This reminds me of Adorno and Horkheimer’sThe Dialectic of Enlightenment, which argues, for some of the same reasons you do, that “Enlightenment is totalitarian.” A piece that feels particularly related:
For the Enlightenment, whatever does not conform to the rule of computation and utility is suspect.
They would probably say “alienation” rather than “externalization,” but have some of the same criticisms.
(I don’t endorse the Frankfurt School or critical theory. I just wanted to note the similarities.)
One thing to consider is moral and epistemic uncertainty. The EA community already does this to some extent, for instance MacAskill’s Moral Uncertainty, Ord’s Moral Parliament, the unilateralist’s curse, etc. but there is an argument that it could be taken more seriously.
It ties neatly into one of my major concerns with my piece -whether it can be interpreted as anti-rationality / a critique of empiricism (which is not the intention).
My reflexive reaction to the claim that “enlightenment is totalitarian” is fairly heavy scepticism (whereas, obviously, I lean in the opposite direction as regards to EA), so I’m curious what distinctions there are between the arguments made in Dialectic and the arguments made in my piece. I will have a read of Dialectic and think through this further.
This reminds me of Adorno and Horkheimer’sThe Dialectic of Enlightenment, which argues, for some of the same reasons you do, that “Enlightenment is totalitarian.” A piece that feels particularly related:
They would probably say “alienation” rather than “externalization,” but have some of the same criticisms.
(I don’t endorse the Frankfurt School or critical theory. I just wanted to note the similarities.)
One thing to consider is moral and epistemic uncertainty. The EA community already does this to some extent, for instance MacAskill’s Moral Uncertainty, Ord’s Moral Parliament, the unilateralist’s curse, etc. but there is an argument that it could be taken more seriously.
This is a really interesting parallel—thank you!
It ties neatly into one of my major concerns with my piece -whether it can be interpreted as anti-rationality / a critique of empiricism (which is not the intention).
My reflexive reaction to the claim that “enlightenment is totalitarian” is fairly heavy scepticism (whereas, obviously, I lean in the opposite direction as regards to EA), so I’m curious what distinctions there are between the arguments made in Dialectic and the arguments made in my piece. I will have a read of Dialectic and think through this further.