Unveiling the Nexus: Blockchain in the Context of Contemporary Philosophical Theories

“Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories.”

– Laurie Anderson

“The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.”

– William Gibson

As Web3 and blockchain continue to reshape our digital landscape, it has become increasingly clear that their impact extends beyond the realm of technology and economics. The blockchain boom raises important questions about the nature of society, politics, and technology itself, and it may spark an interest for contemporary philosophers. In this article, we explore how blockchain may intersect with some of the most innovative and thought-provoking areas of contemporary philosophy, including posthumanism, transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, and speculative realism. By examining these intersections, we can gain new insights into the potential impact of this technology on us, our society, and the nature of reality itself.

Transhumanism

Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that explores the intersection of technology, humanity, and human enhancement. It advocates for the use of emerging technologies to enhance human capabilities and transcends biological limitations.

Transhumanist thinkers engage in the examination of emerging technologies with the aim of surpassing inherent human limitations, while also considering the ethical implications of their implementation. Within transhumanist discourse, there exists a belief that humans have the potential to enhance themselves to such a degree that they could be classified as posthuman beings, possessing significantly augmented capabilities beyond their current state.

Transhumanist thought has been here for years. According to Nick Bostrom (2005), transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, the Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.

Synergies and intersections between transhumanism and blockchain are significant, as both of these fields aim to transform and enhance human capabilities. Transhumanism seeks to transcend the limitations of the human body and mind through the use of technology, while blockchain offers a decentralized and secure platform for the exchange of information and value.

One of the key intersections between transhumanism and blockchain is the potential for blockchain technology to facilitate the integration of advanced technologies into the human body. For example, blockchain-based smart contracts could be used to ensure the safe and secure exchange of data between implanted devices and external systems. This could enable the creation of a seamless and interconnected network of human-machine interfaces, leading to unprecedented levels of efficiency and productivity.

Also, transhumanism may envision the possibility of creating authentic digital identities on-chain. Blockchain, with its decentralized and immutable nature, offers a platform for managing digital identities and personal data. By utilizing blockchain, transhumanist ideas of integrating technology with human identity can be facilitated, enabling secure and verifiable storage and management of personal information, including biometric data or digital representations of oneself.

Transhumanist endeavors often involve sensitive personal data and emerging technologies that raise concerns about privacy and security. Blockchain’s cryptographic protocols and consensus mechanisms offer enhanced security measures, protecting sensitive information and reducing the risk of data breaches. Additionally, blockchain’s decentralized nature provides individuals with more control over their data, aligning with transhumanist ideals of personal autonomy and self-determination. For example, blockchain-based authentication systems could be used to ensure that only authorized individuals have access to advanced medical implants or other enhanced technologies.

Another area of intersection is the idea of decentralized systems. Both transhumanism and blockchain seek to decentralize power and authority. Transhumanists envision a world in which individuals have more control over their own bodies and minds, using technology to enhance their physical and cognitive abilities. Blockchain, on the other hand, seeks to decentralize control over financial transactions and other forms of data by using distributed ledger technology.

Moreover, what connects transhumanism with blockchain is the idea of immutability. Transhumanists seek to enhance and extend human life through technology, with the goal of achieving immortality. Blockchain, meanwhile, uses cryptographic algorithms to create immutable records that cannot be altered or deleted, ensuring the integrity of the data being recorded.

Additionally, both transhumanism and blockchain have the potential to disrupt existing power structures. Transhumanist technologies could challenge the traditional power dynamics between individuals, governments, and corporations, while blockchain has the potential to disrupt at least the banking and financial industries.

Transhumanism often questions centralized authority and hierarchical structures. Similarly, blockchain operates on decentralized networks, allowing for peer-to-peer interactions and governance without a central intermediary. Blockchain-based DAOs can provide avenues for transhumanist projects and initiatives, enabling decentralized decision-making, resource allocation, and coordination among participants.

In addition, transhumanism embraces technological progress and innovation. Blockchain, through tokenization and decentralized funding models, provides new avenues for funding and incentivizing transhumanist research, development, and intellectual property protection. It can facilitate the DeSci movement as well as the creation of decentralized marketplaces and intellectual property management systems that enable fair compensation and attribution for transhumanist innovations.

The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse philosophical debates. Also, there is speculation that advancements in human enhancement techniques and emerging technologies like blockchain could enable significant progress in enhancing human abilities by the mid-XXI century. Notably, Ray Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity is Near” (2005) and Michio Kaku’s book “Physics of the Future” (2011) explore a range of human enhancement technologies and provide valuable insights into the potential impact of these technologies on the future of humanity.

