To be more specific, you're doing a couple things at once here: prescriptions for how individuals ought to live their life, and also an attempt to use the same framework for societies, economies, etc. You mention it's universal in this way. There is something right about this, and Aristotle did a fairly good job of outlining what that is (living in balance between different tensions). But I'm highly skeptical that this could be rolled out at a societal level because in order to do that, you need to enshrined it in laws and rules, and you have to deal with collective action problems, etc. Because of this, the advice as it relates to individuals might be wise, but the advice as it relates to society is somewhat naive, especially from a pragmatic/logistic perspective.
Dear David, apologies for the delay, but I have now worked through the article more carefully. First, may I say that you are a great and thoughtful writer. I agree with much of your diagnosis of nihilism (not least because I suffered from it for most of my life). I am an "ideas" guy, so my own diagnosis tends to centre around the ideas that drive the abandonments you talk about. For example, the small but insidious move that scientistic thinkers make: A lack of evidence is evidence of a lack. I've had trouble finding the video, but Elon Musk once said something to the effect of "It's true insofar as it can be proven so". For an engineer, that may be a perfectly fine heuristic, but to a philosopher's ear it's painful (the common metaphysics/epistemology conflation)! This results in the idea that because we tiny humans haven't discovered the root of reality, that there is nothing but randomness, chaos and chance. This might be true, ultimately, but it doesn't follow directly from the evidence we have, so, importantly, it might not be true. The abandonments and the ideas that generate and support them probably can't be disentangled, so I think we're looking at this as two sides of the same coin.
So on to radical alignment. In general, a decent idea. However, there are potential conflicts that expose themselves in your title "Living your truth". YOUR truth is not objective truth, which you seemingly advocate for understanding. YOUR truth, i.e., your specific talents, feelings, desires, etc. may be terribly out of whack with what is actually good for you. You mention polyamory. Some people can do that, it's true. Most people can't. When the latter group attempts it (usually due to a strong desire), there are often deep psychological traumas that arise, and people get pretty far away from their "best selves". So there is a tension here that needs examination. Insofar as we can have conflicting desires, or desires that undermine psychological health, this part of alignment could be as dangerous as it is helpful without the proper analysis. You do mention that this requires deep self-reflection and honesty, but our capacity to delude ourselves is strong and deep.
Then there is the unspoken assumption behind the recommendations: Management. Take, for example this sentence: "This is where the idea of Radical Alignment takes on a broader, more systemic dimension. It means advocating for policies and practices that prioritize the creation and maintenance of strong, vibrant communities - things like co-housing initiatives, community land trusts, and zoning laws that allow for more diverse and flexible living arrangements." Good, so far as it goes, but systems thinkers fall prey to this problem a lot: The idea that the "good" must be managed and enforced, top-down. If tribal groups and authenticity are truly to be driving forces, then we need decentralized systems of governance where decision-making is done at the most local level possible for the issue under consideration. Smart people have a hard time relinquishing control in that way. As Dr. Horrible says, "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." This is the dominant problem of groups like the WEF who have ostensibly good goals ("ostensibly" being the key word here), but clings to the hubris that they must be the ones to force the changes on society (globally, in their case). This type of government by the managerial class is part of the dissolution of western culture, and without addressing the issue we will fall into hell no matter how noble the motivating philosophy might be. At the end of the day, even the most noble philosophy can be turned to evil ends in the hands of the tyrant. This is the truly hard problem. Good philosophies are a dime a dozen. The pragmatics and logistics are another matter entirely. This is why I say, above, that the advice as it relates to society is somewhat naive, especially from a pragmatic/logistic perspective. You seem to think I haven't thought about it enough. Now I'm challenging you to think about it more!
For example, this quote scares the everliving poop out of me:
"At the same time, Radical Alignment also requires us to radically reshape the structures and institutions that govern our lives - from our economic systems and political frameworks to our built environments and social norms. It means creating policies and practices that prioritize the long-term health and well-being of people and planet over short-term profits or political expediency. It means designing our cities, our homes, and our communities in ways that foster social connection, ecological sustainability, and human thriving." This sounds like the kind of thing a person might say who wants to take over the world to make it a better place (like Dr. Horrible). WE need to radically reshape structures and institutions? Who is "we", here? You cite some of my favourite thinkers, but seemingly fail to appreciate this particular part of their warning. This is why Schmactenberger thinks the issue is so nearly intractable. It's not a matter of having a "good" philosophy. Yes, this can help, or be better than a "bad" philosophy, but it doesn't get to the real issues that undermine human flourishing. Moloch will still be by your side if you approach the issue from a systems-design or managerial perspective. Exorcise this from Radical Alignment, and we may have something.
