Blockchain in terms of philosophy: From Plato to Foucault

“Those who can imagine anything, can create the impossible.”

― Alan Turing

“The foundation of all technology is fire.”

— Isaac Asimov

The history of blockchain can be traced back to concepts proposed by cryptographer David Chaum in 1982, the description of the cryptographically secured chain of blocks introduced by researchers Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornettathe in 1991, and of course by the emergence of iconic Bitcoin in 2008.

However, the philosophical roots of this technology can be traced back much further in history. In fact, the philosophical underpinnings of blockchain can be traced back to some of the most fundamental questions of philosophy, such as the nature of truth, trust, and community. From the ancient Greek philosophers who debated the role of the individual in society, to the medieval thinkers who grappled with questions of justice and the role of institutions in governing society; from existentialists who emphasized the importance of responsibility for individuals’ actions to post-structuralists who critique of centralized authority, the history of philosophy has been shaped by questions of social and political organization and the ontological and epistemological questions that aligned with concepts and issues actual in today’s hi-tech world.

In this article, we will explore the philosophical roots of blockchain technology and its concepts in parallel with ones in the history of thought, tracing them from ancient philosophical debates to modern theories of the XX century. We believe that by understanding them, people can gain a deeper appreciation for the ways in which technology is shaping our world and our understanding of social and political organization.

Ancient philosophy

There are some interesting connections between blockchain technology and the phenomena from the ancient world. Firstly, the concept of a distributed ledger, which is at the heart of the blockchain, has similarities with some ancient practices of keeping records on stone tablets or clay tablets, which were widely used in ancient Mesopotamia and other early civilizations.

The concept of trustlessness, which is a key feature of blockchain, may have parallels with ancient Greek philosophy concepts, specifically the concept of parrhesia (Greek: παρρησία). Parrhesia refers to speaking truthfully without fear of reprisal or punishment, and it was seen as a key aspect of democratic governance in ancient Athens.

Another possible connection is through the concept of consensus. In Greek philosophy, consensus was seen as a means of democratically resolving disputes and making decisions that were in the best interest of the community as a whole. These ideas have been influential in shaping the blockchain phenomenon, which seeks to create decentralized systems that rely on trust and consensus rather than decisions by centralized authorities.

Similarly, the idea of decentralization may have parallels not only with ancient Greek traditions but with Asian ones like, for instance, Taoism which emphasizes the importance of decentralized and non-hierarchical structures, and holds that everyone, humans and animals, should live in balance with the Tao, or the universe.

The community structure of ancient Greece was the structure of an autonomous city-state or polis. All polis’ citizens were pronounced equals and had the same rights, including the right to vote (except for women). In that sense, famous Plato’s concept of the ideal state in “The Republic” (around 375 BCE) may be relevant to the way in which blockchain could enable decentralized governance without a central authority. In this dialogue, Plato undertakes to show what justice is and why it is in each person’s best interest to be just, and he does so in both an ethical and a political context. Additionally, Plato’s idea of knowledge as justified true belief may be relevant to the way in which blockchain provides a transparent and immutable ledger of verifiable information.

It may be seen that Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice is relevant to the way in which blockchain enables secure and transparent records that can be audited by multiple parties. Additionally, Aristotle’s idea of a virtuous life lived in accordance with reason and practical wisdom is relevant to the way in which blockchain emphasizes the importance of rational decision-making and autonomous agents.

Furthermore, the concept of privacy has historical roots in ancient Greek philosophical discussions. The most well-known of these was Aristotle’s distinction between two spheres of life: the public sphere of the polis, associated with political life, and the private sphere of the oikos, associated with domestic life.

Marcus Aurelius’ emphasis on the importance of reason and self-control is relevant to the potential for blockchain technology to enable individuals to securely and verifiably own and transfer assets without relying on intermediaries.

Also, the Greek Pre-socratic philosophers, and later Aristotle conceptualized the notion of determinism which seems to be one of the key principles of blockchain and is correlated with its finality. At its core, determinism is the idea that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by previous causes. This notion aligns with the idea of immutability in blockchain, where once a transaction is recorded on the ledger, it cannot be altered or deleted. In other words, the outcome of a transaction on the blockchain is predetermined and cannot be changed by any individual or entity.

To sum up, while the connections between blockchain technology and ancient philosophy may seem tenuous at first glance, there are certainly some intriguing parallels and similarities that are worth further exploration.

Medieval philosophy

Medieval thought and the field of emerging technologies may initially appear unrelated due to their significant temporal and conceptual differences. However, upon closer examination, parallels and connections can be identified between the two.

