle into the fabric of the Christian system of reality. The radical rationalists of the Enlightenment re-conceptualized all three branches of the Christian system of reality: nature, community, and the drama of human subjectivity. 

Nature

The rationalists re-conceived nature scientifically as a strictly physical system of ‘clockwork’, completely free of disembodied spirits and their power, free of cosmic teleology, purpose, or destiny, leaving just strictly impersonal forces and structures. Descartes, Hobbes, and others of their generation were crucial in that conceptual groundwork for science, breaking away from Aristotelian-religious ideas as previously codified by Aquinas. The conceptions of materialist science were persuasive enough and far-reaching enough to provide an answer to a cultural instability and vacuum that had developed at the core of Old Regime Europe’s sense of reality. The roots of that instability probably lie in the horrific collective experience of a pandemic, the Black Death bubonic plague of the late 1340’s and early 1350’s which, over a period of half a decade of extreme trauma reduced the population of western Europe by half without otherwise harming the environment, infrastructure, material culture, or the distribution of wealth in the society.

Subjectivity

The cultural instability in Old Regime Christendom, initiated by the personal and collective trauma of inexplicable disasters, enabled the effectiveness of a second Enlightenment culture punch by creating a widespread readiness for new foundational ideas. What participants in the ‘Republic of Letters’ came to offer was a humanistic campaign of strengthening the dignity and autonomy of individuals, in contrast to the Augustinian concept of human nature inherently tainted and enslaved by original sin. Individual subjectivity was re-conceived as universally educable to rationality and capable of spontaneous rationality, even though it was usually trained by legacy institutions to a condition of non-rational credulity, superstition, and abject deference to entrenched authorities. There was a new assertion of universally distributed rationality as an individually innate human ability to judge what has value and what is true and real based entirely on commonly available perceptions. The previous spread of proletarian literacy from around the time of Wycliffe in the 1380’s was crucial in fostering this increasing dignity and power of creative rationality at the individual level. The emerging spirit of Protestantism was also animated by a similar conception of the inherent power and dignity of the individual and became an inescapable cultural force defining and institutionalizing a literate subjectivity as the universal human norm.

Now at last a large and moderately stable society with an historically complex culture and an emerging collective sense of needing to get better was embracing the long philosophical work of re-conceiving reality based on commonly observable relevant evidence rather than on fear of a profoundly personified nature, the work that had begun in the ancient world. There were layers and niches in this society’s sense of needing to get better, and conservative devotion to medieval fear-culture was still strong among the most privileged. However, the devastations of the Great Plague lingered for generations in popular discourse and the need for recovery into a more just arrangement of society was part of that discourse, especially among less privileged classes. Also, there was an increasing cultural recognition of the relatively low level of accomplishment by the society that was western Christendom relative to foreign societies beyond the borders and to societies of the past. Christendom understood itself to be a society at risk of being surrounded and overpowered because of certain cultural inferiorities. Since the Spanish conquest of Muslim Toledo in 1085 there had been a growing excitement among the intellectually curious in the community of advanced literacy. The discovery of ancient works of Aristotle and Islamic philosophers in the libraries of Toledo inspired a profound response, including large scale translation and distribution of these works within Christendom, and the organizing of a number of universities. In the niche of advanced literacy there was fervent engagement with the mathematical, scientific, and philosophical achievements of ancient Greek and Medieval Islamic intellectuals. The fall of Constantinople to Islamic Turkish forces in 1453 sent a shock of vulnerability through Western Christendom, but also sent scholarly refugees from Byzantium into Italy and beyond with books of intellectual treasures from ancient Rome.

The foundational culture-punch of philosophy was promotion of the autonomous application of rationality for the most ambitious thinking, for a re-conceptualization of the most fundamental realities without appeal to any kind of ‘superego’ such as the omniscient/ omnipotent deity supposedly expressed through established authorities, both religious and civic. Re-thinking reality is distinctly a philosophical project, evading culture with intent to re-model it, and the Enlightenment movement was self-consciously philosophical. ‘Philosophical’ meant making use of rationality without religious assumptions of cosmic or divine purpose for people, without disembodied teleology or any kind of external superego. ‘Philosophical’ meant ‘rationally non-religious’ and consequently de-centralized, asserting a pluralism and diversity of thinking quite foreign to religious cultures and communities.

