This project aims to establish if cryptocurrencies are liberating, offering more political freedom. It will also consider if they’re a positive development for society. To do this it will answer several questions. Firstly, it will define what cryptocurrencies are and introduce key examples. Then it will consider if cryptocurrencies can be understood as money. By presenting a genealogy of money and following how money has evolved it will demonstrate how our intuitive understanding of money is flawed. Money is a social institution, used to represent credit as Henry Macleod suggests. It will discuss the social ontology of money further, introducing the works of John Austin and John Searle. This will demonstrate that money isn’t something inherently valuable, rather it’s an object with an assigned function that society holds a set of beliefs about. Therefore, digital tokens or cryptocurrencies could function of money. However, they’re lacking the trust money requires to be credible. This project will then question why we don’t trust cryptocurrencies. It will consider why we trust the currencies we use today. Ultimately, governments establish this trust, and they are put in a position to do this via the social contract. Cryptocurrencies have no links to governments and therefore lack this. However, by discussing monetary policy this project will demonstrate how governments take their power and control further, manipulating our spending to reach their own targets. This project will question if this could be the reason why governments vilify cryptocurrencies, are they doing this to maintain their own power? This brings us to our last question; can cryptocurrencies liberate us from this control? It will consider the possibility of establishing a techno-Leviathan. Could placing an automated self-sustaining system as sovereign grant us more freedom. Ultimately, this project will conclude that this would be politically liberating. Cryptocurrencies remove third parties from monetary exchange, limiting their control and granting an individual more freedom.
Category: 2021
The study of death has been looked into in both scientific and theological terms. Something I wish to delve into is the philosophical discussion regarding death as the reason for human significance.
By using the works of thinkers such as Martin Heidegger, Karl Löwith, and Karl Marx, I aim to discuss and compare the variety of ways in which death derives or disproves humanity’s ’innate’ purpose.
Death is presented to do this in Heidegger’s ahistorical argument through the death of nature– i.e. the death of our external world and the individual– in comparison to Löwith’s historical argument regarding secularised eschatology.
Marxist ideology and literature is considered throughout as this best relates to modernity.
Has the insurgence of Social Networking Services propelled us towards Jean Baudrillard’s concept of social hyperreality? Well, Jean Baudrillard would argue yes, social
networking services are bringing us closer to a state of ‘pure simulacrum’, where no real understanding of the world can be divined. Albert Borgmann would argue yes, but the issue is more complicated than this. Social Networking Services are a product of our desire in a postmodern Western landscape to integrate technological designs into our everyday life. We can complain, but we caused it! But Hubert Dreyfus would argue not necessarily but engaging on the internet is dangerous in the same way Soren Kierkegaard thought engaging with the press was once. We lose track of our sense of identity and conform too much! No matter who’s opinion you look at more, one thing is for sure, that social networking services hide more than they reveal.