Medieval philosophy, which flourished during the Middle Ages, encompassed a diverse range of philosophical traditions influenced by classical Greek philosophy, Christian theology, and Islamic philosophy. It explored metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological questions, often within the framework of religious doctrines and scholasticism.

One possible connection between the main concepts of that time and blockchain is through the notion of trust. In medieval philosophy, trust was seen as a crucial component of social and political life. People placed their trust in leaders and institutions to govern justly and provide for their well-being. On the other hand, medieval philosophy, particularly within the realm of religious discourse, focused on the notions of faith, trust, and consensus. Similarly, blockchain relies on cryptographic mechanisms to establish trust and agreement among participants in decentralized networks.

Furthermore, there is the idea of immutability, which is a key feature of blockchain technology. In medieval philosophy, the pursuit of truth and the quest for absolute knowledge were fundamental concerns. Blockchain technology, through its immutability and tamper-resistant nature, provides a digital equivalent of preserving records and ensuring their integrity over time.

Medieval philosophy reflected on the nature of the individual and their rights within dominant societal structures. Similarly, blockchain allows for enhanced privacy and individual control over personal data, aligning with the concepts of individual autonomy present in certain medieval philosophical traditions.

Although blockchain technology and medieval philosophy may not be directly linked, intriguing parallels and similarities can be identified between the two.

Renaissance philosophy

The Renaissance period in Europe, which lasted from the XIV to the XVII centuries, was characterized by a renewed interest in classical Greek and Roman philosophy, resulting in the development of new philosophical ideas and approaches.

One of the key tenets of Renaissance philosophy was the focus on humanism, which emphasized the potential for human beings to achieve greatness and make meaningful contributions to society. In the context of crypto, this could be seen in parallel with the potential for blockchain to empower individuals by providing new opportunities for financial and social inclusion.

Also, the processes of secularisation, the weakening of the influence of the church, and the rise of Protestantism in Europe in the 1500s may be seen in parallels with the elimination of third parties and centralized authorities in various fields due to the main blockchain foundations.

At that time, the concept of security was formed. The word ‘secure’ entered the English language in the XVI century, derived from the Latin securus, meaning freedom from anxiety. Still, the origin of the modern field of security studies has been traced to the period between World War I and World War II.

Philosophers such as Francis Bacon, and Giordano Bruno were one of those whose ideas and approaches can be applied to blockchain. For instance, Bacon’s emphasis on observation and experimentation could relate to the potential for blockchain-based oracles, and data analysis to provide insights into complex systems and networks. And Bruno’s ideas about a universe as an infinite, living organism could relate to the potential for blockchain to enable autonomous self-sufficient decentralized networks that challenge traditional power structures.

To conclude, by exploring the connections between Renaissance philosophy and blockchain technology, scholars may gain new insights into the potential implications of this technology for society and culture.

Modern philosophy

The potential connections between blockchain and modern philosophy, which span the period between the XVII and early XX centuries, may be thought-provoking. Thus, Modern philosophy emphasizes the importance of reason, empiricism, and skepticism. Additionally, modern thought challenges traditional notions of identity, truth, and hierarchy, which is similar to how blockchain challenges the concept of trust and creates a new kind of truth that is transparently based on verifiable records.

A core value of Enlightenment philosophy was individual freedom. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau championed the importance of individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. They argued that individuals should have the freedom to pursue their own interests and make decisions for themselves, without interference from the government or other external forces. This emphasis on individual freedom may also reflect in blockchain technology. Blockchain allows for decentralized systems that rely on consensus and individual autonomy rather than a centralized authority. Participants in the network have the freedom to make their own decisions and control their own assets, without the need for intermediaries such as banks or governments.

Furthermore, blockchain allows individuals to maintain control over their own data and personal information, aligning with the Enlightenment ideal of individual autonomy. By creating decentralized identity systems, blockchain allows individuals to control their own digital identities and determine how their personal data is used.

The concept of universal individual privacy is a modern concept primarily associated with Western culture, particularly British and North American.

Another important aspect of modern time technology and thought was the emphasis on industrialization and automation. In the context of blockchain, this could relate to the use of smart contracts to automate and streamline complex business processes.

A key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment Adam Smith laid the foundations of classical free market economic theory. Later, Austrian School economist Friedrich von Hayek argued that free markets themselves are decentralized systems where outcomes are produced without explicit agreement or coordination by individuals who use prices as their guide. Contemporary scholar Eleanor Doyle writes that “[e]conomic decision-making in free markets is decentralized across all the individuals dispersed in each market and is synchronized or coordinated by the price system,” and holds that an individual right to property is part of this decentralized system. It parallels blockchain and crypto world basics.

