Socio-political philosophical musings
A longer post about my thoughts after having read the first section of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble.
‘woman’ is a normative identity, and like all normative identities it is striated. It is composed of putative essences, recurring structural constraints, intersectional positions, cohort-relative projections, subjective inhabitations, and external gatekeeping.
I’m an active AI user. It’s no secret. My top uses are research and enquiry, but it is instrumental in my review and revision process.
I am trying to wrap up my latest manuscript. I’m about 5 revisions through, so I felt I was finally in a position to check for cracks and missing elements, as well as the strength of my overall position and approach. It’s not a good idea to simply prompt, ‘What do you think about this?’
I’d tried prompts as simple as, ‘Act as a referee and be adversarial against this piece’ or ‘I got this from somewhere, and I want a critique’. These approaches shield you from AI’s programmed sycophantic tendencies. But they aren’t enough. You still need to create guidelines and guardrails, which include orientating the AI; otherwise, they will likely go off the reservation.
This is the actual prompt I last employed to various LLMs:
The attached is a complete development draft of Architecture of Willing, a philosophical monograph arguing that the vocabulary of will, intent, motive, choice, decision, and related terms operates through a two-stage grammatical mechanism – compression of action-patterns into portable nouns, followed by inversion of those nouns into apparent upstream authors of the very patterns from which they were abstracted. The book calls this mechanism authoring displacement and uses it to argue that retributive desert cannot be stably grounded in the vocabulary on which it depends.
The book is deliberately diagnostic rather than prescriptive. It does not propose a replacement psychology, a reformed legal code, or a new theory of agency. It refuses to settle the traditional free-will debate on either side. These refusals are intentional and are argued for within the text.
What I am asking for is a critical engagement from a position of maximum philosophical resistance. Specifically:
The book rests on a claim about what retributive practice requires – namely, a stable inward authoring source capable of making suffering genuinely owed rather than merely institutionally imposed. If that characterisation of retributivism’s requirements is wrong, or if it applies only to unsophisticated versions while leaving the strongest contemporary defences untouched, the central argument is significantly weakened. I would like to know whether that is the case, and if so, where exactly the book’s account of retributivism’s commitments fails to engage its best defenders.
More broadly: the book is a diagnosis of grammar. The question I want pressed is whether a grammatical diagnosis can do the normative work the book needs it to do – whether there is a gap between ‘this noun cannot stably support the load placed on it’ and ‘therefore practices depending on this noun are normatively unjustified’. If there is such a gap, what would close it, and does the book close it?
Please do not soften objections in the direction of ‘this is a good book with some gaps’. If the argument is unsound, say so and say where. If it is sound against some targets but not others, identify the targets it misses. The manuscript has already received generous assessments; what it needs now is the strongest case against it.
Of course, this prompt is specific to me and my project, but one may feel free to use it as a model for similar purposes.
Among the gaps returned were arguments I had not been aware of. In fact, in a couple of places, I had already cited authors, but the AI returned additional books or essays by the same people. In other cases, it offered material by authors I hadn’t considered. Obviously, I am interested in creating solid, watertight arguments, so this only helps my case.
For this project, my LLMs of choice have been Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Kimi K2. I used Perplexity, Mistral, DeepSeek, and Z.ai GLM in earlier iterations.
Another application is to take the critique output from one LLM into another with a prompt to evaluate the critique. My modus operandi here is to pick a ‘master’ LLM – typically in a Claude or ChatGPT project context – and treat it as my primary partner; the others are virtual subcontractors. This means that I can get a half-dozen or more reactions in minutes, which are then digested by the, let’s say, project manager, for assessment and a proposed action plan, typically in the form of a punch list. I recommend this approach as well.
When I was in grad school, this part of the project would have taken months. As it is, I’ve been working on this project since COVID-19, but it’s been an on-and-off affair, accumulating research information and documentation all the while. The manuscript will be better off, and my position honed sharper over this expanse of time, so the delay was beneficial.
Would more time also be beneficial? Probably, but one needs to stop somewhere, and I’m likely facing diminishing marginal returns. If I go the way of Wittgenstein, I’ll reverse track and recant everything. And so it goes…
The Architecture of Willing is a passion project I’ve been considering since the COVID-19 debacle. I took a couple of career breaks to focus on the problem of agency. In fact, my working title until now has been Against Agency. Upon research, I discovered that (1) the idea was somewhat tired, and (2) it was mired in a free will debate centred around determinism. And (3) the argument had been made by many about a decade earlier, so I also missed the ground swell. As my interest is to present novel views or perspectives, I bowed out, but something still irked me.