The earlier political philosophers of the modernizing era, notably Machiavelli and Hobbes, made an effort to justify the sovereignty of the fiercest of the aristocracy without a need for divine or Church authorization. (Hobbes thought the primeval ‘state of nature’ was a war of all against all.) Even in later stages of the Enlightenment it was urgently dangerous to question the established practices or ideology of sovereignty. Philosophers of the later and more radical stream of the Enlightenment presented rationality as ultimately justifying bottom-up control of society, re-enforcing universal equality, human rights, and democracy, specifically contradicting any justification for top-down social control in the name of rationality (sometimes falsely blamed on the Enlightenment). The materialist perspective began to undermine the religious metaphysics that promoted the legitimacy of Christendom’s top-down parasite factions, monarchy, aristocracy, and ecclesiastical hierarchies; instead conceiving a society of equals as a natural potential and possibly a pre-historic actuality that was unjustly hijacked by priests, aristocrats, and monarchs. The Enlightenment rationalists upset the Christian system of reality by finally bringing the human essence back from some faint hope of transcendent eternity, back into nature, rejecting all super-natural entities or realms of being, and then arguing that in the primordial ‘state of nature’, prior to establishment of arbitrary social conventions, all people would have had equal freedoms and rights. In that way, society was re-conceived as a system of equal persons with the same rights and freedoms of thought, expression, and association, best organized as a democratic republic (bottom-up political force).

There is a progressive enrichment of the individual as potential reader/writer throughout the history of literacy at the core of these cultural developments. In the earliest stages the individual was considered less important than the technology of letters, and the creative power of personal teleology was thought to reside in supernatural beings at large in the world outside and beyond human subjectivity. Such invisible power was thought to inhabit the concrete marks shaped as words and letters, making them speak. It was the work of a string of philosophers that very gradually had the effect of relocating the creative freedom of caring-ideality from supernatural entities, such as a remote deity, to ordinary individuals. Wycliffe’s views improved the status of the general reader/ writer substantially. By the era following the French Revolution of 1789-99, in a Euro-American culture struggling to come to terms with the rationalist Enlightenment, progressive pools of culture recognized the creative power to exist within the individual human who was assigning and interpreting meanings. The objective world had been simplified dramatically by removal of magical and supernatural entities and powers. The human individual was conceived as deep, complicated, powerful, and more important by far than the concrete marking systems, as useful as those might be.

Copyright © 2026 Sandy MacDonald.

The Dead Hand of Old Dystopias

12 Tuesday Aug 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christendom, culture war, dystopia, Enlightenment, History, hive-minds, humanism, literacy, Lutheranism, philosophy, rationality, science, self-possession, war

Fragment 215, word count: 2,660.

Tags: history, war, dystopia, Christendom, hive-minds, science, Lutheranism, literacy, humanism, rationality, Enlightenment, culture war, philosophy, self-possession.

The re-militarized world that is the fever-dream of Putin, Xi, Modi, Netanyahu, Trump, Orban, and everybody involved with NATO, etc. is the worst kind of old-fashioned culture, a fetishistic nostalgia for a metaphysical and religious essentialism from old dystopias. It is the supremacy of “manly” dominance culture as described here. Whereas vast numbers of younger people in the post-Enlightenment cultural system and everywhere consider themselves citizens of the world, war between nation-states is being planned and equipped to drag humanity back into a feudal sensibility: polities self-identify as uniquely precious but under siege from dangerous disruptors within and without; adulation of the mighty and of an imagined almighty who promotes its earthly kindred spirits; confusion about intelligence itself such that the cosmos at large somehow expresses a super-intelligence that pre-determines how everything should be (yet not always how it is!) within some degree of negotiable treatment as rewards for formulaic pageantry of extravagant praise, fearful self-abasement, and symbolic sacrifice. There is always deep misogyny in this frame of mind. Such dystopias are internally stratified and viciously hierarchical based on ideas of different grades of value among human beings. Some kind of cruel religious faith-based orthodoxy is often declared foundational, sometimes fraudulent science taken as religious certainty. Preserving a parasitic hierarchy is always foundational.

This old culture of masculine dominance, once ubiquitous, constructed and spread a certain kind of human hive-mind featuring strict hierarchies of authority maintained by operations of a core culture of violence with high value assigned to trophies of violence. It has been a common sense assumption that this style of tightly controlled cultured human clustering demanding conformity, exclusive emotional attachment, and pageantry typical of religion, as just mentioned, is simply the inevitable working of nature, but that is false. These dystopian hierarchies of violence are the products of very particular and undesirable circumstances. With the gradual development of alternative cultures, those old dystopian hive-minds start breaking down. This has happened on several occasions in modern history.

