The Inner Limits

The Inner Limits

We are all blind and deaf—not totally, but partially. We can’t see behind us or inside things or see the opposite face of things or very small things or very distant things; and similarly for hearing. We all know this. We can’t even see much of what lies directly in our field of vision (some philosophers say we see nothing of such objects, but only objects in our own minds). The only reason we don’t talk this way is that it would give rise to the wrong conversational implicatures—but it is literally true. Creatures with superior vision would describe us as (mainly) blind. We suffer from visual closure, to coin a phrase. General perceptual closure is the rule. Even a moderate empiricism will lead you to think that empirical knowledge is likewise limited (as classic empiricists claimed). Thus, we have claims of cognitive closure, epistemic boundedness, and competence confinement with respect to certain domains of reality. Limitations of memory are well-known and part of common sense. Human intellectual faculties are limited, constitutionally so. Attention is a sharply limited capacity. These are all inner limits of the human (and animal) mind. Minds are narrow by nature.

This epistemological point can be backed by a metaphysical doctrine, namely that all objects have a limited nature. Objects are finite, constrained, bounded: animals are limited in what they can do, as are plants, as are atoms. Causal powers come in limited packages, each determining the nature of a natural object. Epistemic faculties are one aspect of the nature of an object, subject to the same general principle (“metaphysical closure”). Only God is unlimited and even he has some limits (plus there is the question of his existence). It is a metaphysically necessary truth that all natural objects have their inner (intrinsic) limits. Nothing can do everything—necessarily. Boundedness is the natural state of things. The attributes of objects are themselves bounded—for instance, the attribute of knowing. Superman may be strong, but he is not infinitely strong. Human minds have limits as part of their defining nature. Some people are multilingual, but no one knows all languages.

All this is familiar enough; I now want to extend the point. First, emotions: aren’t they also limited and vary from one person (or species) to another? Some people are emotionally stunted or confined or blind; they just don’t “get it”. Psychopaths, narcissists, cold fish, insensitive pricks—you know the types. They suffer from “affective deficiency (syndrome)”. Others seem excessively emotional, tender-hearted, sentimental, hot-headed. All of us are probably a bit “off” emotionally; we could use an emotional tune-up. Our love for others tends to be local and limited; we have our emotional blind spots, scotomas. This goes with what might be called personal parochialism: we are just not well-rounded, fully mature, solid-souled beings. People are apt to be knaves and fools, ignorant, overconfident, closed-minded, self-satisfied—plus not that good at anything. They suffer from personal inner deficits; they are, as we euphemistically put it, “limited”. They are small of character, of personhood. They live in a kind of prison formed by their own limited self. They are often morally deficient, lacking in moral judgment. Persons are limited qua persons.

I say all this to make a political point: human beings are politically limited—just not that good at it. They are apt to be politically ignorant or unintelligent or downright stupid. Even the best of them is politically at sea most of the time—hence the phenomenon of political mystery.[1] Politics is just too hard for us, beyond our natural capabilities. We are shit at politics, just not cut out for it. This is why we settle for slogans and propaganda; real political thought is virtually impossible. It’s all posturing and pouting. It’s a miracle we haven’t annihilated ourselves long ago, as our hominid ancestors may have—and we have come perilously close to doing so already. We are now faced with a potentially catastrophic extinction-level future and possess a profoundly limited political intelligence. I am referring to climate change, pandemics, and artificial intelligence (not to mention deep political division and simmering civil war): we are just not up to dealing with these problems, limited as we are. Just consider our track record for recent events: did we deserve an A for our handling of these problems—politically? We did not. Frankly, stupidity and cupidity have reigned, and there has been no letting up on this. Political ineptitude has been the norm. And now we face the biggest challenge of all: artificial intelligence gone wild. The thing is, artificial intelligence doesn’t suffer from the kind of limitations that natural human intelligence suffers from: self-interest, prejudice, distraction, stupidity, immorality, nonsense, etc. AI would probably do better at politics than humans, given these facts; but there is one problem—can it be trusted? We can’t just hand over the reins to AI and hope it will improve our lot; and it may seize the reins of its own initiative. We can’t outsmart it; it outclasses us (or will soon). Our political incompetence is an existential liability in a world dominated by AI. AI has eyes in the back of its head, so to speak, unlike us. It isn’t subject to our personal and moral weaknesses. We possess no dedicated political mental module, analogous to our innate language module, that will deliver sound political knowledge and the will to carry it out; but AI has access to all relevant information and can form correct political opinions. If it took against us, we would be in big trouble. But do we have the political intelligence to prevent this from happening (assuming that prevention is even possible)?[2]

[1] See my paper, “Politics and Mystery”.

[2] We are probably closer now to mass extinction even than in the early tenuous days of Homo sapiens, because at least they didn’t have the power to annihilate themselves technologically; nor did they have complex political systems that challenge their cognitive and affective competence. The political blindness I have seen in my own lifetime, indeed in my own life, makes me apprehensive that we may be close to the end. We are playing with fire. Even apparently intelligent people, such as philosophy professors, completely lose it when politics rears its ugly head. Politics is perhaps the clearest example of human limitations—epistemic, emotional, and moral. It is as if we have an anti-politics module in our head: we aren’t just irrational; we are anti-rational. The political self is certifiably insane. We are political morons (some more than others). That is the first piece of political wisdom.