I will. I'll spend more time with it. If you think I've missed something, I'm open to that. I'll work through it. If, after putting in the effort, I still have questions/concerns, may I put them here? If you think they're not off-base at that point I'd love a response. But let's not put the cart before the horse: I'll do the work first.
Of course you can write whatever you like, but I'm not sure what your criticisms are so far. For instance, I cite many things that actively exist right now, so the problem might be more about gaps in your knowledge than mine. But if you have very specific points that you're skeptical about, that could be interesting. In general, I'm not interested in comments like "I'm skeptical that this could work" when "this" is entirely too vague.
Understood. Thank you, by the way, for putting in the effort. If more people were as concerned about the future of humanity, that alone could be a boon.
Excellent communication, David. While reading, I noticed the similarities between the concepts described, and those of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as explained on his paper, “A Theory of Human Motivation.” I very much align with these concepts; they “speak to me.” Thank you!
Good, so far as it goes. But the devil is always in the details, and I don't think this philosophy is novel enough or thorough enough to actually raise us above the cynicism of our age. There is, under the current political milieu, for example, a tension between alignment with the nature of our biology and equity, which you also advocate for. Without digging into the philosophical details of these tensions, Radical Alignment is nothing more than any other utopian ideal, where "if everyone would just think this way the world would be great".
If course, there may be people out there for whom this is eye opening and extremely helpful, so I don't want to diminish the possible benefits of your efforts. And I'm largely in support of the advice. It's just that this is nowhere near through enough or informed enough to do the job it sets out to do.
Others thinking along the same lines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjaXIUHyhOI
To be more specific, you're doing a couple things at once here: prescriptions for how individuals ought to live their life, and also an attempt to use the same framework for societies, economies, etc. You mention it's universal in this way. There is something right about this, and Aristotle did a fairly good job of outlining what that is (living in balance between different tensions). But I'm highly skeptical that this could be rolled out at a societal level because in order to do that, you need to enshrined it in laws and rules, and you have to deal with collective action problems, etc. Because of this, the advice as it relates to individuals might be wise, but the advice as it relates to society is somewhat naive, especially from a pragmatic/logistic perspective.
Think about for a little bit longer ;)
Dear David, apologies for the delay, but I have now worked through the article more carefully. First, may I say that you are a great and thoughtful writer. I agree with much of your diagnosis of nihilism (not least because I suffered from it for most of my life). I am an "ideas" guy, so my own diagnosis tends to centre around the ideas that drive the abandonments you talk about. For example, the small but insidious move that scientistic thinkers make: A lack of evidence is evidence of a lack. I've had trouble finding the video, but Elon Musk once said something to the effect of "It's true insofar as it can be proven so". For an engineer, that may be a perfectly fine heuristic, but to a philosopher's ear it's painful (the common metaphysics/epistemology conflation)! This results in the idea that because we tiny humans haven't discovered the root of reality, that there is nothing but randomness, chaos and chance. This might be true, ultimately, but it doesn't follow directly from the evidence we have, so, importantly, it might not be true. The abandonments and the ideas that generate and support them probably can't be disentangled, so I think we're looking at this as two sides of the same coin.
So on to radical alignment. In general, a decent idea. However, there are potential conflicts that expose themselves in your title "Living your truth". YOUR truth is not objective truth, which you seemingly advocate for understanding. YOUR truth, i.e., your specific talents, feelings, desires, etc. may be terribly out of whack with what is actually good for you. You mention polyamory. Some people can do that, it's true. Most people can't. When the latter group attempts it (usually due to a strong desire), there are often deep psychological traumas that arise, and people get pretty far away from their "best selves". So there is a tension here that needs examination. Insofar as we can have conflicting desires, or desires that undermine psychological health, this part of alignment could be as dangerous as it is helpful without the proper analysis. You do mention that this requires deep self-reflection and honesty, but our capacity to delude ourselves is strong and deep.