Regression into old-fashioned dominance culture is being revived now because new cohorts of young people all over the world are moving to a different orientation in which the old religious and political/economic hive-minds don’t matter, or at least are not worth living and dying for. Our reactionary crop of despots wants to smother that new orientation in the crib. The current directions of cultural evolution that are breaking down old certainties, as also began on previous occasions in history, are not this time attributable to new philosophy. The flame-keepers of philosophy have recently kept away from questioning the existence of human hive-minds. However, collateral effects of the humanism that emerged historically from widespread personal literacy, combined with huge advances in communications technology, have enabled an ever-widening extension of empathy beyond previously typical subgroups. For example, the relatively unhindered television coverage of the American war in Viet Nam (1965-75) educated masses of non-combatants about the brutal indecency of war for perhaps the first time, resulting in a mass international anti-war movement. That has never been allowed to happen again, and the process of generational forgetting has been proceeding. However, the advent of live-streaming from smart phones has now, once again, made the indecency of war immediately and globally available.

Legacy of Aristocratic Violence

A core culture of violence has always been a crucial element of aristocracy, out of whose ancient and medieval practices modern sovereign state governments developed. The culture of violence separates aristocracy from commercial culture, which imitates aristocracy by aspiring to the same luxuries, prestige, and level of abundant consumption, but without the overt use of violence. The aristocratic culture of violence is still an active presence in the world, even in the most democratic polities. Sovereign states still base their authority on a near monopoly of violence, and focus their efforts on protecting and preserving property, the treasured trophy of violence. Crime families and criminal organizations generally cling to the culture of violence as an indispensable instrument for achieving their goals, and so do political forces in the right-wing or conservative tradition, which is clear from the importance of guns to the political right-wing (just as swords worn on the hip were important to old-style aristocracy). The pre-existing aristocratic culture of earthly rewards, mainly clustered around the thrills of competitions, high consumption, trophy possessions, and badges of prestige, remains normative (even if aspirational) for most people due to pervasive cultural propaganda.

Claims to Virtue

Countries in the Euro-American cultural system, post-Christendom successor states, seem to maintain an unshakable conviction of their moral superiority, in spite of their actual record of behaviour, based, apparently, on a lingering self-identification as “Christian” nations and as such carriers of a culture of spiritual sensitivity. There is an unacknowledged assumption, again in spite of historical facts, that Christianity is peak-morality. Given the genocidal colonialism, slavery, and casual cruelty perpetrated by nations and religious institutions in this group, their claim to superior virtue is factually ridiculous, which makes it a phenomenon begging for identification and philosophical understanding. A more serious piece of cultural heritage that is also cited in the context of special spiritual sensitivity in the Euro-American cultural system is the Enlightenment of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, featuring the rise of mathematical science and ushering in a far more secular attitude toward both the natural world and human affairs. The spiritual force of this culture was an upgrade in the conception of individual human dignity, now able and worthy to understand the hidden workings of things through scientific thinking, and so also with inherent rights to decent and honourable treatment simply as human beings. This was bolstered considerably by widespread personal literacy as promoted by protestantism and also by protestant emphasis on the interiority of individual spirituality.

Patriarchal racist imperialism somehow coexists with the legacy of the Enlightenment and of literary humanism beginning from remote ancient cultures. Over a long history, the culture of reading and writing inspired so many institutions, such as universities, such monumental products, and so many innovative personal initiatives that it took on a developmental momentum all its own, beyond the control of the pre-existing authorities of religious and aristocratic institutions. Energizing that arc of development, the spirit of protestantism called into question and actually rejected the mythical foundations of hierarchy and the gradients of status, precedence, and authority in the society that was Christendom. This was done in two stages: first the claim of direct interaction between individuals and deity without the Church as intermediary; and second, in the work of a string of philosophers with a Lutheran background, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Kierkegaard, relocating the transcendent freedom of creative ideality from an imagined remote deity to ordinary individuals. This philosophical idealism was no longer Christian, but still a remarkable conception derived, by chance, as a cultural evolution from Christianity. The legacy of the Enlightenment completely contradicts and negates that of aristocratic violence culture and the authoritarian re-militarization now so popular. What is remarkable is how little this humanist culture of spiritual sensitivity has influenced the core of political or governing practice. The patriarchal culture of old aristocracy has always dominated political power, and the kind of spiritual sensitivity on offer from Christianity had already turned cruel as early as the creation of feudal Christendom involving the project of imposing coercive imperialism in cooperation with factions dedicated to gaining what can be gained through violence.

