For me, all of the issues you've mentioned have been known and been discussed since people learnt how to discuss.
The absolute love of money (as opposed to the need for money) is what's driving the worst aspects of post-capitalism. Capitalism used to, or should, mean to care equally for your customers, workers, and shareholders. Whereas now it must legally mean "a maximal return to shareholders". "I must not "share" my wealth. Instead I must take as much of yours as possible."
As soon as Australia runs out of things to dig up and sell in large enough quantities we won't be in a position to follow Norway's or Finland's lead (as politicians have been more busy buying votes than preparing for the inevitable) I suspect they'll be a diaspora.
It's not a new thing for each of us, an individuals, to think of ourselves as impotent. As individuals we have always had little to no power. What is new is that we, as individuals, believe it's impossible to join with other individuals and instigate any change. Our forefathers fought for their freedom and rights while we willingly frittered them away (and with it our dignity.)
As for statistics: there's lies, damn lies and then statistics!
Mr Han’s arguments aren’t so much about wealth - in fact he says nothing (in this book) about income inequality or returns to shareholders. His arguments are mainly about the domination of technology and data in an age when economies and leisure time are almost completely based on those things.
You’re right - the idea that our desires will be our undertakers is one you’ll find very prominently in Plato. But sometimes the first job or a writer or a philosopher is to restate what might be obvious, especially when there are powerful interests trying to make us forget the wisdom of the past.
Yes, I believe Han derives this attitude toward prayer from Simone Weil, who similarly wrote "absolutely unmixed attention is prayer."
For some reason, I am seeing the book Psychopolitics pop up quite a bit these days. I also covered it in my recent essay, but from a bit of a different angle than yours, focusing more on historicizing the concept and discussing its effects (i.e. psychological ailments).
For me, all of the issues you've mentioned have been known and been discussed since people learnt how to discuss.
The absolute love of money (as opposed to the need for money) is what's driving the worst aspects of post-capitalism. Capitalism used to, or should, mean to care equally for your customers, workers, and shareholders. Whereas now it must legally mean "a maximal return to shareholders". "I must not "share" my wealth. Instead I must take as much of yours as possible."
As soon as Australia runs out of things to dig up and sell in large enough quantities we won't be in a position to follow Norway's or Finland's lead (as politicians have been more busy buying votes than preparing for the inevitable) I suspect they'll be a diaspora.
It's not a new thing for each of us, an individuals, to think of ourselves as impotent. As individuals we have always had little to no power. What is new is that we, as individuals, believe it's impossible to join with other individuals and instigate any change. Our forefathers fought for their freedom and rights while we willingly frittered them away (and with it our dignity.)
As for statistics: there's lies, damn lies and then statistics!
Mr Han’s arguments aren’t so much about wealth - in fact he says nothing (in this book) about income inequality or returns to shareholders. His arguments are mainly about the domination of technology and data in an age when economies and leisure time are almost completely based on those things.
You’re right - the idea that our desires will be our undertakers is one you’ll find very prominently in Plato. But sometimes the first job or a writer or a philosopher is to restate what might be obvious, especially when there are powerful interests trying to make us forget the wisdom of the past.
Really enjoyed this piece William! Thank you (as I write this from my smart phone, which I should really replace for a dumb one)
Thanks for the comment, Nicho! Yes, ditching the smartphone is a good idea. I should do it too.
Yes, I believe Han derives this attitude toward prayer from Simone Weil, who similarly wrote "absolutely unmixed attention is prayer."
For some reason, I am seeing the book Psychopolitics pop up quite a bit these days. I also covered it in my recent essay, but from a bit of a different angle than yours, focusing more on historicizing the concept and discussing its effects (i.e. psychological ailments).
https://novum.substack.com/p/living-in-a-time-of-psychopolitics
Either way, glad I found your post here. I just subscribed, looking forward to reading more! :))
Thank you, it's great to have you here!
Your essay is fantastic - one thing that is lacking in Han's argument is historical perspective. But very few philosophers today have that.
> Australia no longer makes anything, and its economy relies heavily on financial services. Is everyone being turned into an entrepreneur?
Yes it does. It's mining the resources powering China's industrialization.
Yes but it's not Australians making stuff - in Han's words, we've moved from the "post-industrial" into the "digital".
In Australia's cases it's into pre-industrial resource extraction if anything.