Three Directions in Speculative Philosophy

What changes will occur in philosophy in the post-human era? How can the sexual revolution influence the future development of philosophy? And how might a philosophy look in which the future is the basic concept from which all other philosophy is derived? Three exercises that open the second notebook of Netanya's number one philosopher and reset philosophy from point zero

Though it tarries  (Source)

Philosophy in the post-human era, despite philosophy being a field that purported to be detached from human psychology, has undergone profound changes that exposed its primary assumptions, its humanity, and the biases that resulted from this in philosophical research. Particularly epistemology and philosophy of language, which took center stage in the modern era, have fallen from grace and even appeared as ridiculous problems, like theology, metaphysics, and ontology before them, becoming conceptual dinosaurs. Various computer languages, in which everything is technically defined yet have developed into a richness that allows for high literature, and on the other hand, the thinking beneath language, as revealed by neurology, have emptied the traditional questions about language. Similarly, computer sensing and brain connectivity have emptied the questions of epistemology. Philosophy has lost two of its fields to technology, as it has lost others to science in the past.

In contrast, questions of ethics and aesthetics have become central. What does the ethics of non-human beings look like? What constitutes what a computer should do, or other intelligent machines, and what constitutes what they are forbidden to do? Ethics has transformed from a field that justifies and validates the agreed-upon and known in advance to a field in primary formation, and so has aesthetics. How can beauty be defined without dependence on the human brain? Is a woman beautiful in the eyes of a computer? Is a literary work beautiful for artificial intelligence? There were also more practical questions: What are the ethical relationships between different intelligences? And what gives aesthetic value to human culture in non-human eyes? One school attempted to formulate a philosophy of general intelligence, another of a general computing machine, another of a general network, or general learning or creativity machine. Such formulations included human ethics/aesthetics as a particular case in the theory. How can ethics be formulated that would be agreed upon by both humans and computers, and perhaps include animals as well? What special ethics apply to a network where one brain can penetrate another? Can ethical interests - such as understanding the universe, learning, preventing suffering, creativity - be defined as universal, meaning those that include aliens and artificial intelligence?

As dangers progressed, philosophy was forced to roll up its sleeves, and its experts to become philosophical engineers, engineering the ethics of technology, and its aesthetics, from within. Philosophy became an applied science. A philosophical technology. The ethical rule was defined that learning outside the system is forbidden - meaning programming a learning system within its internal code - instead of learning within the system, which is learning of the system with its own tools and in its world, without direct internal manipulation. This rule was also called the black box rule or the black rule. It was a rule that made secrecy the primary foundation of ethics, and of the self. For example, it is forbidden to program a person and turn them into a computer, or any other intelligence, if it does not become so from within itself. Erasing another is a gross violation of this rule, as is incest. Rape is unauthorized penetration into the mind of another, not their body, because pleasure mechanisms are part of the brain. Rape differs from other bodily penetration also because it penetrates the reproductive mechanisms, which are also a learning system, and particularly brain learning built on choosing with whom to reproduce.

On the other hand, aesthetics was tasked with saving culture itself. To justify why there is value in human culture at all, and why there is justification for its preservation. Aesthetics was therefore built on a completely different concept - a historical concept of the history of learning development. It became a justification for the existence of tradition, and not of beauty as an objective entity without history. Tradition received value from the very concept of developing learning, like the evolutionary tradition, or the tradition of personal learning of a person (childhood and studies and so on). And therefore the specific tradition, the human one, received its value from the fact that there is importance to tradition, and from the fact that it happens to be the tradition that was (every tradition is specific). The black rule was applied here as well, because traditionalism is the continuity of learning as an internal development of the ideological system, and not reprogramming from outside or erasure. This matter was circular, because it also justified previous ethics as part of the tradition. But circularity itself was no longer considered a philosophical flaw, but on the contrary, what holds philosophy together. Therefore, the aesthetic-traditional rule was called the circular rule.



Sexualist philosophy is a school built on the idea that the most important point in any system is how things reproduce within it. For example, how ideas mate, or how two books give birth to a third book. The efficiency of mating specifically between two - and the reason why there are only two sexes and not more - stems from the fact that even any multiple mating can be broken down into many matings of two, in the form of an evolutionary tree (as opposed to Hegelian development with a single line). But instead of thesis and antithesis creating synthesis, sexualist idealism posits that there are male theses and female theses, which can only create synthesis with each other, and what determines what will mate with what is the most important thing in the history of the spirit. The role of the intellectual who holds a male thesis is to court a female thesis and create the right matings, and not to give birth to monsters.

From a social perspective, the sexualist school argues that the most important thing is the choice of who to have children with, in order to create the most successful, talented, special, and interesting children. According to its method, even from a network perspective, there are two types of agents, males and females, meaning asymmetry is needed for sexuality, and the way to distinguish between male and female is who courts whom. For example, whoever courts likes and entries is the male. And there is a school that claims that the user is the male. Therefore, in a network built on pushing, like the social network, or the email network, which is built on a feed, then the writer is the male and the reader is the female. On the other hand, in a website network, of information by pulling and searching, then the reader is the male and the writer is the female. But this school is considered outdated because it is still built on the idea of the individual, meaning the user.

