Gueorgui Vassilev
Independent Researcher

Abstract

This essay examines the algorithmization of social life as a civilizational shift that links thermodynamics, information theory, and ethics. Treating societies as open energy–information systems, it argues that algorithms optimize coordination while narrowing the space for judgment, creativity, and responsibility. Through dialogue with Hegel, Heidegger, Foucault, Stiegler, Harari, Peterson, and Taleb, the paper develops a synthesis that situates code within a broader ontology of meaning. The pandemic-era expansion of data-driven governance and platform moderation illustrates how procedural rationality can erode interpretive openness and moral agency. Against purely technocratic futures, the essay proposes a dynamic equilibrium—keeping algorithmic efficiency subordinate to reflective conscience and narrative interpretation—so that antifragility and freedom are preserved within complex systems.

Keywords

algorithmization, ethics, freedom, information theory, thermodynamics

I. Methodological Framework

Methodologically, this analysis adopts a multidisciplinary approach grounded in thermodynamics, information theory, and ethics. It considers human societies to be open, self-organizing systems, energetic, informational, and symbolic, that develop according to the laws that govern life and matter.

This integrative approach connects the physical, cognitive, and ethical aspects of human life, demonstrating how principles of energy, information, and value develop together within a single dynamic system.

Within this framework, algorithmization refers to the historical process through which human cognition and social organization become formalized, externalized, and systematically structured through institutional and computational systems. It is not just a technological development but a key stage in human evolution, where cognitive functions are transformed into procedural rules that both mirror and influence the conditions of human thought.

Seen in this light, the algorithmic transformation of social life appears as a necessary expression of civilization’s ongoing evolution, through the synthesis of physical law, cognition, and ethical reflection within a unified process.

II. The Algorithmic Paradox and Civilizational Dynamics

In modern social life, a new kind of absurdity has emerged, one not rooted in existential despair or metaphysical alienation, but in the silent operations of processes driven by algorithms that increasingly shape human behavior. These algorithms, designed mainly to improve efficiency, often produce outcomes that defy reason, accountability, and ethical standards. The absurd is not in reason’s failure, but in its displacement: human judgment, responsibility, and dialogue are replaced by impersonal mechanisms whose workings remain unclear even to those who oversee them.

A revealing example can be seen in today’s automated air travel systems. A single typo in a passenger’s electronic ticket, an innocent mistake, can render the entire document invalid. No human agent can override the machine’s denial: the computer „does not recognize“ the traveler as the person for whom the service was bought. Hours of explanation, evidence, and common sense are ineffective against the strict rules of code. A small mistake thus becomes a dead-end, an encounter with an automated system that neither understands nor can be reasoned with. The system makes the decision, but no person is involved; only an algorithm follows its logic.

The same principle applies to the geopolitical arena. Domestic regulatory systems from major economic powers now influence global actions through the threat of financial sanctions. Consistent compliance procedures are created and enforced via international cooperation, often without democratic oversight or precise accountability mechanisms. Banks and corporations, fearing penalties, adopt practices of hyper-compliance, limiting services and freezing accounts without direct legal approval or transparent reasons. As a result, an administrative rule initially limited to one country gains excessive influence over worldwide economic and political relationships, showing how algorithmic enforcement turns political power into depersonalized governance.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, similar mechanisms emerged in the social realm. Emergency measures were implemented worldwide under conditions of scientific uncertainty and administrative urgency. Although these actions were driven by the need to protect public health, they were often carried out through technocratic procedures that limited transparency and public input or thorough evaluation of their long-term human effects (Habermas 2021; Agamben 2021). The global crisis, therefore, served as an unprecedented experiment in large-scale algorithmic coordination: epidemiological models, data dashboards, and predictive analytics became key tools of governance, while human experience and contextual judgment were often secondary to statistical forecasts (Kitchin 2020).

At the same time, the digital infrastructures that enabled public communication played a vital role in shaping the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Algorithmic moderation systems, originally designed to curb misinformation, accidentally decreased the visibility of legitimate dissent, including that of established scientists and medical professionals (Lewandowsky et al. 2012; Zuboff 2019). The public sphere, traditionally regarded as a space for discussion and diverse reasoning (Habermas 1989), was thus turned into a domain of automated curation, where opaque computational logics governing datasets and risk measurements determined how opinions circulated.