Then it dawned on me: I’d dissect will under a language philosophy microscope. This got me to a new working title: Architecture of Willing, which perhaps uncoincidentally aligns with my Architecture of Encounter.
I’m still working through the first draft, but I’d like to share a NotebookLM summary of an early draft of Chapter 1, which serves as an introductory chapter: Authoring Displacement and the Cake Grammar or some such. Have a listen.
I use the opening chapter as a setup. I had an idea of convicting a cake on charges of being delicious and using this absurdity as a metaphor for how we inflate and personify the notion of will. Perhaps interestingly, the will (particularly the free flavour) was the central theme I explored in my novel Propensity by Ridley Park, a little shameless cross-promotion.
I’ll keep this short because I am still drafting the monograph. I hope to have it published in May. Time will tell.
This is a bonus episode I asked NotebookLM to render based on the past two posts. These posts had been one, but I chose to separate them because of their core orientation on a shared topic. For those who read the posts together, this is made clear. I even continue several threads to make it obvious, but the two essays are a diptych. I feel the second post is stronger than the first, but the first was a stronger setup. If you don’t have time to read the essays, this is a decent summary.
On the unargued inflation that property theory inherits.
This is the second of two posts about the immorality of property. I shared the first post yesterday.
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
— Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
I posted another longer essay on Substack on the immorality of property ownership. This isn’t my first, but I wanted to go deeper in my critique. Actually, I wrote two, but I’ll advertise the second one tomorrow.
James Ladyman and I agree that language is a fundamental impediment to understanding – and this includes notions of reality.
So, of course, I wrote about it. There is no spoon. A link to his interview is in the article, where I compare and contrast his Everything Must Go and my own The Architecture of Encounter.
I’ve been busy, so I’m sharing a link to Substack, which also includes this NotebookLM podcast summary.
I had planned to write a blog post on The Remains of the Day, but I posted it on Substack instead because I changed the scope. I also created this podcast on NotebookLM.
Why Dating Is Not Shopping, No Matter How Many Apps Insist Otherwise
Firstly, be nice, and remember that I’m a recovering economist, so I can’t fully abandon this lens. There’s a concept in economics called the double coincidence of wants. For barter to work, I must have what you want, and you must have what I want, simultaneously, in the right quantities. The implausibility of this – that two strangers would arrive at the same moment, each holding exactly what the other needs – is traditionally the justification for money. Money decouples giving from receiving. It lets me sell my grain today and buy your lumber next month. Problem solved. It is tempting, and initially illuminating, to notice that dating is a double coincidence of wants with no money.
Two people must simultaneously possess what the other desires. There’s no abstract medium of exchange. Listen, I don’t make up the rules, but you can’t deposit romantic capital in a bank and draw on it later with a different partner. Every transaction must clear bilaterally, in real time, between specific parties. The reason dating is difficult, on this account, is the same reason barter is difficult: the coordination problem is enormous.
This is a genuinely useful analogy – for about sixty-nine seconds. After that, it begins to collapse. And the way it collapses turns out to be more interesting than the analogy itself.
In an economy, wants are at least notionally specifiable. You want grain, I want lumber. We can write a contract. In attraction, nobody can write the contract, because nobody knows the terms. You can list proxies – symmetry, wit, income, dentition – but the list never cashes out the phenomenon. There’s always a residue. Someone ticks every box and provokes nothing. Someone ticks none of them and provokes everything. The attributes aren’t the attraction. They’re at best rough correlates of something that resists decomposition.
Evolutionary psychology claims to have the list – fertility signals, resource indicators, and bilateral symmetry – but this is just dressing up economic grammar. It takes the lived phenomenology of attraction, which is irreducibly aesthetic, and rewrites it as a covert optimisation problem. The evo-psych account is the friend who explains why you should find someone attractive and then looks puzzled when you don’t.
Even granting an approximate list of attributes, each one functions not as a threshold but as a band of acceptability. And the bands interact. A deficit in punctuality can be compensated by a surplus in making-you-laugh-until-you-cry. But the exchange rate between these dimensions isn’t fixed, it’s not linear, and almost certainly not conscious. Nobody’s running this calculation. If you ask them to formalise it, they’d produce a confabulation, not a report.
Kahneman’s Noise documents a finding that should alarm anyone who believes in stable preferences: the same agent, evaluating the same inputs, will produce different outputs on different occasions – not because of bias (which is at least systematic and therefore correctable) but because of irreducible stochastic variability. The judge sentences harshly before lunch and leniently after. Same person, same case, different output.