All in all, the intersection of transhumanism and blockchain has the potential to enable the development of new technologies that transform the human experience in unprecedented ways. By leveraging the security and decentralization provided by blockchain technology, transhumanist visionaries can work towards creating a future where human potential is limitless.

Posthumanism

Posthumanism (meaning “after humanism” or “beyond humanism”) is a philosophical and cultural movement that challenges the traditional boundaries between human and non-human entities and explores the possibilities of enhancing or transcending human capabilities through technology.

Posthumanism encompasses different branches, including antihumanism, cultural posthumanism, philosophical posthumanism, posthuman condition, posthuman transhumanism, AI takeover, and voluntary human extinction. Antihumanism is critical of traditional humanism, while cultural posthumanism challenges assumptions about human nature and subjectivity. Philosophical posthumanism examines the ethical implications of extending subjectivities beyond the human species. Posthuman transhumanism aims to develop technologies that enhance human capacities for a “posthuman future”. The AI takeover variant argues for the eventual replacement of humans by artificial intelligence, while voluntary human extinction seeks a future without humans.

Proponents of a posthuman discourse, suggest that innovative advancements and emerging technologies have transcended the traditional model of the human, as proposed by Descartes among others associated with the philosophy of the Enlightenment period. In contrast to humanism, the discourse of posthumanism seeks to redefine the boundaries surrounding the modern philosophical understanding of the human.

Theoretically, blockchain, with its potential to create decentralized and trustless networks, may be seen by posthumanists as a tool for empowering individuals and creating new forms of social organization.

One area where posthumanism and blockchain intersect is the idea of distributed agency. Posthumanists argue that agency is not limited to human beings, but can be distributed across human and non-human entities. Similarly, blockchain technology enables distributed agency through its decentralized and autonomous network structure, where no single entity has control over the system.

Another area where posthumanism and blockchain intersect is in the idea of post-scarcity. Posthumanists argue that technological advancements can lead to a post-scarcity society, where material abundance is achieved through the efficient use of resources and automation. Blockchain technology, with its potential to create decentralized and self-executing smart contracts, has been seen as a way to automate and streamline various industries, leading to increased efficiency and potentially reduced resource consumption.

American philosopher Theodore Schatzki (2001) identifies two types of philosophical posthumanism. The first, called “objectivism,” seeks to balance the focus on human experience by recognizing the role of nonhuman agents, such as animals, plants, and technology, in shaping the world.

The second agenda prioritizes practices over individuals, suggesting that individuals are constituted by their practices. Blockchain technology enables the creation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), which operate without a centralized governing authority, which resonates with the posthumanist agenda of prioritizing practices over individual subjects.

In the context of posthumanism, we can mention a prominent feminist scholar and philosopher of science Donna Haraway who is known for her work on cyborg theory (1985), which explores the relationship between humans and technology. Haraway’s work on cyborg theory also offers insights into the potential implications of blockchain for the relationship between bodies, identities, and technology. Her idea of the cyborg as a hybrid of human and machine challenges the notion of a strict divide between the natural and the technological and suggests that technology is already an integral part of human identity and experience. In this context, blockchain could be seen as a technology that has the potential to shape and transform identities and relationships in new and unforeseen ways.

In a nutshell, the intersection of posthumanism and blockchain raises important questions about the role of technology in shaping the future of society and the boundaries between human and non-human entities.

Accelerationism

Accelerationism is a philosophical movement that posits the idea of deliberately accelerating or intensifying societal and technological processes in order to bring about significant transformations or outcomes. As a concept within post-Marxist thought, accelerationism aims to speed up the process of capitalism in order to bring about radical social and political change. The belief is that by accelerating the processes and dynamics inherent to capitalism — such as technological innovation, economic expansion, and social disruption — the system will reach a breaking point, rendering it unsustainable and leading to its eventual collapse and capitalism’s own destruction.

The term “accelerationism” was introduced by professor Benjamin Noys in his book The Persistence of the Negative. Noys provided a critical analysis of the concept and its various strands. He offered insights into the tensions and contradictions within accelerationism, questioning its political implications and potential pitfalls. Also, he used the term to describe a trajectory observed in certain post-structuralist thinkers who adopted unconventional Marxist and counter-Marxist perspectives on capital. This included thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (Anti-Oedipus, 1972), Jean-François Lyotard (Libidinal Economy, 1974), and Jean Baudrillard (Symbolic Exchange and Death, 1976). Thus, for example, Deleuze and Guattari (1972) explored the relationship between desire, capitalism, and social structures. They propose a form of accelerationism that seeks to unleash and redirect the liberatory potential of desire, challenging established hierarchies and societal norms.