The term “centralisation” itself emerged in France in 1794 when the post-Revolution French Directory leadership established a new government structure. In the 1820s, the term “décentralisation” started being used. The term “centralization” made its way into written English in the early 1800s, and references to decentralization also began to appear during that period. In the mid-1800s, French politician and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the French Revolution initially aimed for decentralization but ultimately resulted in an expansion of centralization. Tocqueville writes: “Decentralization has, not only an administrative value but also a civic dimension since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will.”

On top of that, in this period, other big ideas came into play. Thus, Immanuel Kant’s emphasis on autonomous agents is relevant to how blockchain enables secure and transparent transactions without intermediaries. John Locke’s ideas about property and ownership are relevant to the way in which blockchain enables individuals to securely and verifiably own and transfer assets. Friedrich Nietzsche’s critique of traditional values, the concept of meritocracy, and emphasis on the will to power are relevant to the potential for blockchain to disrupt traditional models of society and create new forms of value exchange.

As for negative examples, following Nietzsche (“On Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense”) Sigmund Freud regularly argued that transparency is impossible because of the occluding function of the unconscious.

Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy that seeks to combine the principles of socialism, such as social ownership and democratic decision-making, with individual freedom and autonomy. As Noam Chomsky (1970) put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”. Blockchain technology aligns with libertarian socialist principles by promoting decentralization, individual autonomy, and democratic decision-making.

Libertarian socialism rejects the concept of a state. It advocates for decentralized decision-making and self-management of resources, aiming to eliminate hierarchical structures and empower individuals and communities. Blockchain technology aligns with these principles by offering decentralized consensus mechanisms, enabling peer-to-peer interactions, and facilitating autonomous governance through smart contracts. Blockchain’s ability to distribute power and decision-making aligns with the core tenets of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian socialism emphasizes collective ownership and control over resources. Blockchain technology can support libertarian socialist ideals by enabling DAOs that promote collective ownership, democratic decision-making, and social justice. Blockchain-based DAOs can empower individuals to create and manage decentralized, community-driven projects and initiatives.

Moreover, blockchain technology can facilitate the implementation of libertarian socialist policies, such as universal basic income (UBI). Smart contracts can automate the distribution of resources and ensure transparency and accountability.

Libertarian socialism seeks to create a society based on trust, transparency, and accountability. Blockchain technology’s inherent features, such as immutability, transparency, and auditability, can enhance trust in economic and social interactions. Through blockchain-based systems, information can be recorded and accessed by all participants, reducing the need for blind trust in centralized authorities. This aligns with the goals of libertarian socialism to establish systems that prioritize openness and accountability.

While there are potential interconnections between libertarian socialism and blockchain technology, certain challenges and considerations should be acknowledged. These include addressing the digital divide to ensure equal access and navigating regulatory frameworks that may impact the decentralized nature of blockchain systems. Additionally, careful attention must be given to prevent the replication of existing power dynamics within blockchain communities and to ensure inclusivity and diversity.

Various historical and contemporary currents and movements often categorized as libertarian socialism encompass a range of ideologies. These include anarchism, Marxism, communalism, certain strains of democratic socialism, guild socialism, participism, and revolutionary syndicalism.

Marxism

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848) that emphasizes the importance of class struggle and the role of economic and social factors in shaping society.

One of the central tenets of Marxism is the idea that the means of production should be collectively owned and controlled by the workers, rather than by a small group of capitalists. In a similar vein, blockchain technology allows for the creation of decentralized systems that in an ideal scenario are not controlled by a central authority, but rather by a network of participants. This decentralization could be seen as a way of subverting traditional power structures and allowing for greater control and ownership by the people.

Additionally, some proponents of Marxism argue that capitalism is inherently unstable and prone to crises. Blockchain technology has been touted by some as a way to create more stable and transparent systems, particularly in the realm of finance, increasing the efficiency and fairness of the financial sphere.

However, others argue that blockchain technology is not a panacea for the problems of capitalism and may actually perpetuate existing power imbalances. For example, the concentration of mining power (in the case of PoW) or capital (in the case of PoS) in the hands of a few large players in the blockchain space could be seen as analogous to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small group of wealthy people under capitalism.