Applied to attraction, means that the person you’d swipe right on at nine in the morning, you might pass over at eleven at night – or vice versa, as the case might be <winkie>– not because you’ve learnt anything new, but because you aren’t a stable instrument of measurement. The evaluation function drifts across a single day. Across months and years, it’s rebuilt entirely.
Every prior relationship recalibrates the apparatus. Someone who’s been betrayed doesn’t simply move ‘trustworthiness’ higher on their list. Their entire perceptual system for detecting trustworthiness has been restructured. The sensor’s been rebuilt by its prior readings. In no market economy do my preferences over apples change because I once had a bad experience buying oranges from a particular vendor. In relationships, this is the norm.
Standard preference theory assumes diminishing marginal returns, and this holds for attraction in the obvious direction: the tenth bunch of flowers yields less delight than the first. But the inverse does not hold symmetrically. The absence of a previously supplied attribute often produces increasing marginal disutility. You habituate to presence but sensitise to withdrawal. The utility of gaining X and the disutility of losing X are not mirror images. The preference function is path-dependent in a way that wrecks any static equilibrium model.
And all of this assumes the candidates are available for evaluation. They mostly aren’t. Your evaluation function, however sophisticated or broken, only gets applied to whatever washes up in your vicinity – no offence to Ariel. Your so-called soulmate might reside in Istanbul, but you live in London, and you don’t share a language, and you’ll never meet. This isn’t a logistical barrier. It’s a legibility barrier. You could stand next to this person in an airport and the aesthetic response function would not even fire, because the medium through which half of attraction is constituted – conversation, the texture of someone’s verbal mind – is simply unavailable. The instrument requires an input format that the candidate can’t provide. Consider you spy this person across an expanse, gain enough courage to introduce yourself, and they don’t speak your language. Body language will only compensate so far.
The cumulative force of all this is simple and devastating: we are stuck on local maxima. The search space is computationally intractable. The evaluation function is noisy and path-dependent. The attributes resist enumeration. The tolerance bands are fuzzy and interactive. The returns are asymmetric. The search is geographically and linguistically truncated. And so agents do what any rational agent would do under these conditions: they satisfice. They adopt a threshold of ‘good enough’ – a threshold which is itself endogenous to all the noise and path-dependence described above – and they stop searching when they cross it.
This is not a failure of nerve. It is the only coherent strategy available to an agent who can’t identify, or even in principle define, the global optimum. Committing to a local maximum is the rational play, precisely because optimising is impossible 0150 at least legible in the sense of James C. Scott.
Which makes the cultural mythology of ‘the one’ a rather cruel grammatical artefact. It presupposes a global search that no one has conducted or could conduct. It borrows its intelligibility from the economic grammar of optimal allocation – there is a best match, you just have to find it – and projects it onto a domain where ‘best’ has no operational definition, the search is radically local, and the searcher is a different instrument on different days.
I lived in Los Angeles from twenty-one to twenty-seven, in the early to mid-1980s. I loved it. It was my favourite place on earth. I returned to LA from thirty-five to forty-five, and it was just another place.
It may have turned out that way even had I never left. The point is not that Los Angeles changed – though of course it did. The point is that I changed. Different profession, different situation, different appetites, different saliences… The evaluation function that produced ‘favourite place on earth’ at twenty-three was a fundamentally different instrument from the one that produced ‘just another place’ at forty. No longer a club rat on the prowl, I walked the same streets and saw a different city, because the perceptual apparatus that constructed the city as an experienced object had been rebuilt by fifteen years of living.
‘Favourite place on earth’ and ‘just another place’ aren’t two judgements issued by one stable subject upon one stable object. They’re two outcomes produced by two historically different configurations of salience, appetite, profession, circumstance, and age.
Los Angeles is useful here precisely because it’s not a person – RHCP, not withstanding. It lets you see the structure before sentiment starts mucking about with it.
We don’t even evaluate cities consistently across a lifetime. The same is true, more painfully, of persons.
The partner one adored at twenty-five may not have become deficient in any simple sense. The evaluative field changed. New dimensions became salient, old ones lost force, tolerances narrowed or widened, and costs are reweighted. The same partner now appears under a different aspect, because the apparatus of appraisal has been rebuilt in the interim.
And here, three claims should remain separate: the object may change; the evaluator may change; and the relation between them may change even if neither has altered dramatically. This third one prevents this from collapsing into a banal ‘people grow’ sermon. Sometimes the drift isn’t a defect in either party. It’s a change in fit.
It would also be a mistake to think any of this operates as a 1:1 match. The dimensional space isn’t shared. Any two people will overlap on some dimensions, diverge on others, and be mutually illegible on others still – dimensions where one party’s response function is active, and the other’s doesn’t even register the input. He cares intensely about how she loads the dishwasher. She doesn’t experience dishwasher-loading as a dimension at all. It’s not disagreement. It is incommensurability.