The accelerationism movement has been partially influenced by technology, and there may be some interesting connections between accelerationism and blockchain.

Firstly, accelerationism seeks to harness the transformative power of technology and social systems to bring about radical change. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, has the potential to disrupt traditional systems and institutions, such as finance, governance, and supply chains. By enabling peer-to-peer transactions and eliminating intermediaries, blockchain can accelerate the decentralization of power and facilitate new economic and social arrangements.

Accelerationism explores the potential for profound societal transformations. Similarly, blockchain technology has the capacity to reshape socioeconomic structures by enabling new models of collaboration, resource distribution, and value creation. Concepts like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and token economies can contribute to the acceleration of alternative economic systems and organizational frameworks. Especially, it is interesting to make parallels with “left accelerationism” which advocates strengthening the processes of technological development to overcome the restrictive “framework” of the current system of capitalism by redirecting modern technologies like blockchain, based on criteria of social utility and the level of emancipatory potential, to perform more useful tasks.

Another connection between accelerationism and blockchain is the concept of decentralization. Decentralization is a core principle of blockchain technology, and it is also an idea in accelerationist thought. The idea is that by distributing power and control across a network, it is possible to create a more participatory society. Blockchain technology can potentially help to facilitate this by creating decentralized networks that enable more direct forms of social and economic organization.

English philosopher, writer, and later Dark Enlightenment commentator, a former leader of the 1990s “theory-fiction” collective Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU), Nick Land is often considered a prominent figure in accelerationist thought. He emphasizes the transformative power of technology and capitalism, advocating for a radical embrace of technological acceleration to overcome traditional boundaries and create new possibilities. In his essay “Crypto-Current: Bitcoin and Philosophy” (2018), Land explores the philosophical implications of blockchain technology, arguing that it represents a revolutionary shift away from centralized forms of power and towards a more decentralized and anarchic future. Land explores the emergence of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin. In this essay, Land argues that blockchain and cryptocurrencies represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about money, value, and power.

He also draws connections between the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and the concept of “hyperbitcoinization,” which refers to the potential for Bitcoin to become the dominant global currency. Basically, the essay provides a unique perspective on the relationship between technology, philosophy, and economics, and suggests that blockchain has the potential to create new forms of economic organization that are aligned with the values of accelerationism.

Other contemporary accelerationist thinkers are Mark Fisher, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. Mark Fisher was a British cultural theorist, engaged with accelerationism in his writings, particularly in his book “Capitalist Realism’’ (2009). He critically examines the contemporary condition shaped by neoliberal capitalism and explores the potential of accelerationism to disrupt existing systems. In his book, he argues that technological innovation has the potential to create new forms of social and economic organization. Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams are two philosophers who have written extensively about economics and technology. In their book, “Inventing the Future” (2015), they argue that technological progress is a key driver of social and political change.

However, some accelerationist thinkers have also raised concerns about the potential for blockchain to reinforce existing power structures rather than disrupt them. They argue that the current state of blockchain technology is still largely dominated by large corporations and wealthy individuals and that without significant changes, blockchain may simply entrench existing inequalities rather than create a more egalitarian society.

To conclude, the intersection of blockchain and accelerationism is a complex and multifaceted area of inquiry. While blockchain technology has the potential to challenge capitalist realism and enable new forms of social and economic organization, there are also concerns about the potential for blockchain to entrench existing power structures. Philosophers have an important role to play in critically examining these issues and helping to shape the development of blockchain technology in a way that aligns with broader social and political goals.

Critical theory

Critical theory is a philosophical and sociological tradition that seeks to challenge and critique existing social structures and power relations. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. While it may not be immediately apparent how critical theory intersects with blockchain technology, there are still some interesting connections to be explored.

One way in which critical theory could be applied to blockchain is through an analysis of power relations within blockchain networks. Blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt traditional power structures by allowing for decentralized networks and peer-to-peer interactions. However, this potential is not automatically realized, and there are still questions about how power is distributed within blockchain networks and who benefits from the technology.

