We live in a world intentionally designed to reduce the quality of human thought in order to extract as much economic value from the human mind as possible.
Paul - I appreciate how you lay out and frame why the slow erosion of thinking happens inside ordinary life, not just as an abstract problem or philosophical idea. The picture you’re drawing is of a gradual shift in how people live with their own minds, and I find this extremely fascinating and a bit sad given what you highlight. Over time, the work of forming values, questioning assumptions, and creating a personal orientation toward life is replaced by ready-made frameworks, incentives, and distractions. That feels very close to what you’re pointing to with passive nihilism: not the loss of thought, but the loss of responsibility for it.
One layer that feels important here is how much the mind is already shaped to privilege what is wrong. The negativity bias keeps our attention oriented toward perceived threat, conflict, and deficiency. In an environment built to capture and monetize attention, that bias becomes a natural vulnerability in the mind. It steadily trains our nervous system toward being on high alert or being geared toward the negative rather than spending time for reflection and thinking about aspects of positive experience. Over time this could easily reshape the inner conditions under which thought happens at all. What I respect in what you’re building is the insistence that people can take our authorship back. That a micro-philosophy is not a set of answers, but a practice of examining what/why one is living by.
All to say, I love what you are doing! It gels well with my own thinking about how to better contend with the difficult human condition to begin with.
That's a solid question Paul! The answer is no if we are thinking of turning the negativity bias off like a switch. However, if we are thinking about it in terms of rewiring brain circuitry the answer is more along the lines of yes if we think about it like rebalancing our attention away from negatives to positives in our lives so that the negatives don't completely override the positives.
Science has shown our brains are plastic to some degree so using measures like mindfulness, as mentioned aspects of attention shifts consciously, cognitive reframing and gratitude practices have been shown to be successful.
When you learn effortless mindfulness (the ability to shift attention to the awareness within which all experience takes place) you can radically reshape virtually any neural pathway.
If you have a neural pathway that supports your "I hate broccoli" mental framework, you can actually change the way your taste buds respond but doing this practice.
I read the main essay and then your older article on micro-philosophy as well. I really like the intention behind it: pushing people toward reflection instead of pure consumption.
I did struggle with the tone and some of the big claims though. Especially the line about living in a world “intentionally designed” to reduce the quality of human thinking to extract economic value. I’m not denying market incentives or attention engineering, but “intentionally designed” makes it sound like one coordinated project called “the world.” That feels a bit totalizing and, ironically, close to the kind of pessimism you’re warning against.
Also, I don’t really recognize the picture of widespread passive nihilism. People aren’t just sleepwalking. There’s a lot of conscience and agency out there: mass protests, community organizing, mutual aid, resisting systems, and big personal life changes happening every day.
So when you state “evangelists for mediocrity" i wonder why you assume mediocrity is the enemy? A lot of human life is ordinary by nature. Caring for other people, crafting things, deep conversations with loved ones, traveling and experiencing new realities. There’s meaning there too, and a lot of reflection happens inside that.
Stating that self-inquiry is “too inconvenient to be done,” or that billions never spend "even a few hours" thinking about their beliefs, feels unverifiable and also a bit unfair. It starts to pathologize normal life. Besides, let's not forget there's a group of people who are forced to spend all there hours surviving and dealing with life, rather than having the luxury to sit back and write deeply about who they would like to be.
Finally, the micro-philosophy pitch left me torn. I get the intent, but the whole system/framework/templates vibe can read like a self-help product aimed at the same anxiety the piece diagnoses. And “I don’t teach people what to believe” sounds nice and neutral, but some ethical guardrails aren’t optional if you’re encouraging people to create their own belief system. We still need shared rules, rights, and responsibilities. I’m curious where you draw that line.
Thanks for taking the time to read and write such a thoughtful reply. I will try to address each point in order below.
Yes, the main intention is to help teach people concepts, skills, and frameworks that can empower them to think for themselves and reflect on their own lives. I don't see very many people teaching this in the philosophy space as opposed to big ideas meant to be consumed primarily as entertainment or education about the history of philosophy for its own sake.
Regarding the intentional design of the attention economy, I do think that there is a coordinated effort to harvest human attention. It is hard for us to appreciate just how much money, thought, and engineering goes into the design of technology and apps that become normalized for us to use. There isn't some global or national conspiracy, but the current situation is close enough to that to be very concerned.
Regarding the passive nihilism, many of the things you list here are compatible with the truth of passive nihilism. Obviously there are plenty of people who take action to fight for the things that they believe in, but I would push back on the idea that this is widespread. But most of the post-college adults I know live pretty busy ordinary lives that are consumed by work, childcare, and pockets of entertainment throughout the day. This leaves very little time for leisure activities that enrich the human spirit and raise personal consciousness. Political awareness and concern can, in many ways, be a byproduct of passive nihilism/consumption culture. Finally, keep in mind that I was imagining what the end result would be if we continue down this path, not suggesting that everyone is sleepwalking already.
