Before I begin, I would like to thank everyone who dedicated their time and attention to my introduction essay, especially those who gave appreciation and encouragement through likes and comments.
In my first essay about civilization, I mentioned the distinction between it and culture, so this time I will expand on this topic and try to provide useful insights. I intend to uphold the humanistic purpose of the term civilization, which is, to my understanding, embedded in it.
There are a dozen of understandings of civilization (and culture). Some think of it exclusively in a technological frame, while others are more allowing and broad. The interceptions and convergence with culture are numerous and unavoidable. Civilization is commonly associated with technology, science, urban settlement (cities) and infrastructure, state, and its institutions, law, administration, and bureaucracy, while culture is with language, ideas, beliefs, morals, arts, poetry, and philosophy. Despite a vast surface of overlay, evidently, the materialistic component of civilization is the main difference. Some very influential writings based on this distinction provide a basis for a critique of modern civilization as rotten, decadent, and anti-human. Afterward, we will exploit one such famous critique through the example of Western civilization and the intertwined relationship between the two terms. Although the primary concern of this essay is the clash of civilization against culture that arose from their separation, I must address the related and unavoidable topic of rapid AI development, which seems highly illustrative for our case.
An imagined order?
You've probably heard about Yuval Noah Harari, a famous Israeli historian (I'm not sure about the philosopher title.) who wrote best-selling books on the history of our species through which he revitalized a concept, although not a new one, that made his work stand out from other books of popular history. Harari offers a philosophical perspective on our history in which the role of fiction is paramount. He views civilization as an imagined order, a myth we have learned to believe to such a degree, that we can rarely recognize its mythical background.
The human species can create stuff out of the blue. We dream an idea into reality by using our imagination and affirm it through our actions, our day-to-day confirmation of this fantasy. Thus the Constitution of the United States of America, Napoleon's Code Civil, the English Magna Carta Libertatum, the UN Charter, or any other written obligation that we obey, are all just ideas we have written on paper and obliged ourselves to respect, at times more to the letter, and sometimes or most of the time, far less vigorously. This explanation of civilization, like most, can be reduced to the atoms of our social orders - norms, which are its building blocks. It is secondary if these norms are written - codified as laws and statutes, forming a logical and rational system - law system, or if they are commonly known rules of behavior - customs (Customary law). Norms and their substrate values have been at the center of probably the most important question of political philosophy - Where legitimacy comes from? Most philosophers have tried themself on this issue. Harari doesn't answer the question directly, but his opinion emerges from his central idea, so the answer is somewhere along the lines that fiction is actually behind legitimacy, that it precedes legitimacy. Fiction is a prerequisite for norms. Harari recognizes the human need for order and employs an evolutionary approach to explain it; according to his book Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind, our ability to enact fictitious rules, meaning rules that have no basis in nature, is responsible for the birth of civilization. Such an intriguing and somewhat believable explanation is actually a simplification that is insufficient and negligent in many aspects, a fiction itself; but that is another story. We mentioned Harari because he pointed to fiction. The biggest fiction we came up with is the concept of time. There is no history, no century, no sense of yesterday and tomorrow, and certainly no civilization without the human mind that thinks within the framework of time. This culprit of human alienation, as Fromm rightfully names it, is the father of our present and past realities, possibilities, and burdens.
A need for a comprehensive insight
When we build a rocket ship, produce new software, or find a cure for a disease, we are involved in civilization just as when we wage wars. You may say that war is the destruction of civilization. Keep in mind, when a war is going on, it is not just lunatic aggression being outwarded; highly challenging planning, meticulous analysis, and risky projections are crucial elements of every war. There are so many products of civilization involved in a war, and war has been the indispensable instrument in all of the history of peoples and politics that we cannot succumb to our idealized sense of what a civilized soul is, and therefore state that civilization is only the bright side of us. What we can say is that civilization, as an achievement of humanity should serve to its benefit, not the other way around. Even the products designed to our advantage can cost us more than they contribute if subject to misuse. We should familiarize ourselves with evil to be able to fight it. On the contrary, the idealized view of civilization serves the purpose of an ideal to pursue; although knowing we can never achieve it; for a good cause is always enough for a civilized soul to fight for it.
Here, I would like to reference David's writings; He pointed to this meaningful aspect of life - That we should gaze at the possibility of bad outcomes, hard luck, and misfortunes, in other words - at all of the malice of destiny; the purpose is not to fulfill a masochistic appetite but to provide a realistic outlook and primarily moral preparation for the hardships of life.
