Soon I will be creating a page on this blog which shall hold a catalogue of digital philosophy software. “What is digital philosophy software?” you may very well ask. Well, let me tell you.
Digital philosophy software is software that goes beyond the normal or mainstream applications of information & communications technology (ICT) in the field of philosophy.
What is a mainstream application? The humble word processor would be one such example. What used to be pen & paper (& white-out) is now key & silicon (& backspace). The thing is, there’s nothing specific to philosophy here. All we’ve done is taken one method of working in medium A and translated it to medium B. In this case people the world over agree that medium B is so much better, hence the digital revolution.
Titles in academia are bullshit. They’re anti-egalitarian and bullshit. Doctor this and professor that. Give me a break. Even the nation which is founded upon such radically egalitarian principles that it has a constitutional clause† restricting titles of nobility is not immune such frippery.
Hierarchies are a necessary evil. If we are to have them, can we not dispense with useless honorific adjuncts?
† U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 – “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
At some point in 2010 or thereabouts as the Arab Spring unfolded with its revolutionary tide breaking across the shores of Mediterranean nations a thought struck me.
This unfolding was at the time attributed to (or at least said to be greatly enabled by) social media platforms – oh the internet, that great liberalizing force. I wasn’t falling for that simple narrative. (I try not to fall for overly simplistic just-so narratives.)
How will our digital landscape come to affect the spread of ideas and beliefs? Especially deeply held beliefs? A deeply important concern, I thought. Thus, Internet + Ideology was born.
A couple of years later I turned the ideas into a research proposal and submitted to UCD. The topic was accepted but I never pursued it because the acceptance did not come with a stipend.
I’m uploading this document here because I no longer want my ideas locked up inside my head. Go ahead, give it a read. As populist movements continue to roil Western nations I am drawn back to these thoughts. Another day I’ll expand on them.
As I thought about this deep problem (policing the boundaries of free speech) I realised that *moderate* means both to be free from excess and to decide whether something stays or not on a forum. Say what you want about the U.S., free speech *maximalists* ought to be glad the internet (and with it a lot of internet culture) started in the U.S. what with its long history of constitutionally protected free speech.
If an internet forum is to self police and to not rely on the actual bobbies to police its content then it makes sense that content on that forum is policed in as transparent, fair, and dare I say it, democratic a manner as possible.
This post is half political, half confessional, and half dyscalculical.
Few like having their core beliefs called into question. That’s why philosophy is a tough old slog. That’s not to say that the many other parts of life that require critical thinking are not a tough old slog. Generally speaking though few disciplines compel a person to be wary of their unexamined beliefs quite to the same extent that philosophy compels them†. We look at the world through the window of our beliefs, which is why people come to radically different conclusions about identical circumstances. The more fearless the philosopher the more transparent and without defect the window. This is one reason to mistrust technocrats, formalists, and all those who would instruct with mathematical, formal, or technical language.
I come from a country where in the last century a number of our most famous writers have left these shores for a life of enforced exile. You’re not going to compare yourself to Beckett or Joyce now (are you?) I hear you ask in disbelief. Why no, not at all. But I have been trying to construct an analogy for what I feel must be done to reclaim ourselves in these empty digital times.
I will be leaving the world of social media and instant messaging. Not that anyone will care. I have few followers on any given platform, nobody hangs on to my every given word. And that’s okay with me.
The Cambrian Explosion as you’ll remember refers to an epoch recorded in the fossil record which is known as, in the words of noted archaeologist Bill Bryson, “[…] the moment when complex life burst forth in dazzling profusion — the famous Cambrian explosion”. We’re talking 500-million-plus years ago.
I want to suggest that something similar happened in the Axial Age roughly 2,500 ago, but with thought. According to Karl Jaspers in his work Origin and Goal of History something profound or pivotal happened between the 8th century BCE and the 3rd century BCE in China, India, and Greece. World-spanning religions were formed. Itinerant scholars† plied their trade. According to Karen Armstrong in The Great Transformation what is now called The Golden Rule was formulated simultaneously and what seems like independently. Axiomatic math was laid out by a dude called Euclid. David Graeber in Debt: The First 5000 Years‡ argues that it is the simultaneous and independent invention of coinage that spurred this social complexity. But to have coinage one must have not just the technology but the idea of coinage. Witness bitcoin where tech capability pre-dated invention by 30 years or so. And for an idea like coinage one needs abstraction. And we know what that age also gave us, the birth of philosophy, and if there is one thing a philosopher gets off on it’s abstraction.
These rulers have put up their own conditions, their own values, and even their prices have now become generally known. And no ruler, though he be wiser than all legislators and rulers, has it is in his power to correct the evil however much he may curtail the activity of bad officials by putting them under the supervision of other officials. It will all be in vain until every one of us feels that as the time of the general rising up of all the peoples, he armed himself [his enemies?], so he must now rise up against injustice. As a Russian, as one tied to you by bonds of birth and blood, I now appeal to you. I appeal to those of you who have some idea of what is meant by nobility of thought. I invite you to remember the duty which every man, whatever post he may occupy, has to perform. I invite you to examine more closely your duty and the obligations of your earthly service because that is something which all of us are only dimly aware of, and we scarcely …’
[Here the manuscript breaks off]
[The following fragment turned up in an old hotel dresser in Odessa]
I have come to revise my opinion of late. It was a conversation with blind Igor that did it. Now I believe the order of the day should be boundless tyranny and absolute control.
I cannot understand how my spine grew weak. I came to identify with the common wretch. How disgusting, I recoil from those days of delirium. My own skin repels me. The sweet embrace of totalitarianism is just the ticket. “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” What truth those words contain! I wish I had said that.