I wrote an essay arguing that if humans lose the one thing that separates us from animals: our ability to think and perceive autonomously, then our erasure would be a net positive for the world. And I think we’re almost there. I ramble a lot in the essay but this is the first philosophical paper I’ve ever written. I’m 19. I’d rather be told where the argument breaks than have people agree with me.
Your essay reads very bombastic or declamatory. Just bold statements after bold statements but very few arguments. I don’t think that’s a good tone if you want to convince.
Also, drop the pen AI cause this is NOT it. AI is great but it cannot write unless maybe with a lot of good prompting. Not only is the prose garbage with all the “this is not X, it’s Y” every other paragraph, but people will not want to read if they feel like it’s AI slop. And I can’t blame them.
The Duopoly of Thought looks weak to me. Sometimes you simply have (real) dichotomies like the Neo choice: it’s accepting or rejecting reality; there is no third way. You might say the fact it is presented as a dichotomy is already evidence of this duopoly, but I think that’s a stretch.
The general idea that the range of acceptable thoughts has been narrowed can work, but I don’t see any reason why it would be particularly a duopoly. Sometimes you don’t even have choices; sometimes you have more than two choices while still being narrow.
The section The Evidence Is in the Numbers is very questionable. Those stats may be real, but there isn’t any effort to show this is specifically coming from this lack of critical perception. It is just assumed. It seems to me way more plausible that it’s caused by the stress and pressure people are facing due to the culture rather than this lack of critical perception.
The religion part is very bombastic. You’re saying there is no way the Christian and the Muslim would come to organically disagree on some religious topics. Sure, there may be similar teachings sometimes, but I don’t think they’re “almost identical in their ethical framework.” At least, point to some analysis to justify this view.
The section The Terminus: When Autonomy Reaches Zero is simply based on unfounded feelings, you probably should actually seek arguments. You can’t just repeat “The trajectory is clear.”
The section Why We Are Worse Than Animals makes the text run into a contradiction. You are using a general “we” to say “we, humans, place ourselves over animals because of this critical perception.” But this is in contradiction to your thesis that the regular person does not value critical perception and finds the tree question meaningless. If that is the case, it can’t then be because of this (highly valued) critical perception that people generally believe humans are superior to animals.
There is a sense in which there are mental capacities humans do use to justify some superiority, but those mental capacities are probably not the critical perception you talk about.
Overall the biggest issue is the tone and the big claims with little to no backing.
The philosopher who is broke is a philosopher who nobody listens to.
I guess you’ve never heard of Diogenes.
1 Like
There are precedents to your idea:
- Antinatalism
- Promortalism
- Negative utilitarianism (Benevolent World Destroyer)
Interesting argument. Is the following a premise?
If humans lose cognitive/perceptual autonomy then the erasure of the human race would be a net positive
Do you think nature is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’? It seems to me you are employing human judgement as if it is natural judgement (if there is such a thing)?