Regarding mediocrity, the activities you describe are not mediocre to me at all. Those sorts of activities are what I am advocating for. But I don't think internal reflection is enough. I think that much is lost when we internally reflect on meaningful experiences and never do anything with those insights or memories. If someone were to write something, craft something, tell a story, record themselves, etc., those meaningful experiences would be transforming into agency enhancing activities. The enemy is a life of no real agency, self-knowledge, or personal growth, but just going through the motions of life.
I think that ordinary American life should be pathologized because we live in an unjust system of exploitation which convinces us that it is normal for someone to work 40-50 hours for a large corporation and not see their kids for 75% of their lives.
I don't see how a self-help product that is designed to help people clarify their own values and beliefs can cause anxiety. My system gives people the tools to organize and understand their own beliefs. I am not writing online to change people's beliefs. If someone has hateful beliefs and wants to use my framework they are able to do that. They won't be a part of my online community, but I can't stop people from using ideas they find on the internet. If I were to build my own personal ethics into my system and moralize to my audience that would defeat the entire purpose of what I am doing, which is to promote agency, free thinking, and self-knowledge.
In the end, I am trying to help people in a way that I am able to. It's not going to be for everyone.
Hey Paul. Thank you for taking the time to reply point-by-point. That’s rare, and I really appreciate it.
Also, just to be clear.. I like your intention a lot. If my first comment read harsher than intended, that’s on me. I was challenging some framing, not dismissing the mission!
A few follow-ups:
I agree attention is engineered and monetized. My hesitation is the rhetorical scope. “The world is intentionally designed” reads bigger than the incentives inside big tech, advertising, and app ecosystems. I’d personally find it stronger if it stayed closer to “a major part of modern media and tech is optimized to harvest attention.” The broader wording risks sounding totalizing.
On passive nihilism: I think the reality is split. For some people, enriching leisure and reflection are a genuine privilege (time, money, bandwidth). At the same time, many of us in wealthy countries do have historically high levels of comfort and free time, which is exactly why frameworks like yours can matter. My only pushback is that when the baseline is stable, it’s easy to treat enrichment as urgent and non-negotiable, while in real crisis (war, collapse, insecurity) that layer disappears overnight. That doesn’t make it meaningless, but it does suggest the diagnosis should stay grounded in material conditions as well as psychology.
You convinced me on agency. The distinction between having meaningful experiences and converting insights into something that builds self-knowledge and agency is strong. That’s exactly where a framework can help.
On the “unjust exploitation system” point: I sympathize with the moral discomfort. I just react strongly to anything that sounds like a clean utopia claim when reality is messy and interdependent. What’s the workable solution at scale? If everyone cuts working hours sharply tomorrow, what happens to healthcare staffing, food supply, logistics, public services, and the infrastructure that makes leisure possible? I’m not defending the status quo, but there are trade-offs and coordination problems here. A critique feels incomplete if it pathologizes ordinary life without grappling with how a complex society keeps running.
On ethics and tone: I get what you mean by not moralizing. My point is that some of the wording can land as pressure. Lines like “make sure everything we believe isn’t being used to keep us under control,” “we must always continue to think,” and “freedom is the heaviest burden” can read as: you’re probably compromised and you’re not doing enough. Then the framework can feel like the one “right” way out, even if you explicitly say it isn’t for everyone. And very practically, “people can believe whatever they want” runs into limits fast in any real community.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. I’ve enjoyed the exchange, and your work gave me a lot to think about.
I have learned a lot from the main article and your follow-up question.
Emma, most respectfully If a system is corrupt, oppressive and tyrannical. Shouldn’t be there a mass movement for radical reforms for social justice? Why should someone wait for slow reforms? this would just benefit the elites and delay the suffering of the masses.
“The infrastructure that makes leisure possible”
- A sentence from your question.
If this leisure is limited only to a specific class and is only possible If the entire families of the middle and lower classes work tirelessly to afford their basic needs. Shouldn't this be termed as modern-day slavery? And hence cause an uproar in the masses to don’t accept it as their fate and ask questions?
Indeed, Why would anybody want to spend their time fabricating their own "belief system"? Surely this is the road to anomie..anxiety...alienation..whatever?
Hey Paul, great thoughts. Comes at a perfect time for me as I am about to take a sabbatical from work.
One thing I was already planning on doing: I've been underlining non-fiction books as I read them for a long time and always wanted to take the time to write down all those nuggets in a notebook but never got around to it. I just gathered up some of the most impactful ones and will be starting a notebook for those quotes. I imagine these will definitely help me in creating my own micro-philosophy.
I'll definitely be checking out your older article. Keep up the good work, thank you.
One problem with writing is it is fixed when our thoughts actually change, so reading so-called great people's works doesn't really reflects their total thought but their thought at a point in time documented and frozen, people change but not their writings really. second I found that you referenced Nietzsche ideas which is great and commented on it with a simplistic language. I didn't quite get though how that shows anything about your own abilities of introspection as you've pitched your foundations course. I'm not against courses, I take many and believe many are valuable, but just I want to understand your contribution in the value frame, which upon clearance I myself might be interested in purchase as well.