Theoreticians of Critical Theory Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were two influential philosophers associated with the Frankfurt School, a group of scholars who were critical of modern society and culture. They are most well-known for their critique of the “culture industry,” which they saw as a form of mass deception and social control.

There is no direct connection between Adorno and Horkheimer’s work (1944) and blockchain technology, as they were written long before the emergence of blockchain. However, their critique of mass media and the culture industry can be applied to the current digital landscape and the role that blockchain technology may play in it. For example, while blockchain has been touted as a democratizing technology that can disrupt existing power structures, there are concerns that blockchain could also be co-opted by corporate interests and become just another tool of the culture industry, perpetuating existing power dynamics. In this sense, Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of the culture industry and its use of technology to perpetuate mass deception and social control can be seen as relevant to the current discussion around blockchain and its potential role in shaping the digital landscape.

In the context of critical theory, we can also mention a prominent feminist scholar and philosopher of science Donna Haraway who is known for her work on cyborg theory, which explores the relationship between technology, bodies, and identities. While Haraway has not explicitly written about blockchain technology, her ideas about the politics of knowledge production, the nature of power, and the possibilities for collective action can offer insights into the potential implications of blockchain.

Haraway’s work is often concerned with the ways in which technology and knowledge intersect with social relations and structures of power. She has been critical of the idea that knowledge is neutral or objective, arguing instead that all knowledge is situated and produced within specific historical and social contexts. Similarly, she has argued that technologies are never neutral, but are shaped by the interests and values of those who create and use them.

In the context of blockchain, Haraway’s ideas suggest that the technology is not inherently liberatory or transformative, but is shaped by the values and interests of those who design and use it. This raises questions about who benefits from the development and deployment of blockchain, and how power is distributed within the technology and its ecosystem.

Additionally, there is another area where critical theory could be applied to blockchain is through an analysis of the social and environmental impact of blockchain technology. For example, questions could be raised about the carbon footprint of PoW blockchain networks, as well as the social and economic implications of a technology that relies on complex algorithms and specialized knowledge.

Speculative realism

Speculative realism is a movement in contemporary Continental-inspired philosophy that emerged in the early XXI century, challenging traditional philosophical assumptions and the dominant trends in Continental philosophy, as well as exploring ontological questions about the nature of reality. Speculative realism takes its name from a conference held at Goldsmiths College, University of London in April 2007.

Speculative realism broadly positions itself as a proponent of metaphysical realism, contrasting with what it perceives as the prevailing trends of post-Kantian philosophy, which it refers to as “correlationism”, which the French philosopher and one of four main contributors, Quentin Meillassoux (2008) define as “the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other”.

Speculative realists, who often disagree with each other on basic philosophical issues, are united by criticism of the philosophy of human finitude, a tradition dating back to Immanuel Kant. What unites the movement’s four main contributors Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Graham Harman is an attempt to overcome both “correlationism” and privileged “philosophies of access” — philosophies that privilege the human being over other entities.

While speculative realism and blockchain may not have direct connections, we can examine potential parallels and implications when considering their intersection.

At first glance, what unites these phenomena is their non-anthropocentric respective. Speculative realism encourages a shift away from anthropocentric views and explores the existence and agency of non-human entities. It criticizes correlationism and related philosophies. For speculative realists, both ideas represent forms of anthropocentrism. Similarly, blockchain technology is a technology that operates on machines and decentralized networks that prioritize the collective validation and verification of transactions, reducing reliance on human authorities. This decentralization aligns with the non-anthropocentric perspectives of speculative realism, emphasizing the importance of non-human actors and distributed agency.

Speculative realism acknowledges the radical contingency and uncertainty of the world. Similarly, blockchain embraces the concept of distributed consensus, where multiple participants validate and agree upon the state of the ledger. The decentralized nature of blockchain introduces an element of contingency and unpredictability, as the consensus process involves negotiation and continuous adaptation. On the other hand, it can be quite predictable because consensus rules are transparent.

As for epistemological considerations, speculative realism engages with questions of knowledge, perception, and reality. Blockchain, with its transparent and auditable ledger, can contribute to the epistemological exploration of trust and verification in digital environments. The immutability and transparency of blockchain records offer new possibilities for understanding and evaluating the provenance and authenticity of information.

Finally, speculative realism and blockchain may have parallels while considering decentralized governance and trust. Speculative realism challenges traditional notions of authority and hierarchical structures. Blockchain technology, by enabling decentralized governance models and eliminating the need for intermediaries, aligns with the ethos of non-hierarchical and distributed power structures. The self-executing smart contracts and DAOs built on blockchain can provide new avenues for exploring alternative modes of governance and trust.

• Speculative materialism

As for Quentin Meillassoux’s philosophy named speculative materialism (2008), again it centers around the concept of “correlationism,” which refers to the idea that humans can only access reality through their subjective experiences and cannot know things as they are in themselves, independent of human perception. Meillassoux challenges correlationism by arguing for the existence of an absolute reality that is independent of human thought or observation.

When examining blockchain in relation to Meillassoux’s philosophy, one might consider how blockchain could potentially provide a mechanism for accessing objective information and establishing trust without relying on subjective human intermediaries. Blockchain allows for the creation of a shared and tamper-proof database that can be accessed by multiple parties without the need for a central authority. One could argue that blockchain, by providing a verifiable and auditable record of transactions and events, introduces a certain objectivity into certain domains. The decentralized nature of blockchain ensures that no single entity has complete control over the data, thereby reducing the influence of subjective biases or manipulation.

Furthermore, blockchain’s use of cryptographic techniques ensures the integrity and immutability of the recorded information. This aspect aligns with Meillassoux’s emphasis on contingency. Once a transaction or data entry is recorded on the blockchain, it becomes resistant to alteration or erasure, reinforcing the notion of objective reality.

Moreover, Quentin Meillassoux showed his interest in encryption in his book “The Number and the Siren: A Reading of Mallarmé’s Throw the Bones” (2011). Quentin Meillassoux’s main task here was to identify the encryption procedure in this work of the French poet, search for the code number and try to explain its meaning. Based on the thesis that a certain number is indeed encrypted in the poem, and that knowledge of this number is necessary for a correct understanding of the entire poem, Meillassoux makes a thorough analysis of the work itself and a comparative analysis with other significant works of the author in order to find the principle of the code, and then justify it.

• Object-oriented ontology (OOO)

Object-oriented ontology (OOO), a branch of speculative realism, is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the existence and interactions of objects as independent entities with their own reality, regardless of human perception. The term “object-oriented philosophy” was coined by Graham Harman, the movement’s founder, in his doctoral dissertation “Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects” (1999). In 2009, Levi Bryant rephrased Harman’s original designation as “object-oriented ontology”, giving the movement its current name.

One way in which OOO may intersect with blockchain is through the concept of distributed agency. In the context of blockchain, this refers to the ways in which digital objects, such as smart contracts and decentralized networks, can act autonomously and make decisions without human intervention.

From an OOO perspective, blockchain can be seen as a network of objects that interact and affect each other within a decentralized system. Each block in the blockchain can be understood as an object that contains information about a specific transaction or data entry. These objects exist independently and interact through the process of validation and consensus within the blockchain network.

OOO also emphasizes the idea that objects have their own intrinsic properties and qualities, which can be extended to the blockchain. In a blockchain system, each object (block) contains a unique set of data and cryptographic signatures that make it distinct from others. This uniqueness and individuality align with the OOO notion that objects have their own reality and qualities.

Additionally, OOO posits that objects are withdrawn from direct access and can only be perceived through their interactions with other objects. Similarly, in blockchain, the information is immutable and can only be accessed and verified through the consensus of the network participants. This decentralized nature of blockchain aligns with the OOO idea that objects interact with each other without the need for a human observer.

American philosopher Graham Harman is a central figure in OOO. While Harman’s philosophy does not directly address blockchain technology, we can explore some possible connections and considerations between OOO and blockchain.

One way to approach this connection is through the lens of how blockchain technology operates. Blockchain’s decentralized nature aligns with Harman’s emphasis on the autonomous existence of objects and their interactions without the need for human intervention.

From an OOO perspective, one can argue that blockchain technology treats digital assets or transactions as discrete objects with their own reality. Each block in the blockchain can be seen as an object that interacts with other objects through the process of validation and verification. These objects, in the form of transactions or data entries, exist independently and are connected through their interactions within the blockchain system.

Furthermore, blockchain technology can be seen as providing a platform for a multiplicity of objects to interact and affect each other without privileging anyone. The consensus mechanisms used in blockchain systems involve the participation and agreement of multiple nodes or participants. This decentralized consensus aligns with Harman’s idea of a network of objects, where no single object holds a privileged position or complete knowledge of the whole system.

The second central figure of OOO is the American philosopher Levi Bryant. His own version of object-oriented thought, called ‘onticology’ (2011), disprivileges human experience from a central position in metaphysical inquiry while holding that objects are always split between two domains — virtuality and actuality. For Bryant, virtuality refers to the powers and potential of any given object, whereas actuality designates the qualities manifested by the actualization of an object’s potential at any given point in time. Here we can refer to the Web3 concept of the metaverse. Later Bryant, concerned with the doctrine of withdrawal and the non-relationism of object-oriented philosophy, departed from the OOO movement and developed a machine-oriented ontology that argues being is composed entirely of machines or processes.

English philosopher Timothy Morton, a prominent OOO thinker, also has written extensively about the relationship between humans and non-human objects. In his book, “Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World” (2013), he suggests that we need new ways of thinking about human relationships with technology in order to address the ecological crises facing our planet. Morton’s use of the term ‘hyperobjects’ was inspired by Björk’s 1996 single ‘Hyperballad’, although the term ‘Hyper-objects’ (denoting n-dimensional non-local entities) has also been used in computer science since 1967. Morton employed the term to describe objects that are so massively distributed in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal specificity. In the context of blockchain, we may see blockchains as distributed networks that in the case of PoW heavily affect our environment. On the other hand, blockchain technology has the potential to intersect with ecological concerns and contribute to sustainability efforts in various ways, including the tracking of carbon footprints, or environmental data management, to name a few.

However, it is important to note that Harman, Bryant, and Morton themselves have not explicitly discussed or applied his philosophy to the blockchain. While connections can be drawn between OOO and blockchain concepts, these connections should be understood as speculative and interpretive.

• Transcendental materialism

Transcendental materialism is a philosophical position defended by the British philosopher Iain Hamilton Grant. He argues against “somatism,” which is the philosophy and physics of bodies. In his book, “Philosophies of Nature After Schelling,” (2006) Grant proposes a new history of philosophy that returns to the Platonic matter, the basic building blocks of reality, and the forces and powers that govern it. He traces this argument to German idealists Fichte and Schelling and advocates for a “physics of the All” instead of a physics of bodies. Other thinkers have rallied around process philosophy, uniting around Schelling, Bergson, Thacker, Whitehead, and Deleuze.

Grant’s philosophy often focuses on the concept of nature, emphasizing the dynamic and productive aspects of natural processes. He explores how nature unfolds through processes of self-organization, emergence, and the interplay between materiality and transcendental structures.

When considering blockchain technology from Grant’s perspective, we can examine how it fits within the broader context of natural processes and systems. Blockchain can be seen as a technologically mediated system that emerges from human engagement with nature and its productive capacities.

Furthermore, Grant’s engagement with German Idealism, particularly the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, can offer insights into the relationship between technology and nature. Schelling’s philosophy emphasizes the idea of a dynamic and creative nature that unfolds through productive forces and self-organization. In the context of blockchain, we can interpret it as a manifestation of nature’s productive capacities and self-organizing principles mediated through human technological interventions. Blockchain’s decentralized and distributed nature aligns with the notion of nature’s autonomous and self-regulating tendencies, as discussed within Grant’s philosophical framework.

Additionally, Grant’s exploration of the relationship between materiality and transcendental structures can be relevant when considering blockchain’s potential impact on social structures. Blockchain technology introduces new possibilities for transparency, and trust without relying on centralized authorities. This aspect resonates with Grant’s emphasis on the interplay between materiality and the structures that shape our experiences and social interactions.

• Transcendental nihilism

Transcendental nihilism is a philosophical position that challenges traditional metaphysical assumptions and questions the possibility of objective knowledge and meaning. It is associated mainly with British philosopher Ray Brassier, who argues for a radical skepticism regarding the existence of ultimate truths or foundational principles. In his book “Nihil Unbound: Extinction and Enlightenment” (2007) Brassier argues that philosophy has avoided the idea of extinction and instead tries to find meaning in a world that is conditioned by the very idea of its own annihilation. He critiques both the phenomenological and hermeneutic strands of continental philosophy and defends a view of the world as inherently devoid of meaning. Brassier embraces nihilism as the truth of reality and defends a radically anti-correlationist philosophy that proposes that Thought is conjoined not with Being, but with Non-Being.

While transcendental nihilism does not directly address blockchain technology, we can explore potential connections and considerations between these concepts.

From a transcendental nihilist perspective, blockchain technology can be seen as a manifestation of human attempts to create systems of trust and meaning in the absence of ultimate foundations. Blockchain operates through distributed networks and consensus mechanisms, providing a decentralized and transparent platform for recording and verifying transactions. This decentralized nature aligns with the skepticism towards centralized authority and hierarchical structures often associated with transcendental nihilism.