As for modern thought, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in their book “Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work” (2015) argue that blockchain has the potential to create a more equitable and democratic society. Against the confused understanding of our high-tech world by both the right and the left, this book claims that the emancipatory and future-oriented possibilities of our society can be reclaimed. Instead of running from a complex future, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams demand a postcapitalist economy capable of advancing standards, liberating humanity from work and developing technologies that expand our freedoms.

Philosopher Mark Alizart in his book “Cryptocommunism” (2020) argues that blockchain technology could be a tool for creating a new kind of communism. He writes that cryptocurrencies are often associated with right-wing political movements, or even with the alt-right. They are the preserve of libertarians and fans of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. With their promotion of anonymity and individualism, there’s no doubt that they seamlessly slot into the prevailing anti-sState ideology. But in his book, Mark Alizart argues that the significance of cryptocurrencies goes well beyond crypto-anarchism. In so far as they allow us ‘to appropriate collectively the means of monetary production’, to paraphrase Marx, and to replace ‘the government of persons by the administration of things’, as Engels advocated, they form the basis for a political regime that begins to look like communism which has, at last, come to fruition — a cryptocommunism: ‘Cryptocurrencies enable the optimal adjustment of the relationship between money and activity by serving as a converter between information and energy […] Bitcoin is not just a currency, or even the regulator of social thermodynamics it is the currency of life, it is “living currency”. Hence blockchains allow us to imagine a future in which relations between us are no longer dictated by exploitation because they are mediated by “dead” money […] this ontological communism, this communism of substances, is ultimately what we could call cryptocommunism’.

Slovenian cultural philosopher Slavoj Zizek (2022) has occasionally spoken up about the emancipatory potential of cryptography in the age of digital control but he is not easily convinced by Bitcoin and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). He says that NFTs and cryptocurrencies have no value in themselves but rather represent self-referential exchange value and capitalist speculation. In an essay, Zizek argued that it’s naive to believe that digital assets bring freedom. He writes: ‘digital control and manipulation are not an anomaly, a deviation, of today’s libertarian project, they are its necessary framework, its formal condition of possibility. The system can afford the appearance of freedom only under the conditions of digital and other modes of control that regulate our freedom — for the system to function, we HAVE to remain formally free and perceive ourselves as free.’

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy that emphasizes the abolition of centralized authority and the promotion of individual autonomy and self-governance. Anarchist thought has readable parallels with blockchain, particularly in the realm of decentralized governance.

In traditional governance models, power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals or institutions. This concentration of power can lead to corruption, abuse, and unequal distribution of resources. Anarchist philosophy advocates for a more decentralized approach to governance, where power is distributed among all members of a community or society.

Blockchain technology provides a way to implement decentralized governance by creating networks that rely on consensus and individual participation rather than a centralized authority. By creating decentralized systems that allow individuals to participate in decision-making processes and contribute to the maintenance of the network, blockchain technology aligns with anarchist ideals of individual autonomy and self-governance.

Blockchain can also be used to create decentralized marketplaces and economic systems that promote a more equitable distribution of resources. Anarchist thought has long emphasized the importance of economic equality and the elimination of exploitative systems of capitalism (to what blockchain ideally contributes). By allowing individuals to transact directly with each other and bypass traditional financial institutions, blockchain technology has the potential to create more egalitarian economic systems that prioritize the needs of individuals rather than the profits of corporations.

For French philosopher and “father of anarchism” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, mutualism — an anarchist school of thought that advocates a socialist society based on free markets and usufructs, — involved creating “industrial democracy”, a decentralized system where workplaces would be “handed over to democratically organised workers’ associations’’. He urged “workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” This would result in “capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed.”

Moreover, there are such phenomena as anarcho-syndicalism, an ideology centered on self-management of labor and direct democracy, and anarchist communism, which advocates for decision-making by direct or consensus democracy and the abolition of the state. They may be partially related to blockchain fundamental concepts.

Anarcho-communism calls for a confederal form in relationships of mutual aid and free association between communes as an alternative to the centralism of the nation-state. Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin thus suggested that “Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public questions. But to see in it the government of the future socialist society is to commit a gross error. Each economic phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of the present economic life-private property — without a corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization. Life already shows in which direction the change will be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as attributes of the State.”

Existentialism

Basically, existentialism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the XX century, characterized by its emphasis on individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a seemingly meaningless world. Existentialists argue that individuals are free to make their own choices and must take responsibility for their actions and their place in the world. They also emphasize the inherent isolation and absurdity of human existence and the need for individuals to confront this reality and create their own meaning in life.

Existentialist philosophers offer insights into how blockchain technology can be understood and its implications explored.

Existentialism emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and the authentic expression of one’s true self. Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1946) emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility may relate to how blockchain technology allows individuals to have greater control over their own assets and participate in decentralized decision-making. Through decentralized systems and self-sovereign identities, blockchain can support individuals in asserting their autonomy and preserving the authenticity of their digital presence.

The movement often delves into questions of ethical responsibility and the implications of individual choices. Blockchain’s transparent and immutable nature can facilitate accountability and ethical decision-making. Smart contracts, for example, can enforce predetermined rules and ensure that agreements are upheld, aligning with existentialist notions of personal responsibility. In terms of blockchain, the concept of responsibility parallels, for example, slashing as one of the consequences of bad validator actions in the network.

Existentialism challenges the notion of external authorities and structures that may limit individual freedom. Blockchain, as a decentralized technology, offers the potential to challenge centralized power structures by enabling peer-to-peer interactions and eliminating intermediaries. By decentralizing power and reducing the influence of centralized institutions, blockchain technology can provide individuals with greater agency and control over their lives as well as support the ideals of freedom and self-determination.

Existentialists raise concerns about the potential for inauthentic or alienated existence. Blockchain technology can play a role in addressing these concerns by enabling secure and verifiable identity verification. Through digital signatures and decentralized identity systems, blockchain enhances the trustworthiness of online interactions, contributing to the authenticity of digital existence.

Additionally, the idea of meaninglessness in existentialism can be seen as parallel to the idea of trustlessness in blockchain technology. In a trustless system, transactions are verified and recorded in a way that does not rely on trust between individuals or centralized institutions. Similarly, in existentialism, meaning is not something that can be given or received from external sources but must be created through individual experience and choice.

On top of that, existentialism often explores the themes of anxiety and the search for meaning in an uncertain world, and blockchain’s emphasis on trust, security, and transparency can help alleviate existential anxieties by providing individuals with a reliable and tamper-resistant framework and information sharing.

However, it’s important to note that blockchain technology is not inherently existentialist. While it can provide individuals with greater agency and control, it can also perpetuate power imbalances and reinforce existing social structures. Additionally, while blockchain technology can provide a trustless system for financial transactions, it does not address the broader existential questions related to meaning and purpose.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the subjective experience of individuals and the way in which they perceive and interpret the world around them. In the context of blockchain technology, phenomenology can offer insights into the way in which individuals experience and interact with this technology. Moreover, the concept of blockchain as a decentralized system can be related to phenomenological ideas of intersubjectivity and the shared nature of reality.

One aspect of phenomenology that is relevant to a blockchain is the idea of intentionality, which refers to the way in which individuals direct their attention toward objects and experiences in the world. In the case of blockchain technology, intentionality plays a role in how individuals perceive and interpret the information stored on the blockchain, as well as how they interact with the decentralized networks that make up the blockchain.

Phenomenology can also shed light on the way in which individuals experience trust and transparency in relation to blockchain technology. The transparency and immutability of blockchain transactions can create a sense of trust and security, but this trust is also dependent on the subjective experience of the individual using the technology. For example, an individual may perceive a blockchain-based system as trustworthy due to its technical features, or they may require social validation from others before placing trust in the system.

To sum up, phenomenology provides a useful framework for exploring the subjective experience of individuals in relation to blockchain technology. By examining the way in which individuals perceive and interact with this technology, we can gain a deeper understanding of its potential impact on society and the way in which it may shape our future.

Here we can mention Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a French phenomenological philosopher, who has written extensively about the relationship between perception and technology. He argued that technology is not simply a tool that we use to manipulate the world around us, but rather it is an extension of our own perceptual capabilities and bodily experiences. In his book “Phenomenology of Perception” (1962), Merleau-Ponty wrote about the ways in which our perceptions are shaped by our bodily experiences and how technology can extend and transform these experiences. He argued that technologies such as telescopes, microscopes, and cameras do not simply allow us to see more clearly or magnify what is already visible, but they fundamentally transform the way in which we perceive the world.

Merleau-Ponty also explored the relationship between technology and embodiment. He argued that technology is not a separate entity from our bodies, but rather it is integrated into our bodily experiences and shapes the way in which we interact with the world. For example, the use of prosthetic limbs or hearing aids can transform our bodily experiences and alter the way in which we perceive the world.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes practicality and the usefulness of ideas. It is closely tied to the development of American philosophy in the late XIXth and early XXth centuries and has been influential in a wide range of fields, including law, education, and politics. When it comes to blockchain technology, pragmatism can offer useful insights into the practical implications and potential applications of this technology. For instance, one of the practical benefits of blockchain technology, such as increased efficiency and transparency, aligns with pragmatic philosophies that prioritize practical solutions and results.

