Over the past several years, AI and automation have ceased to be a theoretical threat and begun to affect the real world. Advocates argue that such a revolution will increase productivity, create new jobs, and lead to the overall improvement of society. However, the costs of this progress will be borne primarily by the segment of the population that carries out monotonous and routine work, which is gradually displaced by robots, without the opportunity to acquire new skills in a timely manner.
While I am interested to hear different points of view on this topic, I would like to ask you to comment on whether governments should regulate and control developments in this vein more closely or rely on the organic development of the situation. To what extent should states support and stimulate the retraining of the workforce, and what responsibility should large corporations bear in this process? Is it worth sacrificing some of the comfort and stability that governments and businesses provide employees for the sake of technical progress and improvements in productivity?
Note: no use of AI, written by myself.
Here the full passage:
>“The two first parts of the doctrine of Mind embrace the finite mind. Mind is the infinite Idea, and finitude here means the disproportion between the concept and the reality – but with the qualification that it is a shadow cast by the mind’s own light – a show or illusion which the mind implicitly imposes as a barrier to itself, in order, by its removal, actually to realize and become conscious of freedom as its very being, i.e. to be fully manifested. The several steps of this activity, on each of which, with their semblance of being, it is the function of the finite mind to linger, and through which it has to pass, are steps in its liberation. In the full truth of that liberation is given the identification of the three stages – finding a world presupposed before us, generating a world as our own creation, and gaining freedom from it and in it. To the infinite form of this truth the show purifies itself till it becomes a consciousness of it.”
― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, - Philosophy of Mind (Part Three of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences), §386 Zusätze (translated by William Wallace).
Discussion Question:
The phrase describing finitude as "a shadow cast by the mind's own light" is easily one of the most striking parts of this passage. It is fascinating how Hegel frames the self-imposed limits of the mind not as actual external roadblocks, but as necessary illusions for its own liberation.
I am particularly curious about that third stage, "gaining freedom from it and in it." How do you view this specific moment within the broader transition from Subjective Spirit into Objective and Absolute Spirit? Would love to hear your thoughts or interpretations on how this dialectical move unfolds.
Credit: Photo by Melissa Cassar on Unsplash
- Source: Sunset
Quote:
>"It's so hard to forget pain, but it's even harder to remember sweetness. We have no scar to show for happiness. We learn so little from peace."
I found this quote from Chuck Palahniuk’s 2003 novel Diary, which caught my attention as it raises an intriguing question concerning the reflection of happiness in literature.
I think the author believes that unhappy experiences leave a trace of unease in the body, as well as an imprint on the soul, making them difficult to forget. In contrast, happy experiences do not leave any permanent effects, but rather dissipate like air.
Do you think that the presence of conflicts and suffering is essential in real life and in fictional stories? Also, do you know any books or authors that managed to capture the idea of “sweetness” or happiness perfectly in their works without making it boring and meaningless?