Furthermore, blockchain’s cryptographic algorithms and immutable nature can be seen as an attempt to establish trust and security without relying on traditional institutions or metaphysical foundations. Transcendental nihilism’s rejection of absolute truths and ultimate meaning resonates with blockchain’s focus on objective verification and transparency.

Moreover, Brassier’s exploration of the limits of human cognition and the implications of scientific realism can be relevant when considering blockchain’s potential impact on social and economic structures. Blockchain technology enables the automation and programmability of transactions through smart contracts, reducing the reliance on human intermediaries and introducing new possibilities for efficiency and accuracy.

In summary, while connections can be drawn between Ray Brassier’s philosophical ideas and blockchain technology by considering themes such as nihilism, trust, and the limits of human cognition, these connections are interpretive and speculative. Applying Brassier’s philosophical framework to the blockchain requires critical analysis and interpretation, recognizing the limitations and practical considerations of the technology.

* It is important to note that philosophy primarily deals with metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological questions, while blockchain is a technological tool. Many philosophical concepts and theories analyzed in this paper have been simplified while linked with blockchain concepts. Furthermore, the majority of philosophers mentioned in this paper do not explicitly discuss blockchain in their works, and any connection between their philosophy and blockchain should be considered as an interpretive exercise.

Conclusion

The exploration of blockchain in the context of contemporary philosophical theories, including posthumanism, transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, and speculative realism, has revealed a rich and interconnected nexus and has shed light on the complex and multifaceted implications of blockchain, extending beyond its technical aspects to encompass profound philosophical inquiries.

Blockchain, with its potential to redefine trust, decentralize power, and transform societal structures, resonates with posthumanist and transhumanist discourses. It opens up possibilities for reimagining human identity, agency, and embodiment in the digital age. Furthermore, the concept of accelerationism intersects with blockchain by exploring the transformative potential of technological advancements in accelerating social and economic progress. Critical theory lenses have enabled a deeper examination of the social, political, and economic implications of blockchain. It prompts critical reflection on issues of power, inequality, and the potential risks of reinforcing existing structures of domination and exploitation. Moreover, speculative realism offers a philosophical framework to explore the ontological implications of blockchain, challenging our traditional understanding of reality and existence.

Throughout this research, we have witnessed the intricate interplay between these philosophical theories and the practical manifestations of blockchain technology. While blockchain presents exciting opportunities for enhancing transparency, accountability, and trust, it also raises ethical concerns, such as privacy, surveillance, and the potential for exclusion and control.

As we unveil this nexus, let us embrace the opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical deliberation as we navigate the complex landscape of blockchain, guided by the principles of social justice, sustainability, and human flourishing.