Hi Paul - I've also been thinking recently about the importance of contemplation, and in particular imagination, which I believe is fundamental to human intelligence. I agree that writing is a key tool in this process, as it enables us to engage with and hone our ideas in a more efficient and structured way than would otherwise be possible.
A lot of it is reclaiming spaces of my time that I’ve now dedicated to my phone. A lot pf those blank spaces I try to fill with reading, sport and contemplation. It’s easier to do than to think about. The first step was the hardest.
Since we all have access to all of the quality ideas we need, but many choose not to access them, is it possible that they are already thinking for themselves, and the way they live is by choice?
If not, then your project shifts from liberation to prescription, and the burden of justification changes accordingly.
I think I would agree with you if I accepted the antecedent of your conditional, but I think there are many reasons to doubt that: 1) we all have to all of the quality ideas we need; 2) many choose not to access them.
I think access is unfairly distributed and this undermines many people’s agency and ability to even choose.
There are, of course, many who choose to focus on the wrong ideas, but there are many who never even have a chance.
Can we ever be sure of anything? How do we know when we have taken enough care?
The above questions from the essay jumped out at me.
I rather think peace is acquired by realising you can’t answer those questions. Sorry, there is one way to be sure and it’s being deluded and thinking you have. Bit harsh but true I’d say.
The state of the world is truly astonishing. One standout point is the degree to which humanity is regressing (intelligence, health, relationally) whilst humanity claims so much progress.
The best I can offer is the serenity prayer for the 12 Step Programme
This resonates — but the diagnosis risks placing a structural failure back onto individual will.
What seems new is not simply that people think less, but that thinking no longer occupies the point where outcomes can still be interrupted. Reflection, critique, even self-examination persist — yet increasingly downstream of decisions already resolved elsewhere, through delegated automation and pre-structured flows where no one fully owns the judgment, yet outcomes bind us.
In that sense, the danger is not passive nihilism as a personal failing, but a quieter condition: agency migrating away from sites where lived experience and deliberation can still exert constraint.
The question then becomes less “how do we get people to think again?” and more “where does thinking still have standing to intervene before action closes?” That is the fault line of our moment.
I writing a 2-piece article on the rise of dogma and anti-intellectualism through affective neuroscience, hemisphere theory, process-relational metaphysics, and capitalist psychopolitics — focusing on the importance of philosophy both hitherto and forthcoming.
I just finished “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis for the third time. One would think a book of a mere 90 pages would require three readings but it has for me. He warns of the void that comes from not following the Tao. The Tao (his philophy) for Lewis is Christianity (as it for me) and his prescient warnings from 1943 hold even more today. Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom - if you don’t have a framework, as Lewis illustrates, one will be provided for you.
First, I’d like to say as someone with an undergraduate degree in philosophy, that I agree with your central thesis that people should really spend more time dissecting their own belief structures. Nietzsche himself raises this critique in “The Gay Science,” and “Genealogy of Morals.” I have a funny story about this critique which I’m going to be publishing on my Substack sometime this week.
Second, as a Doctor of Jurisprudence, I have to say that if the average American actually engaged in this sort of critical thinking, the suicide rate would likely spike dramatically. I think the primary driving force toward “the last man” is the grim realization that the more a person knows about how the sausage is made, the worse they feel about the world and their place in it. Nietzsche, of course, would probably tell people to do whatever it takes to undermine the institutions which perpetuate this state of affairs, but I don’t think the average American has the will to do so. They’re too enthralled in the Christian Slave Morality.
In any event, this was a delightful read! Thank you for writing it.
Paul Mussoの文章は、現代社会を「人間の思考の質を下げ、注意や精神から経済価値を抽出するよう設計された環境」と捉えています。その結果、人は自分の価値観を吟味せず、既製の信念や娯楽に身を預け、ニーチェのいう「末人」——危険を避け、快適さと安全だけを求める受動的ニヒリスト——へ近づいていく、と論じます。対抗策として、書くこと、読むこと、自己吟味、自分自身の「小さな哲学」をつくることが提示されています。
Interesting read - thanks for sharing. Agree with many points. Some thoughts on the fly =>
Optimistic nihilism may be valuable to a few => lack of life meaning can be liberating. The pessimistic flavor = another matter.
This is hard to accomplish in our interconnected world = “We need to make sure that everything we believe is not simply being used to serve someone else’s interests.” => complex proposal => Can anyone be really sure?
“…everyone should dedicate at least some meaningful portion of their lives to critical self-examination and self-creation.” => many don’t have the time, resources, or ability for this - I understand the positive angle in your advice, but sounds a little idealist to me.