Backlash against Enlightenment Philosophy

In fact, a broad cultural suppression closely followed the European Enlightenment and the subsequent Revolution in France, 1789-99. There was a distinct internationalism as well as a rejection of class hierarchies in the spirit of the Revolution. That backlash included the famously repressive rigours of the Victorian era, 1837-1901. A huge effort mostly succeeded in marginalizing a tentative re-conception of individual human power and potential that was breaking down old cultural certainties. However, the effects of humanist literacy, rationalist science, and protestant individualism had been under development for centuries leading up to the Enlightenment, and had penetrated widely and deeply in the Euro-American cultural system, so this humanistic spirituality has survived to watch for opportunities to flourish. Another feature of the backlash, literary and artistic romanticism, emerged from fear that philosophical thinking, specifically the Enlightenment identification of rationality, notably by Kant and Fichte, as the primary process of personal interiority empowers all individuals so much that it discredits the traditional social hierarchy, disclosing civilization as an ugly regime of human-on-human parasitism. The romantic defence of traditional social hierarchy requires that primary process be irrationality. Romanticism reverted to something like the earlier view asserted by Hobbes (remotely Plato), as it “re-enchanted” the world with disembodied spirits and flourishes of magical thinking.

Mention should be made of tragic attempts at transformative social change in Russia beginning during the global war of 1914-18. This was another manifestation of philosophy taken seriously, but already incorporating a distinct whiff of romanticism. This time it was Hegelian idealism (Hegel being another Lutheran) made over into a materialist science of history: Marxism. The social changes made were flawed from the beginning by a lack of empathic humanity and by top-down control through brutal violence. Still, the efforts endured through most of the twentieth century. Marxist materialism and the Hegelian idealism it represented were alien ideologies to most people, and, if they were to become a foundational discourse by which power and economic production and distribution were understood as a matter of common culture, they had to be imposed by force and ideological re-education. There was a brutality about that effort and the imprint of the ideas has been shown by subsequent history to be shallow and transitory.

The Post-War Left-ing of the West

Some degree of influence from the Enlightenment legacy can be discerned in The New Deal launched in the United States just prior to the global war of 1939-45, launched in response to the Great Depression of the 1930’s, which many at the time perceived as the final failure of capitalism. The European response to the depression was a rise in fascist authoritarian political movements. Wealthy people came to think that some form of fascism was necessary to save capitalism. Fascism is capitalism doing what it can to slow down and stop the momentum of its failure. Others saw capitalism as a lost cause and turned to Marxist communism as a way of getting something better. After the war there were two powerful democratizing forces working on western governments. One was the competition of capitalist societies against Communism. It may have been a stridently patriarchal interpretation of the political left-wing of the French Revolutionary National Assembly (filtered through Hegelian idealism translated into economic materialism), but it was still promising something like a government-managed disruption of the legacy class system, aiming for material equality and a classless society without dystopian hierarchies. As such, it was something of a manifestation of Enlightenment humanism. The second force resulted from involving the mass of ordinary citizens in the effort of total war. Achieving victory through great personal disruption and sacrifices, the general population expected a fair share of the wealth generated by the society. Voters demanded benefits and politics was forced to the left, introducing elements of socialism in the form of unemployment benefits, pensions, child care support, medical care. By the 1980’s the shine was off the communist countries and the current generation of adults hadn’t been part of the sacrifices of the last global war, and they forgot that they had been promised rewards for service to the nation: generational forgetting. In 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed, and so any vestige of a real competition was gone. After that politics was dragged back to the right by the never-relenting cultural mix from feudal Christendom: father-god religion and patriarchal dominance culture.

