I'm super grateful to have stumbled across someone who also cares about meta-philosophy! I have an intuition that we don't understand philosophy. Therefore, I think its advantageous to clarify the nature, purpose, and methodologies of philosophy, or in other words, solve meta-philosophy.
Let's explore some questions...
Scenario: A civilization focused on constant problem-solving without addressing the right issues.
Characteristics: Quick fixes, frequent shifts in focus, and neglect of underlying, systemic problems.
This scenario would involve a civilization that frequently engages in reactive measures--tackling symptoms rather than root causes. This could lead to a cycle of temporary solutions and recurring issues, with resources being spent on problems that may not contribute to long-term stability or improvement. The focus on immediate, superficial, problem-solving could prevent effective handling of more significant, complex challenges, leading to unintended consequences.
Role of Reflection: Helps revisit and analyze past actions and outcomes.
Role of Meta-cognition: Enables critical evaluation of decision-making processes.
Reflection allows for a retrospective analysis where past decisions and their impacts are reconsidered. This process aids in uncovering patterns and recurring problems, providing insights into the underlying causes of issues rather than merely their manifestations. It's about looking back to understand what happened and why.
Meta-cognition, on the other hand, is a deeper layer of thinking about one's thinking. It involves examining the cognitive processes used in problem solving and decision-making. This includes questioning one's assumptions, biases, and frameworks within which decisions were made. Meta-cognition helps in recognizing the limitations and flaws in these processes, which might contribute to ongoing problems.
Potential Root Problem: Lack of reflection and meta-cognition.
Consequences: Poor decision-making, repeated errors, and superficial solutions.
If the absence of reflection and meta-cognition is identified as a root problem, this has broad implications for how issues are addressed and prevented across various domains.
Philosophy as Reflection and Meta-cognition: Envisioning philosophy primarily as a reflective and meta-cognitive practice emphasizes active and ongoing analysis of thought processes and decision-making.
Challenges with Traditional Philosophy: The conventional focus on static fundamental questions may limit philosophy's practical effectiveness and relevance to contemporary issues.
If philosophy is framed a dynamic practice of reflection and meta-cognition, rather than merely an academic pursuit of answering age-old questions, it becomes a more vital, active part of addressing modern challenges. This perspective shifts philosophy from being an abstract discipline into a practical tool that continually assesses and adapts our thinking strategies, decision-making processes, and the very frameworks we use to interpret the world.
To me...solving meta-philosophy looks like devising a framework that explains these questions and their relationships in an accessible way.
What is thinking about our thoughts?
Why do we think about our thoughts?
How do we think about our thoughts?
After that, we could have even more fun and start to dissect the collective worldview that underpins our institutions, identify imbalances, and imagine an alternative that feels more authentic and ecologically harmonious.
To quickly recap my main intellectual journey so far (omitting a lengthy side trip into cryptography and Cypherpunk land), with the approximate age that I became interested in each topic in parentheses:
At each stage of this journey, I took what seemed to be the obvious next step (often up a meta ladder), but in retrospect each step left behind something like 90-99% of fellow travelers. From my current position, it looks like "all roads lead to metaphilosophy" (i.e., one would end up here starting with an interest in any nontrivial problem that incentivizes asking meta questions) and yet there's almost nobody here with me. What gives?
As for the AI safety path (as opposed to pure intellectual curiosity) that also leads here, I guess I do have more of a clue what's going on. I'll describe the positions of 4 people I know. Most of this is from private conversations so I won't give their names.
To me, this paints a bigger picture that's pretty far from "humanity has got this handled." If anyone has any ideas how to change this, or answers to any of my other unsolved problems in this post, or an interest in working on them, I'd love to hear from you.