This skill is indispensable for collective action as it is for an individual if we want to steer our development towards human needs. We should fight for this, even though our history shows that our progress has been spontaneous and always ahead of our moral evaluations; nearly all our thoughts about advances made have been post-festum. One day, we may wake up realizing there is no going back. History may leave us only with regret.
Einstein, even though he didn't participate in the Manhattan Project, publicly regretted the words of encouragement he gave it. Besides the scientific genius he was, Einstein had a distinct moral capability and realized what kind of threat to the whole world emerged with the appearance of the atomic bomb. Who is the moral leader of our times? Civilizational leaps cannot be undone; once achieved, these irreversible revolutions change everything. This is why AI and AIG are hot topics that have led to division and, on the margin, to Elon Musk being called a specieist. I must ask: If there is a corporate entity, or a multitude of them, that develops artificial intelligence while in the general public, there is a huge dispute about the possible dangers of this product, human-ending dangers to be more precise, and that doesn't even cause a hiccup for developers, isn't then our future determined by a small group of people, who somehow have the right to decide what is good for us? Many scientific and industrial breakthroughs were contested and feared before they became mainstream. The famous anecdote about people stampeding out of the cinema when they first saw a train approaching them on screen (what an inadvertence of the filmmaker) has always been a picturesque scene that shows our hopeless and laughable fear of the unknown. Still, we should never dismiss our fears abruptly. Our fear is healthy, it reminds us of our nature, and we need this reminder more than ever. If we have people effectively in charge of our future labeling the AI-pessimist as specieist, we can safely say those people suffer from ridiculous self-confidence. How can you simultaneously admit that you do not know all the possibilities of what you are producing, recognize that you don't even understand all the mechanisms your product uses to fulfill its design (?!), and hold a stance for unrestricted development? Does this not constitute irresponsible behavior?
The utility of the distinction
This leads us to the culture vs. civilization distinction. It is by large a cultural problem when Musk and his colleague have completely different perspectives on what they are trying to achieve, namely what transformation in the civilization they want to witness. Musk being called a specieist is a product of a certain cultural dogma. We can derive the layout of such cultural attitude from this labeling and state right away that its adherents believe in equal rights of even the artificial species to compete for the throne with the rest of us. It looks like a good starting point for a science-fiction comedy where these cultural progressivists end up as an incompetent labor force for future robots. Extreme thought examples have always been the tool for philosophical arguments, so we could put forth a question to those people if they would be willing or wishing for such a scenario. I'm sure a few would say yes and they would mean it. This by itself is an unbelievable result of our civilizational and cultural development and diminishing. One day you are losing your voice to convince others of equal rights for all humans, and the next someone wholeheartedly pursues them for things. The boomerang effect represents a lasting feature of civilization.
What are we doing when we're debating an issue? We are evaluating where the truth lies through the scope of our mental abilities and their determinants. Culture as a determinant has an inescapable and vast influence on our mental abilities as we are always within the limits of our mental exposure. This is obvious If we look at cross-cultural studies but also logic. An idea not present in reasoning cannot determine its outcome. One of the biggest changes the internet forced on the world is the narrowing of cross-cultural differences through unifying exposures that the users are under. This process isn't definitive luckily as many forms of cultural content continue to exist outside the internet. Cultures should meet not imitate each other. Nevertheless, those who are culturally conscious can genuinely enjoy the internet, side effects aside. (Which I hope you are doing now).
The role of America as the global leader and role model country can be evaluated by the influence it has on the rest through the internet as its biggest content supplier and a pivotal factor in its development. As always in history, the biggest cultural stage is imitated by smaller ones. The promoters of the ever-so-better thesis and thus of capitalism in its current state and America's influence are eager to explain and persuade others that this role has been largely positive. What their account always lacks is a look at the cultural landscape. Vast freedom, material welfare, and literacy rates don't mean much if what we read, what we say, and what we think is toxic. Our lives have become populated with numerous forms of content of which many are deprived of true meaning. Multiple prominent figures of American capitalism have endorsed an ideology without conscious or at least formal admit. That is the moral of the story of Francis Fukuyama’s' famous book The End of History and the Last Man. Since the war of ideas is over thus only one main political idea is left, that of the winner. This definitive win marks "the end of history". They insist that the world mustn't change direction if it hopes for the better. What bothers me especially is the lack of publicity for the true specialist of civilizational heritage, be it American, European, Asian, national, or common. People who possess profound knowledge of cultural traditions and their intertwines are practically ignored. No American should be insulted by this portrayal, first because when we talk of the world we talk with America in mind, because America is the vanguard of modernity, and second because this is a well-minded portrayal.
