Simon Gray

Simon Gray (@protexblue) I’m reading a book about the ontology of African-American slavery by Saidiya V Hartman and am reminded of the movie “Sinners” (and the review by my good friend of said movie). Saidiya’s thesis makes...

I’m reading a book about the ontology of African-American slavery by Saidiya V Hartman and am reminded of the movie “Sinners”.

Saidiya’s thesis makes me think that she should have gotten some kind of writing credit on the movie!

[continues on Substack]

I just finished reading this piece, about a new breed of international arms dealer.

It's difficult to see if the journalist is condoning or coldly summarising the person and the business at its core.
If he's condemning them as he should, that's even more difficult to see.

The photo shows the cover of a book: "Trump and Me" by Mark Singer

I'm suddenly aware of how I'm undermining this by virtue of the book I'm currently reading.

#booksky 📚

There's this quote from Midgley, where she says that it's hardly surprising that Kant came up with an ethics of autonomy, considering that he didn't have any care work to do. Does anyone know where to find it?

My reaction to most comments about Trump, Musk, and all them.

A can of beer stands beside a glass filled with its contents.

For #beersky it's a lovely, Liverpudlian, ambiguously pronounced IPA. ("Aims"? "Amez?") There's a heaviness there, but it's not too hoppy. I'll have it again, but not tonight. One is enough.
APV 6.5%

Land War or Self-Terrorism? Trump's Likely Next Step

I was once wary of describing Trump et al as fascists. Now I have no problem with it.

Here @timothysnyder.bsky.social draws parallels between the USA now and Germany in 1938. They're interesting and apt (to an extent), and lead to some genuinely scary conclusions.
Certainly lots to consider.

But it may well have long-term benefits. My epistemology class (in 2nd year of my undergrad) left me similarly brain dead. But 20-odd years later I remember its tenants better than I do many other classes.

The Missives | Simon Gray | Substack A free blog approaching unreasonable ideas with reasonable philosophy. (Plus bonus material). Click to read The Missives, by Simon Gray, a Substack publication. Launched a year ago.

Outcome 3: AI stays; the companies fall.
AI is the next great infrastructure project. Most companies which built railroads and the internet are now footnotes in history, while their creations stayed on.
The economy may suffer; AI is here to stay. Is this the best outcome? Comments welcome!

[5/5]

Is the US an emerging market?

Outcome 2: AI fails to deliver.
Those bets go sour (as does a good chunk of the economy, your investments included) and debt overwhelms the global economy. AI is a bust: our current worries about it and investors' "godlike" predictions are mostly unfounded.

(For more on those threats see:

[4/5]

Outcome 1: The companies make good.
Over time, the companies somehow make money from AI (likely through a combination of accounting fidgeting and marketing). They pay off their debts. Your pension fund is in the black. AI is ubiquitous and permanent, everywhere from your car to your computer.
[3/5]

Big tech companies are investing vast amount of money into AI -- much of which they borrow.

All this debt and spending will have 1 of 3 outcomes.
Each of them impacts us differently as citizens, consumers, workers, educators, artists, thinkers.

[2/5]

An illustrated robot sits with its arms around its knees. We see it side-on and it is looking up to the top right corner. Behind it is a reddish sky and a series of undefined structures.

The @financialtimes.com sums up financial fears on AI:

"Investors are concerned about lofty valuations and huge capital expenditure by a few large tech groups that could backfire if lossmaking AI start-ups such as OpenAI fail to deliver on their promises."

Why should you care? A thread. 🧵
[1/5]

The picture shows a book called "The Oral History Reader"

Irony for book lovers and academic nerds.

#booksky 📚

Thanks for clearing that up!

This tells me more about the show than the odd trailer did. Thanks!

Missive no.14 was a mostly uncritical look at Hayek, which challenged the reader to decide where their political preferences lie – and challenged me to do the same! It is available on audio and in text. Find them both at linktr.ee/themissives
[14/14]

The second is the “slippery slope”.
A government which intervenes in the marketplace or society (even just a little) in order to serve their vision of justice will create problems. It will try to fix those problems by expanding its power until eventually it becomes totalitarian.
[13/14]

This presses on 2 key thoughts underlying Hayek’s system.

The first is epistemological. Even if there were a right/wrong way to administer a marketplace or society, no individual or supra-individual organisation can know what it is. What government could distribute cars fairly?
[12/14]

So Hayek’s system is egalitarian – but only to a point.
Not everyone has access to a vehicle: they must buy them in a market -- if they can.
Hayek can see no other way but the market. If everyone were given a car, what government could confidently and competently ensure that this happened?
[11/14]

Everyone has an equal right to enter and participate in Hayek’s market / society, as consumers, producers and participants – no matter their gender, creed, colour, etc.
Every vehicle has equal access to the road, no matter its size, speed, age, etc.
[10/14]

(“Nudging” is not a Hayekian idea. It was formalised by Thaler & Sunstein, 2008. It seems to broadly allow for justice to exist without coercion – but it also seems to rely on manipulating people subconsciously.)
[9/14]

A responsible Hayekian government also regulates itself: it understands where it can(‘t) and should(n’t) intervene.
On the roads, the government nudges us through road signs and markings. Nudges don’t tell us what to do, but they do help us to do the right thing.
[8/14]

Drivers and Hayekian citizens tend to regulate themselves out of self-interest. To act recklessly is to cause damage mostly to oneself (one’s car and one’s insurance policy).
Ethics do not come into it: with freedom comes responsibility, and a free society relies on responsible citizens.
[7/14]

The free society is just because it is self-regulating.
It is self-regulating because its citizens and its government regulate themselves.
Likewise, our roads are mostly self-regulating when all (or most) drivers exercise care.
[6/14]

A cover of an old version of Friedrich Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom".

The Missive rests mostly on Hayek’s two books, “The Road to Serfdom” and “The Constitution of Liberty”. Here, Hayek lays out his “free society”: a market-driven entity which is free, and therefore just (so his logic goes), but not equal.
[5/15]

This is the first of 4 parallels that the Missive draws between driving and Friedrich Hayek’s free society. That positive freedom of the individual is paramount for Hayek.

Expressed as a negative freedom, it is the freedom *from* coercion by an individual or a supra-individual entity.
[4/14]

A black and white photo of Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Mustang in "Bullitt" (1968)

Driving is a liberating experience. (Even in my old Renault Clio I feel like Ryan Gosling in “Drive” or Steve McQueen in “Bullit”. Comedic but true.)
Driving encapsulates the idea of positive freedom: you are (usually) free *to* drive wherever you want, and to decide what route to take.
[3/14]

“Driving Home for Christmas” might be a terrible pop song but it still connects me to two loves: Christmas & driving.
The former is the only conceit remaining from my childhood. The latter is newer: I learned to drive recently and have all the zeal of a new convert. Here’s what I’ve learned.
[2/14]

14. Driving Home with Hayek ....or, what does a bad 80s song have to do with neoliberal politics?

The latest Missive (my blog about politics and philosophy) connects a bad 80s song with neoliberalism.

Not enough time? Here’s a TL;DR
🧵

[1/14]