Then there is the unspoken assumption behind the recommendations: Management. Take, for example this sentence: "This is where the idea of Radical Alignment takes on a broader, more systemic dimension. It means advocating for policies and practices that prioritize the creation and maintenance of strong, vibrant communities - things like co-housing initiatives, community land trusts, and zoning laws that allow for more diverse and flexible living arrangements." Good, so far as it goes, but systems thinkers fall prey to this problem a lot: The idea that the "good" must be managed and enforced, top-down. If tribal groups and authenticity are truly to be driving forces, then we need decentralized systems of governance where decision-making is done at the most local level possible for the issue under consideration. Smart people have a hard time relinquishing control in that way. As Dr. Horrible says, "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." This is the dominant problem of groups like the WEF who have ostensibly good goals ("ostensibly" being the key word here), but clings to the hubris that they must be the ones to force the changes on society (globally, in their case). This type of government by the managerial class is part of the dissolution of western culture, and without addressing the issue we will fall into hell no matter how noble the motivating philosophy might be. At the end of the day, even the most noble philosophy can be turned to evil ends in the hands of the tyrant. This is the truly hard problem. Good philosophies are a dime a dozen. The pragmatics and logistics are another matter entirely. This is why I say, above, that the advice as it relates to society is somewhat naive, especially from a pragmatic/logistic perspective. You seem to think I haven't thought about it enough. Now I'm challenging you to think about it more!
For example, this quote scares the everliving poop out of me:
"At the same time, Radical Alignment also requires us to radically reshape the structures and institutions that govern our lives - from our economic systems and political frameworks to our built environments and social norms. It means creating policies and practices that prioritize the long-term health and well-being of people and planet over short-term profits or political expediency. It means designing our cities, our homes, and our communities in ways that foster social connection, ecological sustainability, and human thriving." This sounds like the kind of thing a person might say who wants to take over the world to make it a better place (like Dr. Horrible). WE need to radically reshape structures and institutions? Who is "we", here? You cite some of my favourite thinkers, but seemingly fail to appreciate this particular part of their warning. This is why Schmactenberger thinks the issue is so nearly intractable. It's not a matter of having a "good" philosophy. Yes, this can help, or be better than a "bad" philosophy, but it doesn't get to the real issues that undermine human flourishing. Moloch will still be by your side if you approach the issue from a systems-design or managerial perspective. Exorcise this from Radical Alignment, and we may have something.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue.
Typo in this sentence ("as" instead of "has").
https://open.substack.com/pub/daveshap/p/radical-alignment-why-were-miserable?r=3a5qd&selection=4ad05ea0-da69-40a7-9591-3e68e8411e6b&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
I will. I'll spend more time with it. If you think I've missed something, I'm open to that. I'll work through it. If, after putting in the effort, I still have questions/concerns, may I put them here? If you think they're not off-base at that point I'd love a response. But let's not put the cart before the horse: I'll do the work first.
Of course you can write whatever you like, but I'm not sure what your criticisms are so far. For instance, I cite many things that actively exist right now, so the problem might be more about gaps in your knowledge than mine. But if you have very specific points that you're skeptical about, that could be interesting. In general, I'm not interested in comments like "I'm skeptical that this could work" when "this" is entirely too vague.
Understood. Thank you, by the way, for putting in the effort. If more people were as concerned about the future of humanity, that alone could be a boon.
Excellent communication, David. While reading, I noticed the similarities between the concepts described, and those of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as explained on his paper, “A Theory of Human Motivation.” I very much align with these concepts; they “speak to me.” Thank you!
Good, so far as it goes. But the devil is always in the details, and I don't think this philosophy is novel enough or thorough enough to actually raise us above the cynicism of our age. There is, under the current political milieu, for example, a tension between alignment with the nature of our biology and equity, which you also advocate for. Without digging into the philosophical details of these tensions, Radical Alignment is nothing more than any other utopian ideal, where "if everyone would just think this way the world would be great".
If course, there may be people out there for whom this is eye opening and extremely helpful, so I don't want to diminish the possible benefits of your efforts. And I'm largely in support of the advice. It's just that this is nowhere near through enough or informed enough to do the job it sets out to do.