This issue’s content is a bit different from usual, yet deeply connected—it’s a foreword I wrote for Corrupt the Youth (好青年荼毒室)’s new book, The Philosophy of Future (哲學未來書), a few months ago.

My understanding of philosophy is extremely limited. Though what I write is often intended as popular science, it sometimes gets labeled as "very philosophical." I always feel a bit guilty, suspecting that the underlying message is "the content is abstract and hard to understand."

Fortunately, the stereotype that philosophy is abstract and difficult to grasp has been thoroughly debunked in recent years by Corrupt the Youth. Once, a friend asked me why I don't do "crypto-pop". I defended myself by explaining that I write diligently every week. However, my friend implied that to truly engage in popular knowledge dissemination, I should be as accessible as Corrupt the Youth. I had no rebuttal because I fully agreed.

The Philosophy of Future explores philosophical topics such as the internet, virtual reality, money, immortality and utopias. It’s fun and nourishing. You can find it at independent bookstores or purchase the e-book directly here, complete with a personalized signature.

Foreword for The Philosophy of Future

Confession: I once thought Philosophy was Impractical and Useless

There was a time when I believed philosophy was abstract and useless. This was back in my high school days, when my worldview was laughably simplistic. I categorized knowledge into sciences and humanities: the former concrete and useful, the latter abstract and useless. Since philosophy wasn’t a science, I concluded it must be abstract and useless. I thought this reasoning was perfectly logical.

When I entered university, I faced an immediate reckoning: I experienced my first existential crisis, realizing I had no idea whether my major, computer engineering, actually improved human society or made it worse. Using this confusion as an excuse, I neglected my studies. In my struggle, I crammed in some social science and general education courses, attempting to build a framework to distinguish right from wrong, which provided some relief from the unsettling sense of floating aimlessly. To this day, my search for answers continues.

Looking back, my confusion stemmed not only from suddenly entering a larger social sphere but also from my initial exposure to the internet. This invention, born of information technology and developed to be ubiquitous, posed significant challenges to my existing logic. The longer I immersed myself in this new world, the more I encountered the limits of traditional logic. The internet exemplified this perfectly: when everything is composed of bytes and can be perfectly copied, what constitutes uniqueness? When even uniqueness is hard to define, what does ownership mean? With human interactions no longer confined to physical spaces, how do we define identity?

I believe I wasn’t alone in my confusion. Modern society finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is not, and scientific advancements are “largely to blame”. Before digital technology, we didn't have to judge whether the virtual was real. Before biotechnology, we didn't need to question whether a cloned life was equivalent to a human life. Before the maturity of artificial intelligence, we didn’t have to ponder whether it was pathological to fall in love with the consciousness of the deceased. Before space technology enabled us to potentially discover extraterrestrial life, we didn’t need to debate the morality of annihilating another species in a “dark forest”. As technology advances rapidly, it brings not only efficiency, convenience and enjoyment but also various philosophical issues that challenge societal consensus and our ability to discern right from wrong.

In this context, I'm grateful for the publishing of The Philosophy of Future. One of the most memorable discussions in the book revolves around virtual reality. Contrary to the mainstream notion that the digital world is a false, inferior, escapist realm, I have always viewed the digital world as an extension of the real world — sometimes even more real than the physical world. Thus, I avoid using the misleading term "虛擬" (A popular Chinese diction that suggests a secondary and mimic property to reality) to translate "virtual". I thought this perspective resonated only with "tech geeks" like myself and lacked philosophical rigor or validation. Yet, there exists a philosopher named David Chalmers who shares similar views and has written extensively to substantiate the real existence of "virtual" objects. His work has both alleviated my solitude and supplemented my homespun ideas with a theoretical framework, adding an intellectual touch.

Another topic that struck a chord with me is the internet. Modern individuals are deeply influenced by the algorithms of social networks. Although I became aware of the issue relatively early and have actively sought solutions, I've managed to evade the biases broughtby algorithms but often miss widely known and popular topics, acquainting the general public very minimally — almost as if I've been exiled by the community, becoming a social outcast (see ‘The Network’). I thought these concerns were unrelated to philosophy, yet The Philosophy of Future uses theories from Jacques Lacan and Byung-Chul Han to analyze these phenomena, providing numerous insights. Although concrete suggestions are lacking, the book points toward analytical directions. After all, philosophy is more about methods of thinking than definitive answers.

There are many similar examples. I focus on scientific development and practical application, attempting to improve the world through technology, but my philosophical knowledge is limited to Sophie's World (well, and a fair share of articles and videos from Corrupt the Youth). Occasionally, when I hit the boundaries of traditional logic in life, I often don't know where to start analyzing and end up relying on gut feeling for judgments. It's not laziness in seeking the root causes but rather a lack of awareness of the relevant theories. The Philosophy of Future addresses many issues that have lingered in my mind, applying traditional philosophical theories to science and future imagination, opening my eyes.

It's slightly disappointing that the book doesn't discuss the recent significant breakthroughs in artificial intelligence. In an era where any information can be easily searched on the internet, the value of knowledge faces severe challenges. With AI progressing further, potentially taking over many tasks, understanding more and doing better than anyone, how should we position ourselves, and what will give our lives meaning? These are unavoidable questions for everyone, and philosophy undoubtedly has a significant role to play here.

Philosophy takes a unique path compared to most disciplines. While other fields emphasize knowledge — helping us "know" and "understand" — philosophy focuses on questioning, encouraging us to "learn" and “ask”, critically examine what we think we already know. It moves us from understanding to exploration, and then to critical thinking and reflection.

The rapid development of technology is like a boomerang striking back at its creator. With generative AI now passing the Turing test and becoming practically useful, it's not manual labor that's most threatened — ironically, it's knowledge-based jobs like programmers, graphic designers, and translators. As knowledge becomes instantly accessible, the value of STEM fields is questioned first. Conversely, philosophy, which explores common sense and helps us discern right from wrong, may play a crucial role in distinguishing between humans and machines. The rising interest in philosophy underscores the foresight of Corrupt the Youth and its fruitful journey over the past decade.

True to its style, Corrupt the Youth has penned this work in an approachable manner, targeting contemporary and future issues within the framework of classic and modern philosophical theories. It's a timely intervention in an era where technological advances constantly challenge common sense. Reading The Philosophy of Future has not only dispelled my earlier misconceptions about philosophy being impractical and abstract, but it has also provided intellectual companionship on the journey of pondering the future.

P.S. Last week, I shared insights on "Physical x Platform x Decentralized: How Can Hong Kong Publishing Evolve?" at Hunter Bookstore. Interestingly, officers from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) attended undercover. It's flattering to have caught their attention. I hope they found some value in the discussion and didn't just think it was all "very philosophical".