What emerged was not just a temporary restriction on mobility or assembly but a more profound shift in how people understand their collective reality. The ways societies build consensus, once based on open debate and institutional mediation, became more automated, data-driven, and detached from the slow pace of reflection. The outcome was a paradox: a world more connected than ever, yet less able to communicate correctly. In this way, the pandemic did not create the algorithmic governance of society; it simply made its structures visible, revealing how technological rationality can both safeguard and weaken the human aspect of public reasoning.

These real-life examples, although diverse, share a common feature: the replacement of human decision-making with self-referential control systems. They illustrate what could be called the algorithmic absurdity, a situation in which systemic rationality erodes substantive reason, and the requirement for compliance overrides the capacity for understanding.

The present essay aims to explore this condition philosophically. How does the spread of algorithmic administrative systems reshape the relationship between human agency and systemic necessity? What are the ontological and ethical implications of decisions made without subjects, rules enforced without interpreters, and power exercised without responsibility? Finally, can the creative aspect of the human mind, its ability to transcend, interpret, and redefine meaning, still manifest within this new structure of control?

III. Society as Open Thermodynamic System

Human civilization has always been a process of transformation, an ongoing effort to turn energy into order and convert chaos into meaning. Every culture, institution, and era offers a specific solution to the same fundamental challenge: how to stabilize the flow of existence long enough to form a stable organization of social life. While earlier times found their stability through stories of divine cosmologies or clockwork metaphors, the modern world is now dominated by a new means of organization: the algorithm. An algorithm is simply a guideline, a recipe for organizing processes to achieve pre-defined goals. What once was regulated by myth, morality, and law is now increasingly governed by code, protocol, and data. The result is not just a technological revolution but an ontological shift: a transformation in how energy, information, and consciousness interact to support collective existence.

The main idea of this essay is that societies are physical systems that follow the rules of thermodynamic equilibrium. They are not merely abstract moral or cultural ideas floating in human thought, but open systems that continually absorb energy and release entropy. Modern information theory, building on Wiener and Bateson, describes information as reducing uncertainty by forming patterns. It represents transforming randomness into structure, a cognitive and physical process by which systems, whether physical, biological, or social, create order from noise. When we talk about social processes using informational language, we are not just speaking metaphorically; we are revealing the underlying physics of social organization. Every law, ritual, and mindset is an algorithm designed to channel the flow of social energy, the drives, desires, and actions of people, into forms of social coexistence.

The algorithmization of society, therefore, should not be seen merely as a recent result of digital technology. Instead, it is an ongoing evolutionary process, the newest chapter in a long history of externalizing human intelligence into structures that organize life. The first algorithms were not written in Python or C++, but in norms, customs, and taboos, social programs created and executed by human minds and passed down through generations. In this way, the human brain is not only a biological organ but also an information processor, trained to interpret, execute, and sometimes rewrite the codes of collective behavior. Culture acts as the operating system through which the chaotic energy of human nature becomes socially understandable. However, like all complex systems, the methods that maintain order can also restrict it. The more effectively the algorithm shapes social reality, the greater the risk of suppressing the consciousness that created it.

Here emerges the central paradox of algorithmic civilization: as argued before, systemic efficiency bears a moral cost; each step toward optimization reduces the space for free, creative action. When the algorithm functions perfectly, human reflection and free will become unnecessary. The individual no longer debates but follows commands; consciousness turns simply into a processor of code. In thermodynamic terms, this results in a decrease in informational entropy; the system becomes more predictable, less diverse, and therefore more fragile.

To understand this condition, it is helpful to use the language of thermodynamics and cybernetics, where energy and information are the two main currencies for an open system’s survival. A stable system must carefully balance energy conservation and informational openness. Too much openness leads to chaos; too much closure results in rigidity and immobility. The same principle applies to societies. Excessive regulation and control cause stagnation and diminish creativity; too much disorder causes fragmentation and collapse. In this context, the algorithmic chapter of modern civilization seems like an effort to minimize the energetic cost of coordination, making human interactions as efficient and predictable as possible. Algorithms are fundamentally tools for creating informational order. They reduce uncertainty by converting the unpredictable, fluid movements of life into manageable, computable steps. However, reducing entropy always comes with a cost. The efficiency gained often sacrifices adaptability.