The hot topic
After the frivolous first encounter with ChatGPT and the initial disbelief that my PC responds to the most random and unusual questions, I finally reminded myself that I should give it a utility test for my profession, which is the practice of law. Little is to say that I was amazed. I asked the chat to answer some serious dilemmas. The responses were decent, and some exceptional. I haven't resolved the dilemmas but have found the answers helpful and resourceful, while I also learned that setting up questions adequately was half the job. In some areas where my knowledge is basic, I asked for help through an explanation of the key concepts or technical jargon from other professions so I could understand the law better. ChatGPT did the job. On the other hand, one displayed answer was obviously wrong, but after regenerating the response the second reply was on point. It seemed strange all the answers in the area of law were reserved as if the chat has got an imperative not to go over the line. The technology definitely has a bright future and a broad spectrum of possible implementation. I have to go into a contradiction here, as my gut feeling and rational thinking are in opposition. My instincts tell me that AI cannot replace humans in inventiveness, decision-making, and creativity. My rationality alarms me that I have no understanding of the actual process of designing and functioning of this thing, and if there is such strife among the people that are well informed on the matter then I should be worried also. As with everything new, AI can be a good thing, no doubt, if used as a tool properly. In order to be a tool for us, it has to have such a design, and even with such a design, it could still be subject to misapplication.
Can you imagine what AI could produce? Can you envision AI creating YouTube videos and channels plugged into all the data online, fed with millions of books? Could you compete? Can you see it creating policies, determining taxes, writing contracts, reviewing doctorates, being a teacher, and running an online university? AI could teach your children history, assign homework, review it, and grade it. We have already transferred much of our attention to the online world, and looking at the screens for a good part of our day is already shaping our minds as we can see with every new generation that grows into new technologies. What would a child raised by a robot-teacher-safeguard- play buddy-housekeeper be like? Do we know? Can we predict?
- Dad! “RobotAI” is much smarter than you and it never yells at me! How can't you be the same? -
Current digital technology has already tested our psyche to the limit, I find us unfit for this kind of radical jump.
An individual must be highly aware and of strong discipline, to understand the need for moderation in everything in life, especially in the use of social media and arising digital powers. As such individuals, we have to face the fact that moderation is not a quality of modern culture, thus we cannot close our eyes, hope for the best, and let the world go its way. We still collectively haven't figured out how to manage the use of social media to our own benefit, it depends completely on the individual. Even if there was a solution, there is always a problem with the implementation of measures, but I am not the one who thinks control is impossible. I deeply believe people can set boundaries and enforce them if a need for boundaries is common, strong, and clear. Only a culturally emancipated human being knows how and when to say no, which is the definition of a boundary.
The constant rush and where it might lead
Civilization, in its holistic sense, is running for the future non-stop. Stephen Hawking thought it is foolish for us to send signals across space trying to reach aliens as he, with clear common sense, thought they could be well ahead of us in everything and with no reason for benevolence, and that in doing so we are looking for death. Could you say he was foolish? Who knows? No one knows, but best believe someone decides. We will probably never see a referendum on such a matter. Laying low or standing still is a long-lost virtue of ours, the need for rush has prevailed. Sometimes it seems as though we have acknowledged we cannot fix ourselves, and unhappy with the conclusion, we decided to look elsewhere for answers, hoping somewhere in outer space or through the power of quantum computers we can find the fix we could never invent - the remedy for us. I'm sorry for you, my dear readers as I am for myself, for setting such a dystopian tone but sometimes, as we said already, it is of use to face the ugly however slightly possible we might find it to be. It is a civilized soul’s duty.
Our lives have been revolutionized a dozen times. Cognitive, agricultural, industrial, and scientific revolutions just to name a few. We are now well ahead on our way to a biological revolution simultaneously with the revolution in artificial intelligence. It is speculated that it can take us even further, we have manipulated everything around us, including the atoms, but now, we brace for the final step - manipulating our genome, our own substance. That would be the end of one history - the end of Homo sapiens, and the birth of new species.