Paul - I appreciate how you lay out and frame why the slow erosion of thinking happens inside ordinary life, not just as an abstract problem or philosophical idea. The picture you’re drawing is of a gradual shift in how people live with their own minds, and I find this extremely fascinating and a bit sad given what you highlight. Over time, the work of forming values, questioning assumptions, and creating a personal orientation toward life is replaced by ready-made frameworks, incentives, and distractions. That feels very close to what you’re pointing to with passive nihilism: not the loss of thought, but the loss of responsibility for it.
One layer that feels important here is how much the mind is already shaped to privilege what is wrong. The negativity bias keeps our attention oriented toward perceived threat, conflict, and deficiency. In an environment built to capture and monetize attention, that bias becomes a natural vulnerability in the mind. It steadily trains our nervous system toward being on high alert or being geared toward the negative rather than spending time for reflection and thinking about aspects of positive experience. Over time this could easily reshape the inner conditions under which thought happens at all. What I respect in what you’re building is the insistence that people can take our authorship back. That a micro-philosophy is not a set of answers, but a practice of examining what/why one is living by.
All to say, I love what you are doing! It gels well with my own thinking about how to better contend with the difficult human condition to begin with.
Thanks Bronce, you’re the best.
Do you think it is possible for us to rewire the negativity bias?
That's a solid question Paul! The answer is no if we are thinking of turning the negativity bias off like a switch. However, if we are thinking about it in terms of rewiring brain circuitry the answer is more along the lines of yes if we think about it like rebalancing our attention away from negatives to positives in our lives so that the negatives don't completely override the positives.
Science has shown our brains are plastic to some degree so using measures like mindfulness, as mentioned aspects of attention shifts consciously, cognitive reframing and gratitude practices have been shown to be successful.
Neuroplasticity!
Try it, don't look up the research.
When you learn effortless mindfulness (the ability to shift attention to the awareness within which all experience takes place) you can radically reshape virtually any neural pathway.
If you have a neural pathway that supports your "I hate broccoli" mental framework, you can actually change the way your taste buds respond but doing this practice.
Well said.
I read the main essay and then your older article on micro-philosophy as well. I really like the intention behind it: pushing people toward reflection instead of pure consumption.
I did struggle with the tone and some of the big claims though. Especially the line about living in a world “intentionally designed” to reduce the quality of human thinking to extract economic value. I’m not denying market incentives or attention engineering, but “intentionally designed” makes it sound like one coordinated project called “the world.” That feels a bit totalizing and, ironically, close to the kind of pessimism you’re warning against.
Also, I don’t really recognize the picture of widespread passive nihilism. People aren’t just sleepwalking. There’s a lot of conscience and agency out there: mass protests, community organizing, mutual aid, resisting systems, and big personal life changes happening every day.
So when you state “evangelists for mediocrity" i wonder why you assume mediocrity is the enemy? A lot of human life is ordinary by nature. Caring for other people, crafting things, deep conversations with loved ones, traveling and experiencing new realities. There’s meaning there too, and a lot of reflection happens inside that.
Stating that self-inquiry is “too inconvenient to be done,” or that billions never spend "even a few hours" thinking about their beliefs, feels unverifiable and also a bit unfair. It starts to pathologize normal life. Besides, let's not forget there's a group of people who are forced to spend all there hours surviving and dealing with life, rather than having the luxury to sit back and write deeply about who they would like to be.
Finally, the micro-philosophy pitch left me torn. I get the intent, but the whole system/framework/templates vibe can read like a self-help product aimed at the same anxiety the piece diagnoses. And “I don’t teach people what to believe” sounds nice and neutral, but some ethical guardrails aren’t optional if you’re encouraging people to create their own belief system. We still need shared rules, rights, and responsibilities. I’m curious where you draw that line.
Emma,
Thanks for taking the time to read and write such a thoughtful reply. I will try to address each point in order below.
Yes, the main intention is to help teach people concepts, skills, and frameworks that can empower them to think for themselves and reflect on their own lives. I don't see very many people teaching this in the philosophy space as opposed to big ideas meant to be consumed primarily as entertainment or education about the history of philosophy for its own sake.
Regarding the intentional design of the attention economy, I do think that there is a coordinated effort to harvest human attention. It is hard for us to appreciate just how much money, thought, and engineering goes into the design of technology and apps that become normalized for us to use. There isn't some global or national conspiracy, but the current situation is close enough to that to be very concerned.
Regarding the passive nihilism, many of the things you list here are compatible with the truth of passive nihilism. Obviously there are plenty of people who take action to fight for the things that they believe in, but I would push back on the idea that this is widespread. But most of the post-college adults I know live pretty busy ordinary lives that are consumed by work, childcare, and pockets of entertainment throughout the day. This leaves very little time for leisure activities that enrich the human spirit and raise personal consciousness. Political awareness and concern can, in many ways, be a byproduct of passive nihilism/consumption culture. Finally, keep in mind that I was imagining what the end result would be if we continue down this path, not suggesting that everyone is sleepwalking already.
