The term 'artificial intelligence' belongs to the same class of concepts like, for example, 'people's democracy'. The adjective changes everything. Just as 'people's democracy' was essentially a totalitarian system, it was therefore on the opposite pole in relation to what constitutes the encyclopedic definition of democracy. Similarly, 'artificial intelligence' term is used for essentially automatic – programmed systems, and therefore close to concepts such as 'unreflective' or 'instinctive'. That is also the opposite of what we expect from the human intelligence. And this was the genesis of the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) and such expectations are still being formulated.
Driving a vehicle requires understanding of the World (surrounding us reality). This is fundamental statement, which has to be clearly and deeply understood. When we do understand it, along with the limitations of the computers, then the solution I want to propose shall become obvious and inevitable.
There is something wrong with economics. We have (had) plenty of economic theories. Many attempts to describe what happens there. Often contradictory. Yet, none of them proved reliable. At least, for a longer period. Can we then speak of economics as of a science? If it leads to nothing as trustworthy as physics, for instance? To what degree? Is the complicated economic mathematics justified? If we answer these questions, we can then ask what does it tell us about our reality. Why is it, as it is.
The virtue of humility, once well-known and practiced, today disregarded and forgotten. Replaced by its opposite – assertiveness. Was it a wise move for the mankind? Is humility really obsolete and unnecessary? What are the results of the lack of humility for a person and for a society? It may seem impractical to ask such questions in the era of success and continuous development. When everything seems to confirm, that we are right.
The modern Western world loves the (cultural) diversity. Sometimes, it is ready to resign of (and forget) its own true achievements, to promote diversity. But are there no exceptions? How about democracy? A Western system of government which is considered as perfect for everyone – no matter the cultural diversities. Is it true that the modern (liberal) democracy is suitable for everyone? Especially, that there were (and still are) other pretenders to the title of ‘the perfect system’ – like the more or less orthodox communism or the sharia law.
Our modern world had begun with the dawn of the Age of Reason. It was then, when the fundamental assumptions had been made and the direction of the progress chosen. We may not realize that, but the modern Western worldview, the answers which a typical citizen of the West gives to questions concerning our reality, world order, our past and our future stem from the Age of Enlightenment. The way we think about ourselves, politics, society, economy, and so on; had been largely decided during the epoch of Enlightenment.
In my text "Economics as a science" I argued that economics (and social sciences in general) is not a science. How stupid of me. Everybody knows, that economics is a very prominent science. Every university teaches that. Questioning this fundamental and obvious knowledge is a sheer lunacy. There are hundreds of wise texts, written by wise people, who wisely prove that economics is a science. What is then, a single text against all these wise publications? Clearly: nothing. Reassured by such stipulation, we can try to look at one of such publications.
The term “philosophy” according to its Greek origin means: “love of wisdom”. And this is what philosophy should be. The space for correct, true – that is: wise answers. How could it happen then, that the phrase: “stop philosophizing” in many languages means simply: “enough foolishness”? It is not an easy task to turn a term into its opposite. But philosophers somehow did manage. “Philosophy”, “philosophical” became synonyms for words like: useless, worthless, unproductive. And the (post-enlightenment) philosophy truly deserves it. Therefore, I need the adjective “practical” to show a distinction, to return to the original – opposite to the contemporary – meaning.
Materialism is also called physicalism, nowadays. This other name is more descriptive. It tells us, that physics (mathematics) should give us answer to every question. That every phenomenon can be fully described in the physical domain, only. This is the statement of faith for many people of the West. Yes. Physicalism IS a statement of faith. A blind faith, which contradicts reality. In this text, I’ll provide a more thorough explanation, why we cannot accept physicalism and stay on the ground of rigorous, rational reasoning.
“I am an overman” along with “God is dead” was the starting point of Nietzsche’s intellectual journey (his philosophy). God – a vivid and central point of the preceding epoch – had been put to death at the dawn of Enlightenment. The fathers of Enlightenment had said to humanity: “God is needless, (the enlightened) people alone can rule the Universe”. And Nietzsche’s overman goes in the first row of the enlightened thinkers. It is easy to see that both – his fundamental assumptions as well as the way of reasoning they render – are the backbone of Enlightenment. And if so, then the question: “Where does the Enlightenment lead to?” could be answered by the findings of Nietzsche’s journey. Let’s travel his way, then.
The true and only end of the Übermensch way – the Abyss. Way – as a way of living – cause this is a way of living. One have to spend quite a lot of time over years on thinking (philosophizing). It’s like a second job. But could this way have a different ending? Not, unless someone loses one’s way. More precisely – if one stops before the end, or if one is unable to reach the end. Why am I so sure? Because the truth about reality is to be found. “Seek and ye shall find”. It requires time, effort, toil. But, one way or another – if you want, you’ll find the truth. And the Abyss is part of this truth.