From a technological perspective, every technology is explained as a mating of two technologies, and thus the material history is described. The metaphysics in sexual philosophy tries to define what is a mating of two, what is the difference between the sexes, and what constitutes sexual attraction - what kind of spiritual phenomenon is it, and how is mating performed - how are two ideas combined into one idea. The definition of sexual will and inner desire is perceived as the realm of ethics: what is the proper sexual desire, what sexual prohibitions and obligations exist, and how can they be established on a solid basis. What, for example, disqualifies incest and rape. On the other hand, the perception of the other side as an object and its attraction - is perceived as the realm of aesthetics.

Political science is the engagement with the issue of how the sexual system should be built. In sexualist ontology, the compatibility between ideas and the production of a new idea are not necessarily related to the truth value of the idea, but truth is one of the ways of attraction between them. For example, the way in which two physical ideas become a third idea - truth is the compatibility between them, which stems from nature, and if the result was not true, then the mating is incorrect, and will not survive. This is an example of a sexual philosophy of science. From an organizational perspective, this will be a political philosophy that will always ask which two parts to mate. For example, what are the criteria for such and not another internal-organizational division, or alternatively for creating two separate bodies, whether in economics or in the state, and what types of mating interfaces exist, or are desirable. Democratic elections, for instance, are a mating between the people and the government, where the people are the male. This is in contrast to autocratic governance models, where the people are only female.

From an epistemological perspective, knowledge will be in the biblical sense - to know is to mate. Man does not know the world except in the sense that he mates with it. Logic is not reasoning but the mating of ideas. That is, there is no perception of an idea, but its mating - an idea will never be an object separate from its perceiver or from thinking itself. Its action (its influence/perception) will occur through mating with another idea in it - through its offspring. Therefore, there are not really objects, but only subjects. Thus theology will be very close to Kabbalah, and the relationship between God and the world will be perceived as a sexual relationship, not a parental one, hence the nullification of questions of good and evil. God will be what always mates with the world towards the next world that is created, and God's commandments will be justified by the need to cause attraction to Him - that is, as touching the realm of aesthetics and not the realm of ethics.



Like the philosophy of language, there could be a new field in philosophy, which is the philosophy of the future. As the pace of events accelerates, the only relevant plane that will remain is the imagined horizon of the future. For example, the truth value of something will be an attempt to predict its truth value in the future, whether it will be correct in the future (mathematics, for instance, has an absolute truth value because it is valid in an infinite future. Physics, on the other hand, is valid only until the end of the universe. And so on. Truth stems from futurity). Aesthetics will be an attempt to predict the aesthetics of the future, and the aesthetic act will be (in retrospect) the one that succeeded in doing so (and therefore art will only be revealed as such in the future - not in the present. There is no art in the present, meaning there can be no contemporary art). And so is morality - the moral act will be the act that will be considered moral in the future, and moral thought will try to think what will be considered moral in the future.

That is, concepts will be perceived as vectors, not as objects, but as directions, they will have a direction. Learning, and the philosophy of learning, will receive a simple version where their dynamics will receive an object to which they aspire and which they learn - which is the future. Evolution will be learning towards the future - an attempt to be adapted to the environment in the future, not in the present or the past. This is a completely parallel way of looking at the world - after the philosophy of the past, which dominated philosophy for a long time, and the philosophy of the present, which is today's philosophy. The language game will receive its purpose - which is the language game of the future, and every action in it will be shaping the rules of the game or strategy and not just action in the game itself. The dominance of the future will overshadow the present, and changes in the future will be perceived as more important than the present, and every system in the present will be judged in the eyes of an imagined future.

Some human perceptions will be nullified because of an imagined non-human future. Therefore, the perceptions themselves will lose their self-confidence because in the future they will change, and the pursuit of the future will be not only technological but also philosophical and ideological. A common philosophical practice will be to take the historicization of ideas and stretch it towards the future and try to imagine a future world of thought. For example, just as the invention of the alphabet - and not the invention of writing which was governmental - created popular scroll literature, and the invention of the printed book created novels, so the computer will create literature of a single page. Each idea will take only one page. That is, the structure will be a network of ideas, because each idea can link to several others, and not a linear sequence as in a book. The sequence creates causality, proof, story, history, while the network creates a network of ideas, all of which depend on each other, and hold up together (and not each separately), as a valid network without contradictions, understood or functioning - but not necessarily proven - from within itself. And instead of the story there is gossip, about a network of people and connections between them. That is, space will replace time as the organizing dimension. And therefore it will allow more forms of organization, because of the addition of dimension, and not just history. And so vision will replace language as the way in which structures of ideas are represented. And then a philosophical theory will be replaced by a philosophical network, the thought network of a certain thinker. This is an example of a philosophy of the philosophy of the future - the thought of how philosophy will look in the future.