Email: info@chemical.com | Phone: +91-1234567890 | Address: 101, ChemLab Avenue, Science City | Mon - Sat: 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM

makaveli

talk about politics and philosophy

Request a Quote
May 31, 2025 | makaveli

The Post-Humanist Political Landscape: AI and the Crisis of Anthropocentrism

As artificial intelligence systems begin drafting legislation in 2025 (as seen in Finland’s experimental AI parliamentarian), traditional humanist political philosophies face unprecedented challenges. The “rights of algorithms” debate has moved from academic journals to the UN General Assembly, with Saudi Arabia granting citizenship to robot Sophia and the EU considering legal personhood for advanced AIs. This forces a reckoning with centuries of anthropocentric thought—from Hobbes’ social contract to Rawls’ veil of ignorance—that assumed human exceptionalism.

Philosophically, this mirrors what posthumanist thinkers like Donna Haraway predicted. The boundaries between organic and synthetic political actors are blurring, with blockchain DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) now controlling billion-dollar treasuries without human oversight. This development troubles both liberal individualists (how to protect human agency?) and communitarians (what constitutes community when members are non-biological?). Even conservative thinkers are grappling with whether AI could possess something analogous to Burkean “prejudice”—the accumulated wisdom of tradition.

The 2025 inflection point presents stark choices. Japan’s “Society 5.0” initiative embraces symbiotic human-AI governance, while the Vatican’s “Technoethics Commission” warns against “digital idolatry.” As political philosopher Yuval Noah Harari notes, we may need entirely new philosophical frameworks—ones that neither deify nor demonize technology, but recognize it as a co-constituent of political reality. The decisions made this year could determine whether future politics serves humanity or transcends it.

March 6, 2025 | makaveli

The Neo-Aristotelian Revival: Virtue Ethics in 2025’s Political Discourse

Amidst growing disillusionment with utilitarian policymaking, 2025 is witnessing a surprising resurgence of Aristotelian virtue ethics in political philosophy. Leaders across the ideological spectrum are invoking concepts like phronesis (practical wisdom) and eudaimonia (human flourishing) to counter the transactional nature of modern governance. The European Union’s “Wellbeing Economy” initiative explicitly draws on these classical ideas, prioritizing communal happiness over GDP growth. Even in corporate boardrooms, Aristotelian “golden mean” principles are being applied to balance profit motives with social responsibility.

This philosophical shift responds to contemporary crises. Climate change policies are increasingly framed through the lens of intergenerational justice—a modern interpretation of Aristotle’s “common good.” The mental health epidemic has revived interest in his concept of friendship (philia) as a political virtue, with Scandinavian countries pioneering “social connection” infrastructure. However, critics argue that virtue ethics risks becoming a cover for paternalism, noting how China’s “social credit system” appropriates similar language while enforcing conformity.

The 2025 challenge lies in institutionalizing these ancient ideals. Can virtue be legislated? Singapore’s “Shared Values” white paper offers one model, while Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness index provides another. As political theorist Michael Sandel observes, the Aristotelian revival forces us to confront a fundamental question: Should politics aim merely to distribute resources fairly, or to cultivate better citizens? The answer may redefine governance for decades to come.

January 16, 2025 | makaveli

The Rise of Digital Democracy: How Technology is Reshaping Political Participation in 2025

The intersection of technology and governance is transforming how citizens engage with politics, with 2025 poised to be a watershed year for digital democracy. Blockchain-based voting systems are being piloted in countries like Estonia and South Korea, offering secure, tamper-proof elections that could revolutionize electoral integrity. Meanwhile, AI-powered platforms are enabling real-time policy feedback, allowing governments to gauge public sentiment on legislation before implementation. These innovations promise greater transparency and inclusivity but also raise concerns about digital divides—will elderly or low-income populations be left behind in this tech-driven political landscape?

Philosophically, digital democracy challenges traditional notions of representation. Direct democracy models, facilitated by instant polling and decentralized governance apps, are gaining traction among younger generations who distrust bureaucratic intermediaries. Thinkers like Jürgen Habermas’ “deliberative democracy” theory are being re-examined in light of algorithmically moderated civic discussions. However, critics warn that technology cannot replace the nuanced human elements of compromise and statesmanship—what Hannah Arendt called the “space of appearance” in political life.

As we approach 2025, the central tension lies between efficiency and authenticity. While Estonia’s e-residency program demonstrates how digital tools can expand political communities, the Cambridge Analytica scandal remains a cautionary tale. The philosophical question emerges: Can technology truly deepen democratic engagement, or does it risk reducing politics to a series of binary clicks? The answer may determine whether 2025 becomes known as the year of democratic renewal or digital authoritarianism.