Regarding mediocrity, the activities you describe are not mediocre to me at all. Those sorts of activities are what I am advocating for. But I don't think internal reflection is enough. I think that much is lost when we internally reflect on meaningful experiences and never do anything with those insights or memories. If someone were to write something, craft something, tell a story, record themselves, etc., those meaningful experiences would be transforming into agency enhancing activities. The enemy is a life of no real agency, self-knowledge, or personal growth, but just going through the motions of life.
I think that ordinary American life should be pathologized because we live in an unjust system of exploitation which convinces us that it is normal for someone to work 40-50 hours for a large corporation and not see their kids for 75% of their lives.
I don't see how a self-help product that is designed to help people clarify their own values and beliefs can cause anxiety. My system gives people the tools to organize and understand their own beliefs. I am not writing online to change people's beliefs. If someone has hateful beliefs and wants to use my framework they are able to do that. They won't be a part of my online community, but I can't stop people from using ideas they find on the internet. If I were to build my own personal ethics into my system and moralize to my audience that would defeat the entire purpose of what I am doing, which is to promote agency, free thinking, and self-knowledge.
In the end, I am trying to help people in a way that I am able to. It's not going to be for everyone.
Hey Paul. Thank you for taking the time to reply point-by-point. That’s rare, and I really appreciate it.
Also, just to be clear.. I like your intention a lot. If my first comment read harsher than intended, that’s on me. I was challenging some framing, not dismissing the mission!
A few follow-ups:
I agree attention is engineered and monetized. My hesitation is the rhetorical scope. “The world is intentionally designed” reads bigger than the incentives inside big tech, advertising, and app ecosystems. I’d personally find it stronger if it stayed closer to “a major part of modern media and tech is optimized to harvest attention.” The broader wording risks sounding totalizing.
On passive nihilism: I think the reality is split. For some people, enriching leisure and reflection are a genuine privilege (time, money, bandwidth). At the same time, many of us in wealthy countries do have historically high levels of comfort and free time, which is exactly why frameworks like yours can matter. My only pushback is that when the baseline is stable, it’s easy to treat enrichment as urgent and non-negotiable, while in real crisis (war, collapse, insecurity) that layer disappears overnight. That doesn’t make it meaningless, but it does suggest the diagnosis should stay grounded in material conditions as well as psychology.
You convinced me on agency. The distinction between having meaningful experiences and converting insights into something that builds self-knowledge and agency is strong. That’s exactly where a framework can help.
On the “unjust exploitation system” point: I sympathize with the moral discomfort. I just react strongly to anything that sounds like a clean utopia claim when reality is messy and interdependent. What’s the workable solution at scale? If everyone cuts working hours sharply tomorrow, what happens to healthcare staffing, food supply, logistics, public services, and the infrastructure that makes leisure possible? I’m not defending the status quo, but there are trade-offs and coordination problems here. A critique feels incomplete if it pathologizes ordinary life without grappling with how a complex society keeps running.
On ethics and tone: I get what you mean by not moralizing. My point is that some of the wording can land as pressure. Lines like “make sure everything we believe isn’t being used to keep us under control,” “we must always continue to think,” and “freedom is the heaviest burden” can read as: you’re probably compromised and you’re not doing enough. Then the framework can feel like the one “right” way out, even if you explicitly say it isn’t for everyone. And very practically, “people can believe whatever they want” runs into limits fast in any real community.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. I’ve enjoyed the exchange, and your work gave me a lot to think about.
Thanks Emma, this was awesome.
Thank you. Your challenging points are spot on.
I have learned a lot from the main article and your follow-up question.
Emma, most respectfully If a system is corrupt, oppressive and tyrannical. Shouldn’t be there a mass movement for radical reforms for social justice? Why should someone wait for slow reforms? this would just benefit the elites and delay the suffering of the masses.
“The infrastructure that makes leisure possible”
- A sentence from your question.
If this leisure is limited only to a specific class and is only possible If the entire families of the middle and lower classes work tirelessly to afford their basic needs. Shouldn't this be termed as modern-day slavery? And hence cause an uproar in the masses to don’t accept it as their fate and ask questions?
Indeed, Why would anybody want to spend their time fabricating their own "belief system"? Surely this is the road to anomie..anxiety...alienation..whatever?
Awesome stuff
Hey Paul, great thoughts. Comes at a perfect time for me as I am about to take a sabbatical from work.
One thing I was already planning on doing: I've been underlining non-fiction books as I read them for a long time and always wanted to take the time to write down all those nuggets in a notebook but never got around to it. I just gathered up some of the most impactful ones and will be starting a notebook for those quotes. I imagine these will definitely help me in creating my own micro-philosophy.
I'll definitely be checking out your older article. Keep up the good work, thank you.
Thanks Jake.
That’s actually how I approach my underlines.
You can use AI to automate the extraction process as well.
Always great stuff! Your summary of The Last Man really got me thinking too.
Thanks!
