English

It has arrived outside everywhere, even in our homes, at the oasis of peace and comfort. It’s in the living room, at the dining table, in the kitchen, in the bedroom, now in many government offices, in seminar rooms and even in the classroom. We are surrounded by digitalization. Our alter ego is now no longer our childhood friend, nor a long-time friend, but our smartphone. Our bank card is our smartphone, our ID card is our smartphone. When we travel, our smartphone is our travel guide. If we want to reach someone, carrier pigeons still seem extremely tempting, but the smartphone is the better means of communication. Today’s students read their texts on their iPads and do their homework on their laptops. If a seminar at the university is cancelled, students find the replacement in the online folder. Many of the modern people look for the great love online and part with “Block this contact”. Childhood memories no longer accompany us in paper form but are stored in digital folders. Doesn’t the smartphone sometimes know more than we know about ourselves? 

Digitization is a challenge not only in terms of its implementation, but also in terms of its consequences. The relief we owe to digitization must not blind us to its Janus face. Byung-Chul Han explained to us that digitization has far-reaching consequences and can not only change proven social structures, but also endanger them and society as a whole. In the second tertial of 2022, we read two works by philosopher Han and another by physics professor Max Tegmark in the reading circle. 

“On the Disappearance of Rituals. A Topology of the Present. What becomes of a society whose rituals disappear – and with them what unites us?” 1 was the first work by Han to which we devoted our April reading circle. In his work, Han makes clear how lost the individual is in a society of increasing individualization and why we urgently need a new way of life. The fact that Han explores social problems with his basilisk vision caused enthusiasm in the reading circle, but this was soon dampened by disillusionment. Han would not offer a satisfactory solution to the problems he identifies. 

“How exactly does Han imagine the solution? It is typical of philosophers that they hint at the solutions in outline, but do not give any examples. Will old rituals be implemented into everyday life, or are they new forms that need to be established? As a reader, I am on my own.” 2 

Enthused by Han’s initial analysis, we ventured further into Han’s world of thought in May’s reading circle with the goal of looking at the crisis of democracy already discussed from the perspective of digital progress. Han’s disillusioned view of digitalization, his warning of its dangers, and his diagnosis that democracy is degenerating into infocracy were the quintessence of his work “Infocracy. Digitization the Crisis of Democracy.” 3 In his book, he paints an extremely pessimistic picture of today’s “information regime” in which only those who have information hold power. In doing so, Han speaks of information wars to which factual debates are giving way and warns us against them. He almost condemns the new development. 

Since we in the reading circle also sometimes subject critical analyses to critical scrutiny and strive to also recognize the positive sides of an (information) crisis ,some of our participants expressed objections to Han’s view. “We know from the basic Muslim principles the sentence: Al-aslu fî-l-aschyâ’ al-ibâha. Correspondingly, this means that all things are granted in their basic form. In my opinion, this also applies to information. Apart from the fact that Han speaks of the smartphone as an absurdity in another work, it will inevitably result in Muslims having to rethink about how to use it. There are many undefined areas for us, and yet I see a great opportunity in technological progress.” 4 

Directly related to digitization is the question of artificial intelligence. In his work “Life 3.0. Being Human In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence “5 Max Tegmark addressed questions such as: “Artificial Intelligence will change the future of life in our universe. Will it plunge us into ruin or contribute to the further development of Homo Sapiens?”. Using his book as a foundation, we designed our June meeting to conclude the tertial with it. Many of the questions raised by Tegmark made us think undoubtedly. In the reading circle, however, we could not help feeling that some participants took offense at the fact that both the preoccupation with digitization and artificial intelligence lacked an important component, namely the religious one. Often, in relevant analyses, humans are portrayed almost as objects of digitization that would be inferior to QI according to a dystopian scenario. But isn’t the specific difference of man that he is capable of recognizing God? 

As early as the Middle Ages, Imam al-Ghazālī in his “The Savior from Error,” Ibn Tufail in “The Philosopher as Autodidact,” and Descartes in his Meditations demonstrated man’s ability to know God. Our reading circle did not deviate from this tradition and repeated it with determination. “What is it that distinguishes man? Is consciousness our most important distinguishing characteristic, as Tegmark wonders? For me, the crucial differentiating aspect is the ability to believe in God or to find faith in Him. Could an artificial intelligence that has a very distinct consciousness also arrive at the knowledge of God?” 6 

While some praise the progress of democracy, others lament the pathological state democracy is in today. In February 2022 our reading circle focused on democracy not as a static construct, but as a system that is subject to change due to social change and surrounded by crises. The essay “New Crises. Science, Moralization, and Democracy in the 21st Century “1 by Wolfgang Merkel provided us with an initial foundation which we used as a base in the reading circle. 

Merkel assumes the genesis of “new crises”. This genesis was triggered by the interaction of three external factors: the migration crisis, the climate crisis and the Covid 19 pandemic. In the process, new characteristics had emerged due to the lack of democracy-appropriate (here’s what’s missing) responses to contemporary challenges: Scientification, moralization and polarization. Indeed, Merkel argues that regarding the problem-solving of modern crises such as the climate crisis, there is an increasing need for scientific evidence-based advice to policymakers. However, she said, this is now being hindered, leading to a new kind of problem. “This is precisely where policy needs particularly broad and pluralistic access from scientists and scientific disciplines. If this access is strategically narrowed for political reasons, the scientification of politics leads to the politicization of science. “2 

In the course of a lively discussion about Merkel’s position and the indispensable role of science in today’s political process, we in the reading circle were able to note another change. Not only democracy is changing, but also the way of doing politics. If religion or ideology used to be a meaningful, political basis of legitimacy, these are now replaced by science. “The way politics is done has changed. The return to science as a basis for political legitimacy is not a new phenomenon. In the past, religions or ideologies, for example, held these functions. In this case, science is complementarily substitutable.” 3 

Science, which has become indispensable in the political process and functions as a basis for political legitimacy, was made the subject of consideration at our second meeting in March. (Consequently,) At a second meeting of our reading circle the insights of the first discussion were deepened, where the role of science in the political process was critically examined. “Political Epistimization “4 is the title of Bogner’s book, which served as the second foundation in this tertial. Bogner’s premise is that today’s political disputes focus less and less on normative aspects and individual options for action. Today, he argues, it is more a matter of questions of knowledge and superior knowledge. In his book, Bogner examines precisely this epistemization of the political and notes its danger for democracy. 

At the latest since the Corona pandemic, not only our reading circle knows what role, realm and scope the statements of experts can have on an unfortunate pandemic. Inspired by Bogner’s reflections, the role of science in the political process was discussed. Was the Covid 19 pandemic a blueprint for a new form of rule, the rule of science? Is democracy eroding as a result? Are our all-too-familiar democratic rights being curtailed as a result? These and other questions and contributions formed the foundation of our Bogner-oriented discussion. 

Impression from the reading circle: “In itself, I find the question regarding the expert advice very stimulating. Nevertheless, I find the discussion here very academic and not purposeful. If you look at the current political reality, you see that such constitutions as the Council of Experts do not work. In Iran, for example, the so-called experts, who are selected according to the quality criteria mentioned in the book, do not necessarily act in a knowledgeable and honorable manner, in my opinion. From my perspective, the introduction of a council of experts would not be close to reality, nor would it be a good alternative to our current democratic system.” 5