A long relationship isn’t a transaction. It’s two non-congruent evaluative systems attempting to maintain a shared narrative of congruence as the terrain shifts beneath them. The miracle isn’t finding someone who matches. The miracle is sustaining a workable fiction that two-dimensional spaces are more commensurable than they are.
Consider the statistically perfect match – bilateral alignment across every operationalised dimension. Even if you could construct such a thing, it would be a snapshot: a cross-section of two moving systems that happened to align at time t. By t+1, the dimensional spaces have already drifted. The statistical portrait is a death mask of a living process.
And here is a green-eyed test. Suppose the perfect match has green eyes. It doesn’t follow that a blue-eyed twin – identical in every other respect – would or wouldn’t provoke the same response. Because whatever was operative in the encounter was not an attribute, or a bundle of attributes, but something that emerged from the specific interaction and can’t be decomposed back into the components that produced it. The entire enterprise of algorithmic matching is cataloguing attributes on the assumption that the attributes are the attraction. It is like analysing a joke by listing its phonemes.
Let’s consider one-night stands as an example to clarify the taxonomy. A one-night stand really is the nearest thing romance has to a spot transaction. The time horizon is short, the narrative load is low, path-dependence is weak, and local salience dominates. The calculus is narrow and immediate. The economic grammar almost applies. Whatever gets you through the night.
A long relationship isn’t a transaction at all, but an evolving coordination problem between changing evaluators. The longer the time horizon, the more layers of critique come into play, and the more absurd the matching grammar becomes. Over time, relationships are not discrete exchanges but moving equilibria between non-stationary systems. That’s why long partnerships are so fragile and so impressive when they endure.
Having arrived at their local maximum, both parties then construct a narrative in which the outcome was the product of discernment rather than constraint.
‘I knew she was the one when…’ isn’t a report. It’s a reconstruction – a story imposed on a stochastic process to make it legible in the grammar of rational choice. The same person, encountered on a different Tuesday or in a different postcode, might never have registered at all. But the narrative requires necessity, so necessity is confabulated.
And it runs in both directions. She thinks it was his quiet confidence. He thinks it was the argument about Godard. Both are post hoc pattern-matching on noise – selecting from the welter of early interactions the moments that fit the ‘recognition’ narrative, and discarding the rest. It’s survivorship bias applied to one’s own love life.
This also explains the peculiar ferocity of heartbreak after the narrative has been constructed. What collapses is not merely the relationship but the explanatory framework. The story that made the local maximum feel like a global one disintegrates, and the agent is returned to the raw landscape: noisy, path-dependent, locally constrained, and aesthetically illegible. The grief is partly about the person. It’s also about the loss of the rationalisation that made the search feel concluded – losing the construct of the person rather than the person, per se.
The dating app asks you what you want as though you’re ordering from a menu, when what is actually happening is that the menu is rewriting itself based on what you had for lunch yesterday, how much sleep you got, and that thing your ex said in 2019 that you think you are over.
We don’t find ‘the one’ – sorry, Neo. We become different readers of the same world, and occasionally manage to remain legible to one another for a while. Which is, if you stop demanding it be a fairy tale, quite a lot.
Alasdair MacIntyre is persuasive when he argues that moral discourse is never neutral, and that modern liberalism smuggles in substantive standards while pretending not to. But he dismisses emotivism too quickly as a cultural disaster rather than considering whether it might describe moral language more accurately than his own teleological alternative. If moral utterance is fundamentally prescriptive or expressive rather than descriptive, then the collapse of ‘view from nowhere’ morality doesn’t send us scurrying back to Aristotle. It simply shows that moral language was never doing the metaphysical work MacIntyre wants from it.
The Aristotelian remedy also depends on a nostalgic and anachronistic social model. The Athens he implicitly romanticises was a small polis whose demos consisted of citizens, meaning property-owning males, already bound by shared norms, proximity, and cultural inheritance. In other words, the sort of thick local world that made a certain kind of practical ethical life possible in the first place. MacIntyre’s causal arrow points the wrong way. In Athens, democratic practice emerged from that prior social texture. You do not reproduce the same conditions by philosophical edict.
To put it more bluntly: I don’t think moral realism is tenable, and I am not convinced MacIntyre really thinks so either. His project reads less like a discovery of moral facts than an attempt to promote an ought into an is by force of inheritance and rhetorical confidence. If he carved out a bounded cohort and imposed the right shared practices, perhaps something like his model could function. He may need to annex a reasonably sized car park for the purpose.
Philosophics 