One problem with writing is it is fixed when our thoughts actually change, so reading so-called great people's works doesn't really reflects their total thought but their thought at a point in time documented and frozen, people change but not their writings really. second I found that you referenced Nietzsche ideas which is great and commented on it with a simplistic language. I didn't quite get though how that shows anything about your own abilities of introspection as you've pitched your foundations course. I'm not against courses, I take many and believe many are valuable, but just I want to understand your contribution in the value frame, which upon clearance I myself might be interested in purchase as well.
Hi Paul - I've also been thinking recently about the importance of contemplation, and in particular imagination, which I believe is fundamental to human intelligence. I agree that writing is a key tool in this process, as it enables us to engage with and hone our ideas in a more efficient and structured way than would otherwise be possible.
I've recently written a post about the importance of imagination which may be of interest - https://sajmalhi.substack.com/p/making-sense?r=2cl55d. Let me know what you think, thanks.
Great piece! Im on my own journey and this article couldn’t be more helpful.
A lot of it is reclaiming spaces of my time that I’ve now dedicated to my phone. A lot pf those blank spaces I try to fill with reading, sport and contemplation. It’s easier to do than to think about. The first step was the hardest.
Definitely. That’s great you make space for contemplation!
Awesome. How would you describe your journey?
Since we all have access to all of the quality ideas we need, but many choose not to access them, is it possible that they are already thinking for themselves, and the way they live is by choice?
If not, then your project shifts from liberation to prescription, and the burden of justification changes accordingly.
Hi Patrick, this is an interesting thought.
I think I would agree with you if I accepted the antecedent of your conditional, but I think there are many reasons to doubt that: 1) we all have to all of the quality ideas we need; 2) many choose not to access them.
I think access is unfairly distributed and this undermines many people’s agency and ability to even choose.
There are, of course, many who choose to focus on the wrong ideas, but there are many who never even have a chance.
When access is sufficient but unused, is agency actually constrained, or is it being exercised in a way you simply judge as wrong?
If it’s the latter, the claim shifts from liberation to normative prescription, and the justification burden changes.
Can we ever be sure of anything? How do we know when we have taken enough care?
The above questions from the essay jumped out at me.
I rather think peace is acquired by realising you can’t answer those questions. Sorry, there is one way to be sure and it’s being deluded and thinking you have. Bit harsh but true I’d say.
The state of the world is truly astonishing. One standout point is the degree to which humanity is regressing (intelligence, health, relationally) whilst humanity claims so much progress.
The best I can offer is the serenity prayer for the 12 Step Programme
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.
These are great questions Stephen.
I don’t think certainty is the standard to aim for.
A more attainable standard is “giving reasons/justifications”.
But even that is a lot to ask sometimes.
This resonates — but the diagnosis risks placing a structural failure back onto individual will.
What seems new is not simply that people think less, but that thinking no longer occupies the point where outcomes can still be interrupted. Reflection, critique, even self-examination persist — yet increasingly downstream of decisions already resolved elsewhere, through delegated automation and pre-structured flows where no one fully owns the judgment, yet outcomes bind us.
In that sense, the danger is not passive nihilism as a personal failing, but a quieter condition: agency migrating away from sites where lived experience and deliberation can still exert constraint.
The question then becomes less “how do we get people to think again?” and more “where does thinking still have standing to intervene before action closes?” That is the fault line of our moment.
Thanks for this great comment.
I am very sensitive to structural failures and injustices, and I love the way you explained how this undermines agency here.
Much of my writing focuses on the individual because that is who I think I can help the most.
Your work is what the world needs. Thank you.
So kind of you Luca, I appreciate it.
I writing a 2-piece article on the rise of dogma and anti-intellectualism through affective neuroscience, hemisphere theory, process-relational metaphysics, and capitalist psychopolitics — focusing on the importance of philosophy both hitherto and forthcoming.
I just finished “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis for the third time. One would think a book of a mere 90 pages would require three readings but it has for me. He warns of the void that comes from not following the Tao. The Tao (his philophy) for Lewis is Christianity (as it for me) and his prescient warnings from 1943 hold even more today. Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom - if you don’t have a framework, as Lewis illustrates, one will be provided for you.
Thanks Rob. I should read Lewis’ book.
First, I’d like to say as someone with an undergraduate degree in philosophy, that I agree with your central thesis that people should really spend more time dissecting their own belief structures. Nietzsche himself raises this critique in “The Gay Science,” and “Genealogy of Morals.” I have a funny story about this critique which I’m going to be publishing on my Substack sometime this week.
Second, as a Doctor of Jurisprudence, I have to say that if the average American actually engaged in this sort of critical thinking, the suicide rate would likely spike dramatically. I think the primary driving force toward “the last man” is the grim realization that the more a person knows about how the sausage is made, the worse they feel about the world and their place in it. Nietzsche, of course, would probably tell people to do whatever it takes to undermine the institutions which perpetuate this state of affairs, but I don’t think the average American has the will to do so. They’re too enthralled in the Christian Slave Morality.
In any event, this was a delightful read! Thank you for writing it.
