Lessons from My Book

Writing a book is challenging, and writing it in an engaging way is even more so. But one lesson I've learned over the years is that most insights you think are for others are usually for yourself. My books were mainly created for myself. They organized my thinking. My mind believed something was clear. But when I wrote it down, I realized my mind was wrong. I was forced to articulate my ideas, giving my inner critic a target. But I realized that only by allowing it to criticize intensely does true thinking emerge. I try to convince others to read my book and provide feedback. But the only person fascinated by my book so far has been myself. Nevertheless, I learned a lot and sharpened my arguments. Here are the most important lessons from this process.

Take Action

The first point is not to be intimidated when starting to write a book. I knew it wouldn't be easy for me to write even close to a hundred pages. But I started anyway. I wrote essays on topics that interested me. Then I could weave and merge them together. I wrote transitions from one thought to another and learned how they are connected. Although I thought I had learned this lesson, I am now afraid to start the next project. To overcome the fear, I am working on this website to force myself to produce something.

Wisdom

One of the most important insights from my book is the realization of the limits of rational thinking. That we are not even close to being able to solve the relevant problems we face with science and logic. I value practical advice much more than before. I have deeply recognized its usefulness. That's why I started working more in the field of wisdom than philosophy. These thoughts can all be found on this blog (Category: Wisdom). Maybe a small book will emerge from it, or maybe not, who knows.

Appreciation of Other Religions

I used to believe that reality could be rationalized in different ways. Either without God or with. But I also thought that with God, one gets a more complete picture of the world. And of all theologies, Christianity was superior to the others. However, I soon realized that the old polytheisms have a value that we have lost in our society today and probably won't rediscover anytime soon. I started reading Homer and was thrilled by how he portrayed the divine experience of humans. This shook my understanding of my religion but also broadened my horizons. I was now able to learn from all schools of thought.

Legitimate Machiavellian Thinking

Machiavellian thinking is still synonymous with exploiting people to gain power. However, my considerations have shown me that rejecting this strategy for ethical reasons helps no one. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how ethical you are if the system collapses. We should fight for our system and defend it against attacks. We must engage in politics, economics, and society in general. The world will not award us a medal for our good behavior.

Reciprocity

Another milestone was realizing that evil is limited. It may be terrible and last for some generations, but one must recognize that pure evil fights and kills itself. This doesn't mean it can't happen. But it means that hope is never completely lost. A true Machiavellian knows this and will care for the people.

Variability

I realized that a system, an idea, or a society is much more stable when it includes diversity. And so much diversity that it hurts a little. This means that the ideas you consider dangerous are present in the public space. You can fight them, but if you want the best for your society, you fight them with good intentions. The more stupidity we can tolerate, the better. Because that stupid person could be the saving hero of the next crisis. All empires that lasted more than a century had this variability. Roman citizens could pray to any god they liked as long as Caesar was the highest god. The same applies to today's capitalism. So, the truly dangerous ideas are those that want to silence the stupid.

Artificial Intelligence

From my book emerges the hypothesis that all systems must be self-correcting, implement variability, and be able to fundamentally change their structure. True artificial intelligence must therefore be able to change its architecture. And not only that. My hypothesis goes even further: In an environment that favors intelligent behavior, any gradual system that has the theoretical possibility of generating intelligence will do so if it only has enough time. Current AI research does this manually. So, humans are part of this environment. They select what they consider intelligent and develop it further. But as long as humans are actively and consciously involved in this game, it is slow and drenched in our prejudices.