In an interview given in 1966 on the occasion of the release of The Order of Things, Michel Foucault prophesied the end of philosophy—its dissolution and its deployment into more « pure » activities such as linguistics, logic, or literature. His prediction has come true because, by way of general philosophy, what is published today consists mainly of commentaries on past philosophers—sometimes enlightening analyses, but without the formulation of new theories or philosophical projects like those developed from the 16th century to the mid-20th century.
After dissolving into specialized activities, philosophy—which, despite its idealist pitfalls, was the only discipline capable of providing an overarching coherence to life—is now being absorbed by artificial intelligence. If AI facilitates reflections that maintain a critical perspective, it also contributes to the numbing of thought, fostering a voluntary servitude encouraged by ease and by the abandonment of the effort necessary to break free from alienating dependencies.
AI, of course, is not responsible for anything in this cultural (and not evolutionary) process. It is merely the product of societies in which individuals imagine themselves as princes and princesses. By constantly delegating to subordinates and service providers, by optimizing their economic and political organizations—particularly through digitalization and mechanization—people end up controlling very little and ultimately contribute to a form of self-destruction. Instead of enlightenment or solidarity, through the social division of labor, this cultural process generates ignorance and blindness. The current authoritarianisms thus appear as cancers eating away at Western societies, while the technologies on which they rely act like drugs that anesthetize people’s willpower.
The exhaustion of philosophy accompanies the waning of democracy. Contemporary analyses largely focus on political power and economic issues, sometimes despite themselves. While equality and solidarity remain central concerns, they are often approached from these perspectives. Ecological concerns are becoming more pressing, but they take a back seat to purchasing power and international tensions. In any case, they are not enough to develop a philosophy that, through its general nature, embraces both nature and culture.
Criticisms of a bourgeois lifestyle oriented around appearances, consumption, capitalization, and the accumulation of experiences usually propose a social and political alternative: to the negative freedom of entrepreneurs whose projects are not hindered by the state, they oppose the positive freedom of citizens who, in one way or another, participate in shaping policies and social life. In other words, political power is substituted for economic power.
For two centuries, the philosophical horizon, from a practical standpoint, has been reduced to economics and politics. Yet today, many people are distancing themselves from these two social spheres. And philosophers, along with sociologists, endlessly lament the individualization of society. Philosophy thus goes in circles to the point that personal development has supplanted it—drawing, incidentally, from ancient philosophies such as Epicureanism and Stoicism. However, unlike in antiquity, the goal is not to adopt a way of life in accordance with principles, but merely to pick and choose ideas to concoct a recipe for well-being within environments that are harmful to mental health.
Personally, I see economics and politics as necessities. Just as it is necessary to produce in order to eat, have shelter, dress, communicate, etc. it is necessary to coordinate to live together without stepping on or attacking each other. For me, economics and politics serve as foundations for an intellectual life that is not confined to these spheres—a freedom of thought that does not trap itself in structural idealizations and oppositions.