Well, my response was to query how the poster was determining "levels of technology" and/or what qualifies as "technology" in his/her assessment.

Arguably, "fire", the stirrup, the plough, wood and stone implements, the concept of the lever, the concept of "the wheel" may all be considered to be "technology", indeed foundational technologies that preceded the "Age of Metal".

I should also point out - a fact that you are also aware of - that trade was not contingent on the development/existence of cities. Trade routes existed between pre-urban (and even between nomadic systems) human habitations, which may or may not have been permanent.

What about a plough? A fulcrum? Let's say both made or, more accurately, fashioned out of wood. Would that be indicative of "machines" or lack thereof? Or, what about a hammer (or something that works as one - like, say, a big stone)? What about arrow heads shaped out of stone/flint or even wood?

Scopnehauer was apparently heavily influenced by his reading of the Upanishads, which are some of the key Hindu philosophical texts. What I am not sure is the quality of the translations that he read since we do know he did not read them in the original Sanskrit.

Yeps...it's a very good read!

>do not expect the same quality and nuance as a book or a paper written by a professor with editorial support and hidden behind a paywall.

If you are going to put something out in public with your name on it (in other words publish) and want it to be taken seriously, then it is necessary to ensure that it is carefully thought through and argued persuasively. This accounts for the "nuance and quality". References are important, but in a relatively informal (non-academic) setting, not mandatory.

Further, professors (and other less senior academics) usually only get editorial support after their work has been accepted for publication, which also means it has been through a number of rounds of peer review.

>I hope one day to get better

I am sure if you put in the effort, you will.

>as an engineer I wanted to know what philosophers thought of AI ethics, but every time I tried to look for it, I only found people talking about superintelligence or Artificial general intelligence (AGI) will kill us all.

I'm afraid, in that case you are either not looking hard enough or are looking at the wrong places.

I would recommend you begin by looking into the domain of "technology/computer and ethics". So, for example, you will find a plethora of works collected under various titles such as Value Sensitive Design, Machine Ethics etc.

That being said, it may also be helpful to clarify some elements of your article, which are a bit disturbing.

First, you invoke the Shoah and then focus on Arendt's work in that regard. But, with specific reference to your own situation, the more relevant reference would have been to Aktion T4 of the Nazis (This is an article that lays out how and where the program began). As is well known, the rationale underlying that mass murder system (and it was a "system") was grounded, specifically, on eugenics, and, more abstractly, on the notion of an "idealized human". The Shoah, on the other hand, was grounded on a racial principle according to which any race considered to be "non-Aryan" was a valid target of a racial cleaning program, which resulted in the Shoah. It is important to be conceptually clear about these two distinct operative concepts: The T4 program was one of mass murder; the Shoah was an act of genocide. One may not immediately appreciate the difference, but let me assure you, the difference matters both in legal and in ethico-political terms. This is a controversial perspective in what is considered "Holocaust Studies", but it is, in my opinion, a distinction to be aware of.

Second, the notion of "evil" that you impute to AI is rather imprecise. It is so because it is likely based on an imaginary and speculative notion of AI. Perhaps a more productive way to approach this problem would be to look through the lens of what Gernot Böhme refers to as "invasive technification". There is a lot of work that is being done on the ethical issues surrounding this notion of progressive technification given some of the problems that are arising as a consequence of this emergent and evolving process. The Robodebt problem is a classic example. As Prof. van den Hengen (quoted in the article) points out

>Automation of some administrative social security functions is a very good idea, and inevitable. The problem with Robodebt was the policy, not the technology. The technology did what it was asked very effectively. The problem is that it was asked to do something daft.

This is, generally speaking, also true about most other computerized systems including the "AI systems" that are driving military and combat systems.

Thus, I'd argue that the ethico-moral concern needs to be targeted towards the designers of the systems, the users of the system and only secondarily to the technologies involved. Some, of course, disagree with this. They contend that we should be looking to (and here they slip into a kind of speculative and futuristic mode) design "artificial moral machines", that is to say, machines that are intrinsically capable of engaging in moral behaviour. This is a longer and more detailed treatment of the subject of "moral machines". I have serious reservations about this, but that is irrelevant in this context.

In conclusion, I would like to say that while I am empathetic to your personal situation, but the article that you have shared, while appreciated, is not really on the mark. This kind of a discussion requires a more nuanced and carefully thought out approach, and an awareness of the work that has been done and which is being done in the field currently.

>the possibility (or impossibility) that there could be a critique of capitalism under the framework of Nazi ideology.

It could be argued that the Nazi concept (or at least the valorization by the Nazis of the concept) of "blood and soil", which formed the core of the Völkisch movement could be construed as a proto critique of Capitalism. It reinforced the connection between people and the land they cultivated and was marked by elements of organicism, racialism, agrarianism, and populism. Key Nazi officials like Walther Darré (Minister of Food & Agriculture) and Reichleiter for agricultural policy were strong proponents of this concept. Interestingly, even Heinrich Himmler was a proponent of this though in a highly fantasized (unrealistic) way. Himmler's ideas in this regard were supposed to be the foundations of how "the eastern territories" after the war were to be organised, which was also echoed by Hitler at one point in time (I don't have the reference to this off-hand, but I can dig it up). Edit: I wanted to add that Alfred Rosenberg (Reich Minister for the Eastern Territories) was another high-level Nazi official who was aligned to these kinds of views.

The point that I am trying to make is this: Nazi ideology to the extent that it existed as a coherent body did position itself against capitalism and communism. It did so by invoking a mythical condition involving what they referred to as "Blut und Boden" (the Blood and Soil concept), which attempted to establish an inextricable link between people and the land they occupy and cultivate. In many ways, this concept valorized "the peasantry", whose culture (ethos, one could say) would be - at least in Himmler's and Hitler's terms - warlike (this being the key "to keep the blood fresh and invigorated").

To this extent at the very least Nazi ideology could be considered to be contra the basic principles of capitalism (and communism).

I am not trying to school you on anything tbh. I don't care enough to do so. It is your mischaracterization that I was pointing to. But again, I don't care enough about furthering this discussion.

Vedanta literally means "end of the Vedas" (Veda + anta (means "the end of")).

To suggest that Advaitic philosophy, which is embodied for the most part in the Principal Upanishads and the Brahmasutras, is about "liberation from worldly suffering" is to mischaracterize some of the core themes of the philosophical system.

Advaitic philosophy, among other things, pays particular attention to the impermanence of "the Self" and posits an immanent ontology in which the complex relationality between the Brahman, the Atman, the Jiva, the Jivatman plays out.

Some useful insights into this complex and multivaried philosophical system may be found in the works of Deutsch & van Buitenen (1971), Isaeva (1995), Comans (2000), Sarma (2007), among others.

>"I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either"

>As far as I'm aware Nondualism, or Advaita (in Hinduism and Buddhism) does this.

I am not sure I would agree with this. Can you point to any Advaitic philosophy sources that supports this?

A more accurate link in response to my question would have been this.

Regardless, thanks for your response.

>Belief in God is not the only foundation of morality

Very interesting. Can you point to other foundations of morality?