I had some thought adjacent to that. One day, maybe (probably not) I’ll write a polished version of it somewhere. In the meanwhile, here is a draft. Core idea is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, but psychological development position" :
1. Pre-theoric phase. Children and most societies for most of the time. You take the world as-is. Children takes adults at their word, societies relies blindly on traditions.
2. Ideological phase. Adolescent rebellion of "We Can Rebuild the World, Better". In societies, it’s that period when mass movements reshape most institutions. The French Revolution in France, the Weimar Republic & Third Reich in Germany, both Garibaldi and Mussolini in Italy.
3. The pragmatic disillusion. "The world is actually more complicated that that, our simplistic ideas made quite an embarrassing mess". Still, can’t go back to the pre-theoric phase either. Most adults, most modern societies. A pragmatism that veers into cynicism and/or nihilism (depending on individuals), where it’s *cringe* to Take Ideas Seriously (cynicism is a corollary because if it’s not ideas that shape the world, it obviously has to be money and power, right ? Weirdly blind to the fact that it’s Big Ideas that have shaped the immediate past, even if the Big Ideas didn’t lived up to their aspirations).
4. Wisdom. Ideas matter and should drive action, but we are not omniscient and the world is not solipsistic. Max Stirner is the one that has described the mindest in the best way, I think : "your ideas are yours, you should not be a slave to them". Modern rationalism (lesswrong-style) is probably the best way to bootstrap an individual there ? (fake frameworks, superposition of hypothesis in particular). We have no societies at this stade (yet, hopefully). Such a society would take Climate Change seriously without going into "and therefore we need to Dismantle Capitalism" failure mode, and Bryan Caplan do not have to write "The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets" in that world because that’s already obvious.
And in light of this : I think you’re way too harsh on poor Peter Thiel.
You frame it as "poor guy is sad that he’s not a dicator and that sometimes somewhere people push back". But that’s wrong. He’s not lamenting that we do not live yet in a Robardian Anarcho-Capitalism Paradise. He’s lamenting that education has no measurable effect whatsoever. Essentially, he’s lamenting the "pragmatist, grisled, cynicist societies don’t take any idea seriously". And he’s right. He’s not lamenting that he has not mind-controlled the entirety of humanity to transform them into Randroids, he’s lamenting that some of the trivially and obviously correct libertarians ideas are regressing, despite the counterarguments to them being Obvious Nonsense (but popular Obvious Nonsense !). And he’s right.
You can make libertarians 80% happy with basic, obvious, trivial ideas that should be table stakes. Government budget should be balanced. Property rights are important, so it should not be an constant uphill battle (that they’re winning, yes, but still a battle) for the rich to not be taxed to death. You should be allowed to Build Things without paying as much in regulatory compliance than in wages & raw materials combined.
This is not an endorsement of Libertarianism as the Correct Ideology ! You can make also at the same time make liberals 80% happy too with basic, obvious, trivial ideas that should be table stakes. Basic social safety net, simple environmental & workplace safety regulations, minorities rights, public transit.
But we don’t get much of that because of all that smells too much of Big Ideas, and therefore not pragmatic and therefore not realistic enough for our level-3 society. Also, notice that liberals are (slowly, at the price of great efforts and a lot of Dark Arts Epistemology) somewhat getting their reasonable ideas implemented (along with their unreasonable ones), and libertarians are not. Explains the depth of his despair too.
Just wanted to say how deeply your piece resonated with me. The way you outlined the psychological arc of idealists in democratic societies. It put words to a struggle many of us quietly live through.
I was so moved that I wrote a Chinese reflection piece inspired by your framework, adapting it to the social and institutional context, for introducing your work to Taiwanese community.
I had some thought adjacent to that. One day, maybe (probably not) I’ll write a polished version of it somewhere. In the meanwhile, here is a draft. Core idea is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, but psychological development position" :
1. Pre-theoric phase. Children and most societies for most of the time. You take the world as-is. Children takes adults at their word, societies relies blindly on traditions.