Now, let's briefly exhibit a famous critique of Western civilization, so you can have an unusual and different perspective on the issues mentioned; that of Oswald Spengler. Why Western, you may ask, why not the Eastern, the Greek, or the American? Well, the West is to be applauded for most of the wonders of the modern era. The French Revolution brought a philosophical and lasting reorientation of our worldview, it happened in the West, the Industrial Revolution happened in the West, Scientific, and Technological revolutions also, and the whole spiral of inventiveness has been spurred in the Western epicenters. Spangler made a strong statement that when civilization outgrows culture, which is happening now, the self-destruction of society is imminent. For him, culture is the essence and civilization is the means. When means far outreach the essence they eventually swallow it. What is left is something unworthy of human life. The cultural substrate, meant to empower men enough so that a beneficial usage of the products is assured, is in the end eaten up by the products, as culture cannot catch up to production, because it turns out our creative genius is no match for his inventive counterpart.
The view from the periphery and the dark side of civilization
This unparalleled progress in the West has created complacency, something very strange to the eye of the periphery. To that eye, it seems as though the West has gone wild in searching for the better like it has no time to stop and enjoy, no time to get used to what is made. This virus exploded throughout the planet. Some think there is simply too much. Spengler argues that this Western thing that started great has reached the point of a bad trade-off. In his time Spangler saw that, If I could interpret it, our moral evaluations have nothing to offer this unbelievable progress. Spengler and Will Durant shared a similar view regarding the decadence of civilization, finding that it dies off in later stages due to the softening of moral criteria mostly by the promotion of ever-so-greatly conformism. A famous fatalistic quote from Durant states: "(A) civilization is born stoic but dies epicurean." Resolute in culture versus civilization dichotomy, Spengler argued that when civilization outgrows culture, the fall is approaching fast.
We have not figured out some ancient problems, the very same questions burden us, but we are on the brink of changing our genome, imputation of the genes. Can anyone sincerely conceive that a man who is prone to feeling shame or to being anxious is going to be able to determine the shape of his offspring? Could it be that we could want to cut off these undesirable deformities and create humans without them? No unnecessary emotions, no unpleasant odors, no shameful sizes, and shapes. This individuation, some awkward Jungian concept, this overcoming, why not end this nonsense? Instead of this inexhaustible field of human suffering maybe we could just euthanize what is clearly a biological and evolutionary obsolete. Happiness is the goal of life after all. I have probably gone too much down the Huxley-inspired stream of thought. Anyways, Huxley is the successor of Spangler as he made a picturesque literary representation of Spangler's theory through his classic novel Brave New World.
The Role of Davids and Don Quixotes
The old story says that once a youngster confronted a giant in a no-chance battle and won. There is truth in David as there is in Don Quixote. David goes to the battle that life throws at him with impossible odds, equipped only with a sharp mind and determination. Don Quixote lives in his own world, far from everyday reality, in an outcry for the past, deluded in the belief in the virtues long gone, his problems are his creation. Throwing a stone and tilting at windmills share a purpose. Although vastly different in many ways these texts are the manifesto of people who believe in their idea of the sense more than it is rationally justifiable. They have a sense for themselves, a sense that needs defense against the truths of the crowd. A giant has fallen, and windmills have been defeated.
We need to enrich, strengthen and promote the culture of overcoming our fallenness through mastering the virtues. If Spengler is right, then we must coat the materialistic products of civilization with culture. Cultural decline impoverishes life. We should be in a hurry to raise our culture from the rut. Too many people are forced to believe they are born perfect although they don't really feel like it. The truth is that there is something wrong even with your shrink. We all have something to work on in this life and life lived in a strive to get away from this is a shame. The readers of Existential Espresso have enrolled in this course. Don't be surprised when you find some weak spots you were not expecting to discover in yourself and never shy away from them. This platform promotes honesty, a look in the mirror, and holding your own shoulders when there is no one to do it. Get a firm grip and shake.
Free Resources:
Free ebook: The Lost Art of Reading
Paid Resources:
The Art of Showing Up: A Clear and Practical Method for Mastering Consistency
The Gold Pill: Timeless Ideas for a Life Worth Living
If you enjoy Existential Espresso, there is zero-cost support in the form of subscribing, liking this post, commenting if you have any thoughts on it, and of course sharing this with anyone who would find it interesting.
Or you can consider becoming a paid supporter of Existential Espresso for 5$ per month. By doing this you would be helping me to keep investing time into researching and writing all the content on the daily basis.
What you get by becoming a paid supporter is access to the members-only essays (such as “Why Having a Price on My Head Didn’t Upset Me”or “Why Living With a Bulletproof Vest is The Best Thing to Ever Happen to Me”), as well as an opportunity to recommend topics for future essays.
However, even taking the time out of your day to read what I have to share with you means more to me than you can imagine. Thank you.
Civilization against Culture
You’ve completely explained my thoughts on current events in our global civilization. I was thinking about writing about this before, but you’ve done a better job of writing this.