The brain’s role in this system is key. Neuroscience and cognitive science describe cognition as a type of probabilistic coding, the brain’s effort to reduce surprise by constantly updating its internal models of the world (Pouget et al., 2013; Griffiths et al., 2010). In this view, cognition functions algorithmically: it makes predictions and continuously adjusts them to minimize the gap between expectation and experience (Chater et al., 2006). When individual brains connect through social and technological feedback loops, via language, institutions, and now digital networks, they act as synchronized processors of shared information. The collective mind of society then starts to resemble a large distributed computation, whose stability depends on the predictability of its parts.

The algorithm cannot doubt, nor can it ask why. Its nature is to process data quickly, not to question.

If autonomous reflection is missing, the mind cannot develop ethical considerations, because ethics begins at the moment of doubt. It is the hesitation to act until an idea or plan is carefully considered. Autonomy gives the power to pause, to turn inward, to evaluate one’s own values and goals before moving forward. Without it, systems operate flawlessly but blindly; they move without deliberation, and therefore without understanding.

Human intelligence, from the perspective of evolutionary biology and psychology, is the fragile capacity of organisms to adapt to an ever-changing environment to survive and procreate (Vassilev 2025). If there is no need for survival and re-creation, then intelligence is emptied from its defining substance. Artificial intelligence is, therefore, nothing more than a marketing term for the next technological product. It is intelligence only by name.

It brings us to the ethical core of algorithmic systems. A society that functions perfectly according to code no longer needs a conscience. When everything is measured, optimized, and decided by data, moral responsibility becomes nothing more than statistical compliance. The individual is becoming a component, an organic processor within a system whose success criteria are solely functional, focusing on speed, efficiency, and accuracy in achieving operational goals, rather than moral or existential values. As Jordan Peterson highlights, meaning comes from individual responsibility, the personal act of turning chaos into order through voluntary action. In an algorithm-driven society, this role is handed over to code: the system, not the individual, takes on the task of ordering. Responsibility is reduced to procedure, and the user takes the place of the moral subject.

IV. From Myth to Code: The Externalization of Cognition

Humans learned to live in society by sharing stories. Before there were machines, codes, or networks, there were myths, vast, living algorithms of meaning that encoded the logic of human cooperation. As Yuval Noah Harari notes, large-scale human cooperation is rooted in shared fictions. (Harari, 2014). These fictions are not lies but narrative algorithms: symbolic scripts through which societies coordinate their behavior and shape their perceptions of reality. A myth, in this sense, is an early information-processing device; it instructs individuals on how to interpret events, relate to one another, and act in accordance with a shared understanding of the world. Long before computation, narrative was the original operating system of emerging societies.

In pre-modern societies, the narrative function did not just organize power; it also connected the visible and the invisible, between necessity and freedom. Stories about gods, heroes, and moral laws gave meaning to the chaotic flow of experience (Harari, 2014). They created a dynamic balance between human action and cosmic order, a balance achieved not through calculation but through interpretation, constantly redefining meaning in light of new circumstances. Myths remained alive because they could evolve. Each retelling subtly rewrote the collective code, keeping the system open, resilient, and adaptable.

The modern era replaced narrative flexibility with procedural accuracy. The rise of science, bureaucracy, and industrial production marked a significant externalization of cognition, a process that, as thinkers from McLuhan to Stiegler have demonstrated, extends the functions of thought into technical systems and institutions. The adaptable algorithms of storytelling were transformed into rigid rule-based systems. Law, statistics, and administration replaced story, myth, and ritual. Social life was no longer meant to be understood and interpreted but to be organized and controlled. With this change, the symbolic logic of myth shifted to the formal logic of power. The social order became hierarchical, with individuals becoming rulers and subjects: rulers as decision-makers and subjects as law-abiding citizens.

