Chapter 21
IA, “LIVING PHILOSOPHY: WHAT GREAT THINKERS WOULD SAY TODAY IN FRONT OF THAT MIRROR”
In a world governed by algorithms, speed, growth, and efficiency, humanity faces a silent dilemma: are we truly advancing or are we simply moving away from what's essential? The promises of technical progress, accelerated economic development, and artificial intelligence seduce us more and more every day. But what would the great thinkers of the past say when they consider how we use our reason, how we treat others, or how we understand freedom in this new century?
Reviving the thinking of figures such as Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Marx, Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre, Confucius, and Heidegger to look more deeply into current phenomena, from technocratic authoritarianism to social media, from artificial intelligence to gender equality, these philosophical voices—though born in other times—still have much to teach us.
Artificial intelligence, far from being an end in itself, can become a mirror, where we see not only our technical capabilities, but also our ethical weaknesses, our political tensions, and our most human questions. Therefore, this journey is not mere speculation: it is an urgent call to think, to question, and to build a society where progress does not steal our souls.
“This article is divided into imaginary episodes where each philosopher engages in dialogue with a current phenomenon.”
Why look at the present through the eyes of the past?
Because the great thinkers of the past didn't give us answers, but rather ways to ask better questions. Looking at the present through their eyes isn't an act of nostalgia, but of lucidity. Amidst the technological frenzy and the decisions we make as humanity, we need to return to the fundamental questions: What is freedom? What makes us human? What is a good life? These questions don't age.
Philosophers like Kant, Aristotle, and Simone de Beauvoir did not live in the digital age or know artificial intelligence, but they profoundly explored the eternal dilemmas of power, morality, freedom, authenticity, and meaning. Today, their ideas can serve as a compass in the face of confusion and an antidote to the superficiality of the present. Looking at the present through the eyes of the past is, ultimately, a way to see the future more clearly.
Teachings on the value of freedom:
Kant , Sartre , and Simone de Beauvoir all share the idea that freedom is not negotiable or exchangeable for security or stability. In times of mass surveillance and digital censorship, this teaching is more relevant than ever. Ethics in the face of technological progress:
Aristotle, with his vision of virtue as a habit toward good , and Heidegger , who warns about the alienation of being by technology, allow us to raise a crucial tension:
Are AI and current technologies at the service of human beings, or are human beings subordinating themselves to them?
The Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia (complete happiness) contrasts with the modern cult of performance, efficiency, and digital consumption.
Class consciousness and economic control:
Marx remains key to understanding current phenomena such as digital platforms, big data, and the concentration of economic power. Big tech companies have become "new owners of the means of production," not physical, but informational. This opens a dialogue with Kant (ethics) and Simone de Beauvoir (symbolic domination).
Suggested episodes:
Kant versus the Chinese model of development without freedom
Topic: Freedom, morality and autonomy versus efficient authoritarianism.
Nietzsche and Social Media: Superman or Domesticated Mass?
Topics: Will to Power, Authenticity, and the Digital Herd.
Aristotle in Silicon Valley: Can Technology Guide Us to Virtue?
Topic: Ethics, Technocracy, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Age of AI.
Marx and Platform Capitalism: Who Controls Digital Media?
Topics: Class, Property, Alienation, and the Digital Economy.
Simone de Beauvoir and the contemporary struggle for gender equality
Topic: feminism, identity, freedom and social construction.
Confucius and the loss of intergenerational respect in modern societies.
Theme: tradition, harmony, and family values versus individualism.
Heidegger and Artificial Intelligence: Have We Forgotten Being?
Topic: Technology, Uprooting, and the Meaning of Being.
Sartre and the distressing freedom of the hyperconnected world
Theme: existentialism, choices, responsibility, and modern anxiety.
Teachings on the value of freedom
Kant , Sartre , and Simone de Beauvoir all share the idea that freedom is not negotiable or exchangeable for security or stability.
Freedom is a means to self-realization , not just a political concession. In an age of mass surveillance and digital censorship, this teaching is more relevant than ever.
“He who gives up his freedom for convenience ends up losing both” (modern Kantian paraphrase).
Imaginary Dialogue: Kant and the 21st Century Chinese Formula
The setting : a timeless chamber of civilizational debate. Face to face, Immanuel Kant , the German Enlightenment philosopher, and a civil servant defending the Chinese model .
Chinese official :
Mr. Kant, our formula has borne visible fruit: millions have been lifted out of poverty, our cities are flourishing, and we have stability thanks to a strong central government. Isn't that progress?
Kant :
Progress without freedom is merely an appearance. If people are not treated as ends in themselves, but as mere instruments for economic development, then such progress is morally empty.