References

• Aggarwal, N., & Floridi, L. (2019). The Opportunities and Challenges of Blockchain in the Fight against Government Corruption. Digital Ethics Lab, Oxford Internet Institute.
• Alizart, M. Cryptocommunism, Cambridge: Polity, 2020.
• Bostrom, Nick (2005). “A history of transhumanist thought” (PDF). Journal of Evolution and Technology. 14 (1): 1–25.
• Borgmann, A. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. The University of Chicago Press (March 15, 1987).
• Borsook, P. (2000). Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. Public Affairs. ISBN 1891620789.
• Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213–238.
• Bratton, B. (2016). The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. MIT Press.
• Brassier R. (2007), Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007th edition.
• Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism (PDF). Melbourne, Australia.
• Bryant L. The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology.
• Bryant L. The Democracy of Objects. An imprint of Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.
• Buterin, V. (2013). Ethereum Whitepaper. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform.
• Buterin, V. (2015) “On Public and Private Blockchains.” 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
• Calhoun, Craig. 1995. Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Blackwell. ISBN 1–55786–288–5. — A survey of and introduction to the current state of critical social theory.
• Coeckelbergh, M., & Reijers, W. (2015). Cryptocurrencies as Narrative Technologies. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), doi:10.1145/2874239.2874264.
• Cox, Christopher M. (13 January 2020). “Rising With the Robots: Towards a Human-Machine Autonomy for Digital Socialism”. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique.
• Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Applied innovation, 2, 6–10.
• Davis, J. B. (2015). The blockchain as a narrative technology: Investigating the social ontology and normative configurations of cryptocurrencies. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 107–132.
• DeLanda M. (2002). Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. Continuum Books.
• Galloway, A. R. (2018). Blockchain as philosophy. In J. Geiger & M. Schneider (Eds.), Blockchain and philosophy: New prospects for an old tradition (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
• Gildea, F. (2020), Accelerating down a Road to Nowhere: On Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. The Political Quarterly, 91: 359–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12850
• Ferrando, Francesca (2013). “Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms: Differences and Relations” (PDF). Existenz.
• Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? John Hunt Publishing.
• Flichy, Patrice (2007). The Internet Imaginaire. The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262062619.
• Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press.
• Florid , L. (2013) The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
• Geuss, Raymond (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory. Cambridge University Press.
• Golumbia, D. (2009). The cultural logic of computation. Harvard University Press.
• Golumbia, D. (2016). The politics of Bitcoin: software as right-wing extremism. University of Minnesota Press.
• Grant, Iain Hamilton. (2006). Philosophies of Nature After Schelling. Continuum.
• Harman, G. (2018). Object-oriented philosophy: A new theory of everything. Pelican Books.
• Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Open Court.
• Haraway Donna J. The Cyborg Handbook, Routledge; First Edition (October 2, 1995).
• Haraway Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge; 1st edition (December 12, 1990).
• Harman G., Speculative Realism: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
• Harman G., (2009), Prince of Networks, p. 213.
• Harman G., “On Vicarious Causality,” in Collapse II (1997), p. 201.
• Harman G., “Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects”. Open Court Publishing Company. 2002.
• Harrison, Peter; Wolyniak, Joseph (2015). “The History of ‘Transhumanism’”. Notes and Queries. 62 (3): 465–467. doi:10.1093/notesj/gjv080.
• Heidegger Martin (1954) The Question Concerning Technology.
• Herman, Edward S and Noam. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, Pantheon Books, 2002.
• Herbrechter, S.; Callus, I.; Rossini, M.; Grech, M.; de Bruin-Molé, M.; Müller, C.J. (2022). Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism. Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism. Springer International Publishing.
• Hook, Christopher (2004). “Transhumanism and Posthumanism” (PDF). In Post, Stephen G. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. pp. 2517–2520.
• Huxley, Julian (1957). “Transhumanism”. New Bottles for New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus. pp. 13–17.
• Ihde, Don (1990) Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Indiana University Press.
• Ihde, Don (2009) “Postphenomenology and Technoscience”. The Peking University Lectures.
• Land N. (2018) “Crypto-Current : An Introduction to Bitcoin and Philosophy.” Šum Št. 10.2 (nov. 2018) Str. 1355–1372.
• Land, Nick (2014). “#Accelerate”. Urban Future.
• Land, Nick (2017). “A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism”. Jacobite Magazine.
• Locke J. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
• Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism — Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status. Springer Praxis Books. Springer International Publishing.
• May, Timothy C. (1994), The Cyphernomicon.
• Meillassoux, Q. (2008). After Finitude. New York, New York: Continuum. p. 5. ISBN 978–1–4411–7383–6.
• Meillassoux, Q. (2011). The Number and the Siren: A Reading of Mallarmé’s Throw the Dice. Urbanomic.
• Mercer, Calvin; Throten, Tracy J., eds. (2015). Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement. Praeger. ISBN 978–1–4408–3325–0.
• Morton, Timothy, 1968 (9 March 2018). Being ecological. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
• Nissenbaum, Helen. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.
• Noys, B. (2010). The Persistence of the Negative. Edinburgh University Press.
• Plant, S. (1998). Zeroes and ones: Digital women and the new technoculture. Doubleday.
• Punt, M. (2009). An Art for the Post-Media Condition?
• Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
• Stiegler, B. (1994). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press.
• Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: blueprint for a new economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
• Szabo, Nick. 1997. “Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks.” First Monday 2 (9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548.
• Tasca, Paolo, and Claudio J. Tessone. 2017. “Taxonomy of Blockchain Technologies. Principles of Identification and Classification.” ArXiv:1708.04872 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04872.
• Williams, Rhys (September 2019). “‘This Shining Confluence of Magic and Technology’: Solarpunk, Energy Imaginaries, and the Infrastructures of Solarity”. Open Library of Humanities.
• Young, Sherman. 1998. “’Of Cyber Spaces: The Internet & Heterotopias.” 1998. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/9811/hetero.php.Zizek S. (2022) It’s naive to think Bitcoin & NFT give us freedom. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/545405-bitcoin-nft-digital-control/