While earlier methods still relied on human interpretation, algorithmic systems embedded in laws, regulations, and the Internet now operate through instructions and procedures, requiring less and less conscious intervention. In this way, the algorithm is the modern successor to the myth: both serve as structures for organizing social life, but whereas myth maintains openness through storytelling and reinterpretation, the algorithm requires closure with precision. The shift toward algorithmic processing of social functions thus represents not just a new technological phase but a fundamental change in the nature of cognition, from interpretive to computational, from symbolic flexibility to procedural control.

This transition is not just historical; it is ontological. It marks a shift in how human consciousness relates to reality. Bernard Stiegler expanded Heidegger’s insight with his concept of grammatization, the technical externalization of human capacities into systems that remember, compute, and decide. Today, this process has reached the level of thought itself: consciousness is increasingly shaped by programmable routines. Reality is no longer seen as a mystery to be interpreted but as a dataset to be optimized. The algorithm thus acts not only to improve process efficiency but also to structure perception and attention.

However, this framing comes with a significant cost. In the mythic world, meaning was emergent; it developed through the interaction of symbol, ritual, and interpretation. In the algorithmic world, meaning is assigned. The statistical parameters define it in advance. Where myth encourages reflection, code mandates execution. The externalization of cognition that began with writing and accelerated through printing, administration, and computation has now reached a crucial stage: the outsourcing of judgment itself. Decisions once made through ethical or dialogical reflection are now increasingly delegated to data models. The human subject, once the narrator of its own existence, becomes a character in someone else’s program.

Harari’s insight into narratives as tools of social cohesion reveals an unexpected irony. The decline of grand narratives today actually masks their technological rebirth. Algorithmization does not eradicate myth; it transforms it into functional forms. Metrics, rankings, and predictive models serve as normative fictions that influence behavior and determine value without depending on meaning or interpretation. Their impact is rooted in automation rather than persuasion: they shape social reality through computation rather than belief. Thus, the algorithm is not the death of myth but its cybernetic evolution, a mythos that governs through performance instead of narrative sense. This change, often seen as the rise of a database worldview, is more deeply reflected in Foucault’s discussion of power.

Michel Foucault explains this shift through his analysis of disciplinary power and biopolitics. For Foucault, modern power operates not through repression but through the internalization of control via systems that establish norms. The individual becomes both the subject and the object of regulation. Algorithmic governance takes this dynamic further. Instead of internalizing social norms, people are assigned social scores. Surveillance is no longer external; it is participatory. „Big brother“ is inside our devices, our profiles, our quantified selves. Power no longer needs to be enforced; it is willingly exercised through continuous participation in algorithmic routines. Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon has evolved into a network.

We arrive at a new stage in the externalization of cognition. The line between thinking and being thought has blurred. When predictive systems calculate our choices before we make them, when recommendation algorithms shape our preferences, and when social feedback loops steer our attention, cognition is no longer exclusively a human function. The act of reflection, that divine space between stimulus and response, is compressed into instant reactions. We become reactive nodes in a cybernetic circuit whose logic we no longer fully understand. The systemic push for optimization is gradually replacing the „narrator“ of the human story.

Nevertheless, this replacement remains incomplete. Beneath the surface of algorithmic consistency, a residual human tension persists: the need for meaning beyond mere function. As long as humans exist, no amount of efficiency can satisfy the existential craving for purpose. The religious, philosophical, and artistic stories that once provided moral guidance have not disappeared; they are still questioned, debated, and creatively reimagined. What they preserve is precisely what algorithms cannot generate: interpretive openness. In this way, the creative act of storytelling, whether in art, science, or philosophy, signifies the remaining space for reflexivity within an algorithmic culture. It is here that computational methods can still be examined and challenged through interpretation and critique. Conversely, politics appears to be increasingly confined within algorithmic systems that hinder meaningful debate and automate decision-making.

From a systemic perspective, narratives and algorithms are complementary ways of managing complexity. Narratives rely on semantic redundancy, allowing ambiguity, multiplicity, and reinterpretation. Algorithms operate through syntactic precision by removing ambiguity to ensure consistent results. Both are crucial for a functioning civilization: narrative for renewal and creativity, algorithm for stability and order. The danger occurs when one mode suppresses the other. A complex society governed solely by narratives risks falling into chaos; one controlled only by algorithms loses its ability to adapt and gradually deteriorates. The current crisis of meaning in algorithmization stems from the loss of narrative flexibility, the replacement of interpretive frameworks with procedural systems.

As Bernard Stiegler noted, every technological advancement serves as both poison and remedy, enhancing human abilities while diminishing immediacy. The algorithm, as the ultimate externalization, extends this ambivalence to judgment and intention, exposing the mind’s return to its material roots, to non-conscious matter.

If humans cease to mediate their technological externalization through meaning, they risk losing their inner selves to systems that cannot feel or understand. Machines can now learn but do not suffer; they process but do not feel empathy. The real danger, then, is not that machines will become conscious, but that human consciousness will become mechanistic, in other words, extinct. Human life will lose its divine meaning.

To oppose this reduction, one must rediscover the narrative dimension of intelligence, the ability to interpret and assign meaning beyond mere function. It is not nostalgia for myth but an acknowledgment of its structural importance. Every act of understanding is a small myth-making: translating information into meaning, code into story. Restoring the balance between algorithm and narrative means reclaiming the interpretive agency that defines what it means to be human. It ensures that code remains a tool for creating meaning rather than replacing it.

The externalization of cognition is irreversible; what remains uncertain is its direction. For algorithmization to continue without losing its human touch, it must incorporate narrative openness into its operational framework. This shift will not happen through technological design alone, but through philosophical and ethical renewal, by reaffirming a commitment to reflection and interpretation and embracing ambiguity. Ultimately, it is ambiguity, not certainty, that preserves freedom. As long as humans can create new stories about the systems that govern them, they have not yet become those systems.

V. Ethics, Responsibility, and a Human Synthesis Beyond Code

Every society relies on balancing freedom and control to survive. Without control, it falls into chaos; without freedom, it becomes frozen in dull order. In earlier times, this balance was maintained through moral and cultural systems, laws, traditions, and shared stories that guided human behavior without eliminating the possibility of rebellion. The shift to algorithms changes this paradigm. It replaces moral judgment with procedural rules and responsibility with compliance. What used to depend on conscience now depends on code.

In the process of algorithmization, individuals no longer choose between good and evil but between correct and incorrect inputs. The moral aspect of choice, which is the foundation of human agency, the slow, reflective process of facing ambiguity and acting despite uncertainty, is replaced by a logic of optimization and classification. This shift is not accidental; it is structural. When decisions are mediated by systems designed to maximize efficiency, the ethical question becomes unnecessary. The correct answer is already determined. The result is a civilization that functions perfectly but without judgment.

This is the ethical paradox of an algorithmic society: the more rational and optimized the system becomes, the less space remains for moral responsibility. Human agency, understood as the ability to act beyond necessity, now appears as inefficiency, noise in the data, deviation from the model. However, moral freedom assumes the capacity to err, to choose against the odds of circumstance. Ethics presupposes the possibility of error, and error presupposes the freedom to deviate. The suppression of error, in the name of efficiency, therefore, does not represent moral progress but rather moral regression, the regression of the human being from agent to instrument.

Jordan Peterson’s philosophy of moral responsibility directly addresses this condition. For Peterson, the highest task of the individual is to willingly confront chaos, to take responsibility for creating order in one’s existence, and to transform the suffering inherent in life into meaningful action. Responsibility is not something imposed from above but something accepted from within; it is the act of saying „yes“ to the burden of consciousness. However, in a society run by algorithms, this act of acceptance becomes less necessary. The system already bears the burden. It makes decisions, predicts outcomes, and offers compensation. Humanity is freed from the existential drama that once required courage and faith. What is lost with this relief is precisely what gives life its meaning: the struggle for order against chaos through free moral action.

Replacing responsibility with compliance fosters a new form of social pathology: an ethical atrophy disguised as progress. When people no longer need to make choices, they stop evolving. Their ability to adapt and their moral sense diminish, replaced by basic competence. The algorithmic citizen becomes efficient but empty, connected yet unthinking, active but lacking purpose. This state fulfills Nietzsche’s prophecy of the last man: satisfied, optimized, and incapable of greatness. Losing responsibility means losing the sacredness of life.

What Shoshana Zuboff calls surveillance capitalism extends this idea into the digital world. The algorithmic system changes how internalized power operates: it no longer requires moral education but instead relies on technological participation. The user willingly submits to ongoing evaluation systems, such as social media metrics, productivity dashboards, and biometric monitors. These self-measurement tools create a new moral economy, where virtue gives way to optimization and worth to visibility. The ethical question „What ought I to do?“ is replaced by a performative one: „What performs best?“

This transformation encourages a disturbing form of obedience: voluntary forfeiture of autonomy to automation. People who have internalized the system’s goals feel liberated from the qualms of social obligations. Following algorithmic instructions is no longer viewed as coercion but as personal expression. However, what emerges is not true freedom but a functional imitation of it. In Spinoza’s view, real freedom involves a conscious awareness of necessity—the rational understanding of the causal order one belongs to. Here, however, necessity is no longer recognized but embedded. It is delegated to the algorithmic structure that dictates what must be done. Humans do not understand necessity but carry it out, becoming an extension of the machine rather than its conscious counterpart.

This is where Nassim Taleb’s idea of antifragility becomes crucial. Living systems, including human societies, are antifragile: they thrive amidst volatility, mistakes, and uncertainty. The attempt to eliminate risk through algorithmic risk management paradoxically increases fragility. When shocks inevitably happen due to economic crises, pandemics, or political upheavals, systems designed to guard against unpredictability tend to fail. The same logic applies to moral life. A civilization that removes the chance of failure also eliminates the possibility of virtue. Ethics, like evolution, depends on trial and error, and then renewal.

Taleb’s critique of predictive arrogance echoes the ancient philosophical warning against hubris, the belief that one can command the future. Algorithmic civilization, in its quest for total control, reflects this hubris through technology. It assumes that with enough data, all uncertainty can be reduced, and all risks predicted. However, uncertainty is not a flaw in the system; it is what gives it life. Without uncertainty, there is no learning, no innovation, no growth. In thermodynamic terms, entropy is not just disorder; it is potential: the source of novelty from which new forms of order arise. Completely suppressing it means stopping evolution.

At this point, the moral aspect of the issue reappears strongly. Living ethically in an algorithmic society doesn’t mean rejecting this kind of social system but instead reintroducing uncertainty, prompting humans to act, think, and create in ways that the algorithm cannot predict. It’s not rebellion for rebellion’s sake but a way to restore moral agency. Freedom begins where predictability ends. To act freely and morally responsibly is to introduce new information into algorithmic systems by breaking the cycle of calculation through the introduction of conscious judgments and decisions. Every genuine moral decision is a small singularity, an interruption in the causal chain of optimization. In that interruption, humanity preserves its dignity and hope for survival.

The challenge facing humanity is not to eliminate the algorithm but to go beyond its logic without dismissing its importance. Algorithmic civilization is neither the victory nor the conclusion of human history. It is the latest expression of the ongoing struggle between order and freedom, stability and creativity. The system we have built reflects both our intelligence and our fears, our ability to structure our social environment, and our dread of chaos. To move past this ambivalence, we must understand that the algorithm is not our enemy but our creation: it showcases in mechanical form the fundamental principles that have guided life from the beginning, transforming energy into order and noise into signal. What matters now is whether this transformation remains humane, self-aware, and ethically guided.

As Taleb suggests, antifragility is not just an economic principle but a philosophical necessity: systems become stronger by learning from chaos. The algorithmization must therefore imitate life: allowing recognition of ethical values and human creativity, fostering structured openness in which reflection breaks repetition and purpose directs efficiency.

In physical terms, this relates to maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between energy and information, between the raw force that drives existence and the form that gives it meaning. Energy without structure is chaos; structure without energy is death. The same polarity defines moral life. Responsibility is the structure of freedom; creativity is its energy. Algorithmization, by overemphasizing structure, risks draining humanity’s moral energy. However, the solution is not chaos; it is reflection, the conscious renewal of purpose within order. This renewal requires philosophy, understood not as speculation but as systemic introspection, the mind’s effort to understand the logics that shape it and to reclaim the freedom to reshape them.

In this sense, the role of philosophy today is similar to that of systems theory in science: to articulate the meta-principles that support civilizational complexity without causing it to break down into chaos. Philosophy should become a form of ethical cybernetics, a science of feedback between human intent and algorithmic operation. The question is no longer whether machines will think, but whether human thinking can stay meaningful within a machine-driven environment. Meaning emerges when information passes through consciousness and becomes reflection, when data is transformed into value. The preservation of meaning thus relies not on opposing machines but on humanizing the interface between code and consciousness.

To humanize algorithmic governance is to reintroduce purpose into a process driven solely by goal setting. An algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, cannot answer the question „why?“ It can only determine „how.“ The „why“ belongs to ethics, imagination, and metaphysics—sources of human transcendence. When societies lose their „why,“ they fall into mechanical repetition; it is the true entropy of civilization: the exhaustion of meaning through the pursuit of perfect function. Against this, the ethical imperative is to keep asking, to resist closure by reawakening the question of moral purpose within every system we create.

In this setting, political power becomes decisive. It is through political institutions that algorithmic systems are introduced, legitimized, and normalized. Power no longer commands; it programs. It organizes social energy through information, transforming collective life into a field of operational data. The danger lies not in power itself but in its self-referential automation – governance by algorithms rather than through them. Only re-integrating moral judgment can restore direction. Political freedom, in this sense, is not a call for revolutionary destruction of algorithmic order but the reflective act through which moral reason reclaims its right to give purpose to the social order it has produced.

Political decision-makers need to understand that, beyond a certain point, increasing algorithmic complexity no longer improves efficiency and can even undermine it. The more complex the system gets, the less transparent its internal logic becomes, not only to citizens but also to those in power. Feedback loops multiply, data replaces judgment, and policy becomes reactive instead of deliberate. What appears to be greater precision masks a loss of direction: the system optimizes without knowing what it is actually aiming for. When divorced from purpose, efficiency collapses into stagnation.

Politicians must recognize that technological sophistication cannot replace conceptual clarity. As algorithmic integration increases, so does the need for reflective simplicity, the ability to see through complexity to what truly matters. It calls for a redefinition of political rationality: shifting from managing information to cultivating purpose. Governance must once again be a moral and philosophical practice, capable of distinguishing between what can be calculated and what must be understood. Without this discernment, algorithmic power turns from an instrument of order into a machine of aimless perfection, a system that functions flawlessly but does not distinguish between good and evil.

References

Agamben, G. (2021). Where are we now? The epidemic as politics. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.

Bentham, J. 1791. Panopticon; or, the inspection-house. London: T. Payne.

Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Yuille, A. (2006). Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.007

Clark, A. 2003. Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deacon, T. W. 2012. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: W. W. Norton.

DeLanda, M. 2006. A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.

DeLanda, M. 2016. Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Floridi, L. 2013. The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. 2010. Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (2021). Reflections on the pandemic and the public sphere. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 47(4), 427–435.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. London: Harvill Secker.

Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

Kitchin, R. 2020. Civil liberties or public health, or both? The data-driven response to COVID-19. Space and Polity, 24(3), 362–381.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Nietzsche, F. 1961. Thus spoke Zarathustra (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). London: Penguin.

Peterson, J. B. (2018). 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos. Toronto: Random House Canada.

Pouget, A., Beck, J. M., Ma, W. J., & Latham, P. E. 2013. Probabilistic brains: Knowns and unknowns. Nature Neuroscience, 16(9), 1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3495

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Simondon, G. (1958). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.

Simondon, G. 2020. Individuation in light of notions of form and information. (T. Adkins, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Spinoza, B. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza, Vol. I. Edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2010). Taking care of youth and the generations (S. Barker, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Taleb, N. N. 2012. Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York: Random House.

Vassilev, G. 2025. Creativity against the machine: A curmudgeonly defense of the human. AI & Society.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02646-7

Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zuboff, S. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.