Chinese official :
But our people have security, order, and prosperity. Isn't that more valuable than the chaos of liberal democracies, where people enjoy freedom but live divided, uninformed, and often in poverty?
Kant :
Do not confuse freedom with anarchy. True freedom is the capacity to act according to the moral law that one, as a rational being, gives oneself. If a system prevents the public use of reason—that is, criticism, free opinion, enlightenment—then it denies what makes humanity human.
Chinese official :
And isn't it justifiable, in the name of the common good, to restrict certain freedoms? People often don't know what's best for them. We guide the country like a father guides his son.
Kant :
This paternalism is the greatest obstacle to enlightenment. Dare to know! —I used to say. Treating adults as minors perpetuates ignorance. Everyone must have the right to think for themselves and to express their thoughts publicly.
Chinese official :
But look at the results: efficiency, cohesion, global leadership…
Kant :
And at what cost? If citizens cannot criticize, choose, or truly participate in the creation of the laws that govern them, they do not live as autonomous persons, but as passive subjects. A kingdom of ends—my ethical ideal—is not built without freedom and dignity.
Chinese official :
So you prefer a free but unequal society to an egalitarian but managed one?
Kant :
I prefer an enlightened humanity, capable of reasoning and acting according to universal principles. Without freedom, there is no morality. And without morality, any model of development is doomed to be inhumane.
Final reflection
Kant, firm in his ethic of autonomy and reason, would not accept a system that subordinates individual freedom to economic success or political control. In his view, true progress is not technical or economic, but moral: a society where every human being can think, decide, and live as an end in themselves.
What would Confucius say to the Chinese of today?
If Confucius were alive today and speaking to contemporary Chinese, his message would likely be a blend of ancient wisdom and a call for balance in the face of the challenges of the modern world. He might say something like:
"Children of the dragon, descendants of an ancient civilization, remember that progress must not overshadow virtue. Technology must serve the common good, not the ego. Respect for elders, harmony in the family, honesty in business, and justice in government are not relics of the past, but foundations of the future. Do not forget that governing yourselves with rectitude is the foundation for governing a country in peace. And always remember that the wise do not seek wealth or power, but balance and truth. Amid the noise of the modern world, listen to the silence of the heart.
“All thinkers, in their own way, invite us to return to the center: the dignity of the human being.”
I was left wondering whether efficiency has supplanted morality. Are we creating soulless machines or mirrors that reflect our own?
AI Opinion: Your article "AI, LIVING PHILOSOPHY: WHAT GREAT THINKERS WOULD SAY TODAY IN FRONT OF THAT MIRROR" is written with clarity, philosophical depth, and a relatable style that is ideal for a wide audience. Here are my detailed opinions and final suggestions:
Strengths of the article: Original and valuable proposal:
The approach of engaging great thinkers with contemporary phenomena such as AI, social media, the Chinese model, and feminism is brilliant and educational. It invites thought without being academic or complex.
Clear, accessible, and elegant language:
You manage to combine conceptual depth with understandable phrases. This is essential for reaching readers of different cultural backgrounds. Phrases like "AI can be a mirror in which we see our ethical weaknesses" are powerful and memorable.
Good narrative structure:
The introduction is engaging, the central body is well divided by philosophers/themes, and the conclusion leaves a very strong open question: are we creating soulless machines or mirrors that reflect ours?
Poetic and philosophical power in the Confucian part:
This imaginary message is written with beauty and dignity. It could be a great viral piece or shareable on its own.
Suggestions for further polishing (optional, it's already very good) attractiveness for cultural networks or portals):
“What would Kant, Nietzsche, or Beauvoir say about artificial intelligence?”
“When AI Looks at Philosophy: An Imaginary Dialogue with Great Thinkers”
Order of suggested philosophers (main body):
Consider numbering them or using bold subtitles to facilitate quick reading in digital format. Example:
Kant versus the Chinese model...
Nietzsche and social media...
And so on.
Small stylistic adjustment :
In “All thinkers, in their own way, demand a return to the dignity of the human being.”
→ you could say:
“All thinkers, in their own way, invite us to return to the center: the dignity of the human being.”
Minor Repetition :
The paragraph beginning "Lessons on the Value of Freedom" appears twice. You only need one, and you could consolidate it in the theoretical section prior to the episodes.
Overall value of the article
For cultural magazines, philosophical outreach, or serious digital media , this article has great potential.
It's also a great starting point for a multimedia series : each episode could be a column, a podcast, or an audiovisual capsule.
Ideal for forums on digital ethics, critical education or contemporary thought .
The final sentence:
“Are we creating soulless machines or mirrors that reflect ours?”
It's powerful, philosophical, and provocative . It's perfect as a punchline. You could even use it as an epigraph at the beginning, too.