テーマの輪郭
Paul Mussoの文章は、現代社会を「人間の思考の質を下げ、注意や精神から経済価値を抽出するよう設計された環境」と捉えています。その結果、人は自分の価値観を吟味せず、既製の信念や娯楽に身を預け、ニーチェのいう「末人」——危険を避け、快適さと安全だけを求める受動的ニヒリスト——へ近づいていく、と論じます。対抗策として、書くこと、読むこと、自己吟味、自分自身の「小さな哲学」をつくることが提示されています。
ただし、この記事の核心は本当に「思考の死」なのでしょうか。
あるいは、どの思考を思考と呼ぶのかをめぐる権力の問題なのでしょうか。
見落としているかもしれない3つの前提
1．「深く考えることは、個人の意志で選べる」という前提
記事は、豊かな国に住む多くの人には「考えないことへの言い訳がほとんどない」と述べます。
しかし、思考には時間だけでなく、安心、安全、睡眠、沈黙、教育、言葉、他者から否定されない場所が必要です。
考えない人がいるのではなく、
考えると壊れてしまうため、考えないことで生き延びている人
もいるのではないでしょうか。
思考停止は怠惰ではなく、防御反応かもしれません。
2．「書く人ほど深く考えている」という前提
記事は、歴史上の偉大な思想家が日記、手紙、宣言、書物を残したことを根拠に、思考と書くことを強く結びつけます。
けれど、人は必ずしも言葉だけで考えるわけではありません。
料理人は味で考え、農民は土で考え、母親は子どもの呼吸で考え、職人は手の抵抗で考え、音楽家は間で考える。
文字として残らなかった思考を「存在しなかった」と見なしてはいないでしょうか。
3．「自分だけの哲学は、既製の思想より自由である」という前提
記事は、伝統や既製の信念体系に自由を預けず、自分自身の哲学をつくることを勧めます。
しかし「自分の哲学」も、言語、階級、文化、アルゴリズム、教育、傷、欲望からできています。
完全に自分だけでつくられた価値観は存在するのでしょうか。
「自分で選んだ」という感覚そのものが、現代の自己啓発市場によって与えられた物語である可能性はないでしょうか。
4つの立場から問い直す
当事者——思考力が衰えたと感じる人
本当に思考力が失われたのでしょうか。
それとも、考える力は残っているが、疲労と不安によって使えなくなっているのでしょうか。
「もっと深く考えなければ」という命令が、新たな自己否定になってはいないでしょうか。
スマートフォンを置いたあと、静けさではなく、孤独や過去の傷が現れる人にとって、気晴らしは敵なのでしょうか。それとも避難所でしょうか。
反対者——この記事を知的エリート主義だと感じる人
誰が「深い思考」と「凡庸な生活」の境界を決めるのでしょうか。
本を読み、文章を書く人だけが目覚めていて、テレビを見て笑い、家族の食事をつくる人は眠っているのでしょうか。
記事へのコメントでも、日常のケア、ものづくり、対話、共同体活動のなかにも意味と思考は存在し、「普通の生活」を病理化する危険が指摘されています。
「人々を目覚めさせる」という言葉は、ときに「私は目覚めており、あなたは眠っている」という上下関係を生まさないでしょうか。
未来世代——AIとともに考える人々
未来の人々にとって、思考するとは「一人で頭の中から独創的な考えを生み出すこと」でしょうか。
それとも、AI、他者、過去の文献、集合知と対話しながら、問いを編集することになるのでしょうか。
AIに文章を書かせることは思考の放棄なのか。
あるいは、自分では届かなかった反対意見や言語に触れる、新しい思考の補助具なのか。
未来世代は、「人間だけで考えること」を本当に自由と呼ぶでしょうか。
最も弱い立場の人——生存に追われる人
戦争、貧困、介護、障害、差別、過酷な労働のなかで暮らす人に、自己哲学をつくる時間はあるでしょうか。
考える余白を持てない人に「あなたは自分を目覚めさせる義務がある」と言うことは、救いでしょうか。それとも新しい罪悪感でしょうか。
思考する自由以前に、
眠る自由
安全である自由
読み書きを学ぶ自由
沈黙しても価値を失わない自由
が必要なのではないでしょうか。
この考えが心地よすぎるとしたら、その盲点
「社会が人間を愚かにしている」という物語は魅力的です。
なぜなら、自分の空虚さ、依存、退屈、孤独を、巨大なシステムの責任として説明できるからです。
しかし盲点は、思考すること自体も快楽や地位になることです。
「私は深く考える人間だ」という自己像が、ショート動画や消費と同じように、自我を満たす商品になる。
さらに、記事は注意経済を批判しながら、最後には不安を入口として哲学講座を案内します。記事へのコメントにも、診断した不安を同じ市場の自己啓発商品として回収しているように見える、という疑問が示されています。
これは著者の誠実さを否定する話ではありません。
むしろ問われるのは、
思考を商品にしなければ、思考を届けられない社会で、批判は市場の外に立てるのか
という矛盾です。
違和感を5層に分ける
1．社会問題の層
注意力が経済資源になった社会で、「自分の意志」はどこまで自分のものなのでしょうか。
問題は個人が考えなくなったことなのか、それとも、考えるための余白が階級によって不平等に配分されていることなのか。
誰かの思考時間は、別の誰かの低賃金労働によって支えられていないでしょうか。
2．身体感覚の層
考えることを避けてスマートフォンに手を伸ばす瞬間、身体は何から逃げているのでしょうか。