Capitalism vs Communism

After the widespread failure of ancient religious myths that had convinced people generally that all things, including social, political, and economic hierarchies, were eternally predetermined by an all powerful deity, capitalism only looked acceptable to a wide range of people when the style of living it offered was contrasted against the austere and authoritarian Communism of the Soviet Union. In this way it was profoundly dependent on the existence of the USSR for legitimacy. For a few decades after the war of 1939-45 the capitalism of western nations became more of a consumer-supremacist system as the factions in control of investment felt obliged by that competition to improve the quality of life of the common run of citizens. The collapse of the USSR was the writing on the wall about the end of that kind of “liberal democracy”, and a return to an essentially investor-supremacist capitalism now called neoliberalism. Such capitalism is widely experienced as unacceptable, no longer a broadly appealing or satisfying system of social organization. In the US election in 2024 the most lethal nation on earth fell under the control of a confederacy of extremest anti-democratic ideologues of the political right-wing, heralding an age of romantic reality-denial, proclaiming an imaginary national crisis through pervasive propaganda via mass media, including social networking apps. Such is the situation in which masses of younger people struggle to feel free of the legacy of nationalist hive-minds eager to make war as a means of preserving old hierarchies. 

The relationship between, on one side, an individually embodied knowing and deliberative agent (a dynamic time-plotting system of ideality), and on the other, the ambient culture in which the individual is educated and fostered into some normal orientation in the world; put another way: the ideas and dramas that specify an individual’s sense of place and direction, in relation to the culture carried and cultivated around that individual: this relationship has to be crucial for philosophical questioning. Human individuals derive joy and meaning from imitating people around them, soaking up culture like sponges. Within the general culture of ways of surviving in a particular surroundings, there are these limitlessly imposing political super-structures, culture-based structures of dependence and authority which bind clusters of people together by a shared sense of direction and rules of conduct, top-down arrangements of power and access to resources which seek emotional possession of the individual and benefit from the individual’s gifts, abilities, and energy. Immersion in such a hive-mind can enable individuals to commit acts of cruelty, brutality, and self-destruction that they would not contemplate as de-cultured individuals.

Every hive-mind is a complicated game with its own rules, many of which are arbitrary, its own structures of dramatic quests and challenges, ways of scoring and winning competitions to rise through the layers of esteem and power as set out in the rules. Statements about the world that cannot be verified or falsified by any normal means and yet are held to be true as a matter of popular culture, sometimes called ‘beliefs’, are better understood as rules of a particular hive-mind game. If you are in the game, you accept and play by these guides to orientation. Similarly, the rules of personal duty are hive-mind game specific, rules of a particular collective game. Release from collective identity must be based on recognition of important personal experience outside what is controlled by culturally ambient hive-minds. Self-possession is simple: orientation and gratification from the interior upwelling creative force of personality: curiosity, dreams, an inherent sense of beauty and pleasure, impulses to project shapes on the objective world in the context of supposings about futurity, non-linguistic ideation of personal futurity and the increasingly extended and personally specific context of prior experience. Time is the dimension of teleology, agency, of creativity at the core of subjectivity.

Embedded links:

 Fragment 99, November 2, 2016, What is Patriarchy? (word count: 3,700)

Fragment 163, May 11, 2020, A Western Project (word count: 750)

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Dreaming Boys

28 Thursday Nov 2019

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Gender culture, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

artificial intelligence, divinity, emotion, ethics, patriarchy, rationality, science

Fragment 156, word count: 179.

The idea of an emotionless super-intelligence has fascinated certain male culture pods throughout history. Rationalist philosophers and theologians from all three Abrahamic religious cultures, for example, developed in medieval and early modern times conceptions of God as an emotionless super-intelligence, the ultimate rationality, who must be trusted to conduct the world infallibly, unhampered by the limitations and weaknesses of human judgments. Since the acts and pronouncements of that intelligence are based on complete omniscience, utterly beyond human abilities, the resulting voice and hand of God are beyond the constraints of ethics and morality as conceived by humans. It is now computer engineers and mathematicians, urged on by investors, corporate executives, strategic and military planners, and authoritarian politicians who dream of an emotionless super-intelligence whose access to vast oceans of data make it completely unimpeachable by ethics and morality in providing them with unlimited power and wealth. The dreaming boys strive to fashion a mightier person than the girls make in the usual way, but the dream of a master has become the dream of a slave.

Copyright © 2019 Sandy MacDonald.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Categories

  • Blind spots in thinking
  • Class War
  • Culture
  • disinterestedness
  • Embodiment
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Gender culture
  • Hierarchy
  • Leadership
  • Narrative
  • Nature
  • Political Power
  • Strategic thinking
  • Subjectivity
  • Transcendence
  • Uncategorized
  • University
  • Why thinking?

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • in the blind spot
    • Join 84 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • in the blind spot
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar