The Solution to Superficiality

What is the reason for the growing superficiality of the intellectual sphere, and what could be the solution to this? How might a secular combination of prophecy and philosophy look? On the history of methods - as the deepest history of the development of ideas

The world according to followers of the Flat Earth movement (Source)

The tendency of intellectuals to rely more and more on grand summaries of ideas, on Wikipedia, on intermediaries, and therefore to create larger and more superficial generalizations and syntheses themselves, is a product of the acceleration of intellectualism, not a decline in talent. That is - if in the past you could acquire all the knowledge of the past and almost no new knowledge was being created in the present that needed to be followed, now a growing part of the intellectual's time is spent tracking knowledge in the present and updating at the expense of deepening in the past. All this is due to the more parallel nature of intellectual computation, from the multiplication of processors (minds) and their connection in the present, and not their connection in the future, as was customary in the past. Then a thinker was a spearhead and later others would connect him to others and make syntheses. Meaning the computational connections between processors were made in future time and not in space in the present, and in general intellectual life was on a time axis, from the past along generations, and less on a space axis, between different cultures or parallel thinkers. Therefore, they were less political and more personal, with a sense of continuity and not a sense of nothingness, because being a point on the timeline is a very important thing, the only connector between all the past and all the future, whereas a point in space is nullified in comparison.

Therefore, any addition of a time dimension to contemporary space gives it depth, and any negation of it makes it superficial. Any addition of a time dimension gives meaning and any negation of it turns into despair. The impatient intellectual is an idiot, because he nullifies the time dimension of the future and wants the world to stop soon, in some idea of his for example, and he is unable to look beyond, to the horizon of time. Also, one who thinks there is no horizon (beyond which the future can no longer be seen) is an idiot, because if what was is what will be - he flattens time. The ability to give a horizon that is not immediately close, but also not infinite, is the new depth dimension that is possible for us, not towards the past, but towards the future, and not the near but the medium. This is the ability to imagine a future, to stretch surprising trends in a surprising way, to propose a future, to say what is needed. This is the new morality that is not of the present (like humanistic morality), or of the past (like religious morality) - but the morality of the future.

The religious morality of the future denied the horizon, the inability to see beyond a certain time, and thought that one could see forever (until the end of days). This futuristic failure of it was perhaps an initial combustion engine of redemptive tension, but also a time bomb that eventually brought secularism, because the Messiah did not come and did not return (hence secularization is less strong in Islam). But is the horizon getting so close that we can't see forward beyond the moment? Not exactly, acceleration actually allows us to see processes, and even if speed perhaps limits the time until which we can see, it does not limit the distance (because in the same time we will cover more distance). Therefore, seeing the future, prophecy, needs to become the central field in philosophy, and this is a way to paint learning. To give a visual dimension to the development of ideas.

The opposition to hierarchy in space (for example between cultures), caused flattening, but hierarchy in time will allow new depth - in the dimension of time, in the direction of the future. And this is by creating specific goals for learning, and not just methods. This is despite the fact that the history of the development of methods is a deep history of ideas, the learning of learning itself, the development of development, which is acceleration. For example, we still don't have an understanding of the development of secondary learning mechanisms within evolution, and there is a superficial perception as if it is built on the same learning engine and method throughout (despite the plausibility of the alternative: for example, the development of the way mutations are created and controlled throughout evolution. That is, evolution of the evolutionary method itself - evolution of evolution). But precisely if we set a non-methodological goal in the future, for example if the goal of learning is to create another book on the scale of the Bible or the Iliad, or to create artificial intelligence, this allows cultural hierarchy in the present from the future. And so in evolution too, if we set as a goal a person with an IQ of 1000.