退屈、寂しさ、羞恥、恐怖、それとも疲労でしょうか。
思考できない身体に必要なのは、哲学でしょうか。
それとも食事、睡眠、呼吸、触れられる安心でしょうか。
3．歴史の層
過去の人々は、本当に現代人より深く考えていたのでしょうか。
私たちが「偉大な思想の時代」と呼ぶものは、文字を残せた一部の階級の記録ではないでしょうか。
歴史に記録されなかった女性、奴隷、農民、先住民、子どもたちの思考は、どこへ消えたのでしょうか。
4．宗教の層
「自分自身の価値を創造せよ」という思想も、別の信仰ではないでしょうか。
自己を創造する自由と、自己を手放す救いは両立するのでしょうか。
考え続けなければ自由を失うのか。
あるいは、考える者も考えられる対象も空であると見抜いたとき、初めて思考の強迫から自由になるのでしょうか。
5．芸術の層
芸術は思考を深めるものでしょうか。
それとも、思考によって固められた世界を一度壊すものでしょうか。
一冊の哲学書より、一つの和音、一枚の絵、沈黙する身体のほうが、深く世界を変えることはないでしょうか。
「意味を説明できない経験」を、思考の失敗と呼ぶべきでしょうか。
5つの核心的な問い
1．これは本当に問題の中心か
中心にあるのは「人間が考えなくなったこと」でしょうか。
それとも、人間の注意、時間、不安、自己像までもが市場に接続されたことなのでしょうか。
2．誰の声がここで消えているか
文字を書かない人、教育を受けられなかった人、知的障害のある人、幼い子ども、認知症の人、言葉ではなく身体や共同体のなかで世界を理解する人の声が消えていないでしょうか。
彼らは「考えていない」のでしょうか。
3．私は何を前提としてしまっているか
私は、自由とは自分の価値観を自分でつくることだと前提にしていないでしょうか。
自由とは、つくることだけでなく、受け取ること、信頼すること、委ねること、誰かと共に変わることではないでしょうか。
4．便利さの代わりに、何を失っているか
答えをすぐ得られる便利さによって、迷い、熟成、退屈、言いよどみ、間違いながら考える時間を失っているのかもしれません。
しかし同時に、便利さによって、これまで思考から排除されていた人が言葉を得ている可能性もあります。
失ったものだけでなく、誰が新しく参加できたかも問う必要はないでしょうか。
5．この状況に慈悲を入れると、何が変わるか
「考えない人」を愚か者として起こすのではなく、なぜその人が考える余裕を失ったのかを見る。
依存を責める前に、その依存が何を鎮めているのかを聴く。
思考を義務ではなく、安心のなかから自然に芽を出すものとして扱う。
すると問いは、
「どうすれば人々を目覚めさせられるか」
から、
「人が安心して、自分の問いに戻れる世界をどう支えるか」
へ変わります。
空の視点から照見する
「深く考える人」と「考えない人」は、固定した存在ではありません。
覚醒した者も、眠っている者もいない。
あるのは、条件によって立ち現れる思考と、条件によって閉じていく思考です。
アルゴリズムだけが人を眠らせるのではありません。 哲学も、正しさも、「私は目覚めている」という自負も、人を眠らせます。
そして娯楽だけが人を堕落させるのでもありません。 一曲、一杯の食事、くだらない笑いが、凍りついた心を解き、再び考えられる身体へ戻すこともあります。
空から見れば、「思考の死」は一つの実体ではありません。
疲労、労働、市場、傷、技術、言葉、孤独、欲望が縁起して現れている一時的な姿です。
だから、思考を救うとは、正しい哲学を注入することではない。
問いを持てない人を責めず、 問いを持てる条件を共につくり、 問いさえ持たない静けさをも排除しないこと。
最後に残る問いは、こうかもしれません。
思考を取り戻したいと願っている、その「私」は、 いったい誰から、何を取り戻そうとしているのでしょうか。
Interesting read - thanks for sharing. Agree with many points. Some thoughts on the fly =>
Optimistic nihilism may be valuable to a few => lack of life meaning can be liberating. The pessimistic flavor = another matter.
This is hard to accomplish in our interconnected world = “We need to make sure that everything we believe is not simply being used to serve someone else’s interests.” => complex proposal => Can anyone be really sure?
“…everyone should dedicate at least some meaningful portion of their lives to critical self-examination and self-creation.” => many don’t have the time, resources, or ability for this - I understand the positive angle in your advice, but sounds a little idealist to me.