2. Ideological phase. Adolescent rebellion of "We Can Rebuild the World, Better". In societies, it’s that period when mass movements reshape most institutions. The French Revolution in France, the Weimar Republic & Third Reich in Germany, both Garibaldi and Mussolini in Italy.
3. The pragmatic disillusion. "The world is actually more complicated that that, our simplistic ideas made quite an embarrassing mess". Still, can’t go back to the pre-theoric phase either. Most adults, most modern societies. A pragmatism that veers into cynicism and/or nihilism (depending on individuals), where it’s *cringe* to Take Ideas Seriously (cynicism is a corollary because if it’s not ideas that shape the world, it obviously has to be money and power, right ? Weirdly blind to the fact that it’s Big Ideas that have shaped the immediate past, even if the Big Ideas didn’t lived up to their aspirations).
4. Wisdom. Ideas matter and should drive action, but we are not omniscient and the world is not solipsistic. Max Stirner is the one that has described the mindest in the best way, I think : "your ideas are yours, you should not be a slave to them". Modern rationalism (lesswrong-style) is probably the best way to bootstrap an individual there ? (fake frameworks, superposition of hypothesis in particular). We have no societies at this stade (yet, hopefully). Such a society would take Climate Change seriously without going into "and therefore we need to Dismantle Capitalism" failure mode, and Bryan Caplan do not have to write "The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets" in that world because that’s already obvious.
And in light of this : I think you’re way too harsh on poor Peter Thiel.
You frame it as "poor guy is sad that he’s not a dicator and that sometimes somewhere people push back". But that’s wrong. He’s not lamenting that we do not live yet in a Robardian Anarcho-Capitalism Paradise. He’s lamenting that education has no measurable effect whatsoever. Essentially, he’s lamenting the "pragmatist, grisled, cynicist societies don’t take any idea seriously". And he’s right. He’s not lamenting that he has not mind-controlled the entirety of humanity to transform them into Randroids, he’s lamenting that some of the trivially and obviously correct libertarians ideas are regressing, despite the counterarguments to them being Obvious Nonsense (but popular Obvious Nonsense !). And he’s right.
You can make libertarians 80% happy with basic, obvious, trivial ideas that should be table stakes. Government budget should be balanced. Property rights are important, so it should not be an constant uphill battle (that they’re winning, yes, but still a battle) for the rich to not be taxed to death. You should be allowed to Build Things without paying as much in regulatory compliance than in wages & raw materials combined.
This is not an endorsement of Libertarianism as the Correct Ideology ! You can make also at the same time make liberals 80% happy too with basic, obvious, trivial ideas that should be table stakes. Basic social safety net, simple environmental & workplace safety regulations, minorities rights, public transit.
But we don’t get much of that because of all that smells too much of Big Ideas, and therefore not pragmatic and therefore not realistic enough for our level-3 society. Also, notice that liberals are (slowly, at the price of great efforts and a lot of Dark Arts Epistemology) somewhat getting their reasonable ideas implemented (along with their unreasonable ones), and libertarians are not. Explains the depth of his despair too.
Just wanted to say how deeply your piece resonated with me. The way you outlined the psychological arc of idealists in democratic societies. It put words to a struggle many of us quietly live through.
I was so moved that I wrote a Chinese reflection piece inspired by your framework, adapting it to the social and institutional context, for introducing your work to Taiwanese community.
(https://matters.town/a/9h3hgy21aty7?utm_source=share_copy&referral=weijen_liu)
Thank you for giving voice to something that often goes unspoken.
Hi,
I forgot to thank you and to respond to your message
If you are interested in talking more about it, please DM me on Twitter ( https://x.com/Gabe_cc ), it might make for an interesting conversation
Cheers
Really interesting, thought provoking article!!
Makes u question urself and its content in a nuanced way instead of just nodding along!