Philosophy

“It’s in my DNA” has become the all-purpose explanation for anything that repeats across a family or a civilization: a talent, a temperament, a taste for bread and wine, a tendency to slip on the same wet bar of soap three generations running. The phrase borrows the authority of genetics to describe something that is usually just a stable environment, a copied habit, or an unexamined tradition, and the borrowing is not innocent. Calling a pattern genetic quietly removes it from the category of things anyone chose, or could still change. …

It is tempting to treat techno-accelerationism and technofeudalism as opposites. One says the machine should run faster, further, past every institutional brake; the other says the machine has already been captured, reorganized around rent, extraction, and centralized control. One sounds like the dream of total release. The other sounds like a diagnosis of total domination. But the more interesting possibility is that they are not opposites at all — that they are two projections of the same underlying myth, told from either side of the same platform. …

Historians of the Weimar Republic have a habit of dating its death more than once — 1929, when the crash hit; 1930, when parliamentary government effectively stopped functioning; 1932, when unemployment cracked thirty percent; 1933, when a chancellorship that was supposed to be containable turned out to be irreversible. The dates keep multiplying because no single one explains the whole collapse; each was a head, and severing it did not kill the thing underneath. A century later it has become common to feel that we are living through some recombination of those same years — not as literal repetition, since nothing repeats literally, but as a shape recurring under new names. It is the Lernaean Hydra of Apollodorus’s telling, which grows two heads for every one cut off, until Heracles’ companion Iolaus learns to sear each stump with fire before a new head can form. The comparison is not decoration. It states an actual problem: what does resistance mean against a structure that regenerates from opposition itself? …

The English word “BS” has become one of the most successful insults in the language. It is not merely a synonym for falsehood. It is a way of refusing the dirty weight of a more vulgar word while still naming the same condition. In Spanish, mierda carries the smell of the body and the street. In French, merde carries the bluntness of matter and the ugly dignity of the real. English gives us BS, crisp, abstract, almost courteous. It is a very elegant way of saying that something is full of air. …

The modern habit is to treat truth as a proposition: state it clearly, make it testable, keep it stable enough to repeat. If that were the only kind of truth that mattered, though, several of history’s most consequential teachers would count as failures. Kierkegaard buried his own convictions under pseudonyms instead of signing them. The Buddha told his followers to discard the doctrine once it had done its work. The Gospel of Mark has Jesus explain that he speaks in parables specifically so that some listeners will not understand. And George Carlin, four syllables at a time, spent a career making an audience wince before they laughed. None of this looks like the court, the laboratory, or the essay of evidence. It looks like something built on purpose to not explain itself — and the purpose is the whole point. …

If you could go back in time, what would you change? I have already taken that one seriously and found the premise collapsing under its own weight — you don’t actually have access to the past you’d be fixing. The superpower question is the other classic, and it looks easier: no physics to argue with, no information theory to invoke, just a straight ask. If you could have any power, what would you choose? People answer it at parties without thinking twice. Flight, usually. Invisibility, if they’re being honest about themselves. Mind-reading, if they’re not being honest about anything else. But the question is not really testing your imagination. It is testing your relationship to reality — what you think is wrong with it, and what kind of fix you’ve decided is plausible. …

Ask why the week has seven days and most people will shrug, then invent a justification after the fact — something lunar, something biblical. The honest answer is that nobody currently alive decided it, and neither did anyone in living memory, which is exactly the condition under which a decision stops registering as a decision. The calendar, the alphabet, the seven-day week, the nation-state, the categories you reach for without noticing you’re reaching — all of it was built by someone, for a reason, at a moment in history you could in principle point to. And every one of them has reached a state where asking who built it, and why, sounds like a strange question to be asking at all. …

A stranger stopped me in the middle of the street a few days ago to offer, free of charge, peace — provided, they clarified, by a reputable third party. I don’t remember taking whatever was being handed out, but the pitch outlasted the moment: someone had made explicit what the rest of the culture usually only implies, that peace is a good somebody else already owns and is willing to pass along, if you’ll just stop long enough to hear the terms. …

Run a simple substitution: everywhere the word “Buddhism” appears, write “Awakeism” instead. Everywhere “Christianity” appears, write “Anointedism.” Nothing about either religion has changed — only the name, translated instead of transliterated. And yet something breaks. Awakeism sounds like a wellness retreat. Anointedism sounds like a fringe sect. The exercise costs nothing and reveals a great deal: how much of a name’s authority comes not from what it means but from the fact that it doesn’t, to English ears, mean anything at all. …

In 1966, at a symposium called “Man the Hunter,” the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins stood up with data other people had already collected — Richard Lee’s fieldwork among the Dobe Ju/‘hoansi of the Kalahari, the Arnhem Land studies from Australia — and said the quiet part out loud. Foragers routinely described as living at the ragged edge of subsistence were, in fact, meeting their needs on something like fifteen to twenty hours of work a week, and spending the rest of their waking hours resting, talking, and doing nothing in particular. Sahlins published the argument, expanded, in Stone Age Economics (1972) under a title designed to sting: “the original affluent society.” Not affluent because foragers had much, but affluent because they wanted little and got it without the compulsion the word “work” now implies. The finding embarrassed a whole civilizational story in which agriculture and industry had liberated humanity from want. They hadn’t. They had invented a new way of being busy, and then made the busyness feel like fate. …