Pragmatism encourages collaboration and collective problem-solving. Blockchain technology facilitates collaborative networks through its decentralized nature and consensus-driven decision-making processes. DAOs enable individuals and organizations to work together in a transparent and efficient manner, fostering pragmatic problem-solving approaches.

Another key aspect of pragmatism is the focus on the practical consequences of ideas. In the case of blockchain, this means that the value of the technology lies not just in its theoretical potential, but also in its ability to solve practical problems and create new opportunities. For example, blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient systems for financial transactions or to establish decentralized systems for data storage and sharing.

Pragmatism recognizes the importance of innovation and adaptability in addressing changing circumstances. Blockchain technology, with its capacity for programmable and self-executing smart contracts, allows for innovative applications across various sectors. The flexibility and adaptability of blockchain enable pragmatic responses to evolving challenges, offering scalable and efficient solutions.

Additionally, the emphasis on experimentation and experience in pragmatism aligns with the iterative and constantly evolving nature of blockchain technology. As developers and users experiment with the technology, they can learn from their experiences and adapt the technology to meet their needs better.

While the connections between blockchain and pragmatism may not be immediately obvious, there are still important philosophical questions to be explored in this area, such as how blockchain can be used to improve efficiency and effectiveness in various industries and contexts.

As for pragmatism representatives, John Dewey, a key figure in the pragmatist movement, argued that technology could be a powerful tool for promoting human flourishing and solving social problems, and considered technology to be both a productive skill in inquiry but also how new methods and models for inquiry are developed. William James, another influential pragmatist philosopher, also wrote about the impact of technology on society. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between scientific progress and human values, warning against the potentially dehumanizing effects of excessive reliance on technology.

Analytic philosophy

Analytic philosophy is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the use of logical analysis and the clarification of concepts. While it may seem less obvious how blockchain technology intersects with analytic philosophy compared to other philosophical traditions, there are still some interesting connections to be explored. For example, one area of analytic philosophy that may be relevant to a blockchain is the philosophy of language. Analytic philosophy pays close attention to language and semantics, analyzing the meanings of words and their relationship to concepts. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how language is used to describe and represent the various elements of blockchain technology, such as smart contracts, digital assets, and decentralized networks.

One of the key aspects of analytic philosophy is its emphasis on clarity and precision in language and argumentation. This can be particularly important in the development and implementation of blockchain systems, where technical precision and accuracy are essential for ensuring the security and functionality of the technology.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, a philosopher known for his work on language and meaning, emphasized the importance of the rules and conventions that govern the use of language. In the case of blockchain, the rules and protocols that govern the way transactions are recorded and validated are crucial to the functioning of the technology. These rules and protocols create a shared language that allows different nodes in the network to communicate and coordinate with each other.

Additionally, analytic philosophy prioritizes logical reasoning and argumentation. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, operates on cryptographic algorithms and consensus mechanisms that rely on rigorous logic. The validation of transactions and the verification of data on the blockchain involve logical operations and mathematical algorithms, aligning with the analytic tradition’s emphasis on logical reasoning. On the other hand, analytic philosophy’s main focus on logical analysis and the careful examination of concepts and assumptions can be useful in identifying and addressing potential challenges or limitations of blockchain technology. For example, analytic philosophers may be able to identify potential logical inconsistencies or conceptual problems in blockchain systems and offer solutions for addressing them.

Another area of analytic philosophy that could be relevant to a blockchain is epistemology. Analytic philosophy often explores questions of knowledge, belief, and justification. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about the nature of trust and how it relates to the various actors involved in blockchain networks. For example, how do we come to trust the decentralized network that underlies a blockchain system, and what role do concepts like transparency and immutability play in building that trust?

Philosophers such as Saul Kripke, and John Searle have explored the intersections of analytic philosophy and technology, offering theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools for analyzing the philosophical implications of technology. Though these philosophers may not have directly addressed the intersection of blockchain and analytic philosophy, their work provides valuable insights for studying the philosophical implications of technology.

Post-structuralism

Post-structuralism is a philosophical and critical movement that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and it emphasizes the instability and contingency of language and meaning. In the context of blockchain technology, post-structuralist thought raises important questions about the relationship between language, power, and control.

One key aspect of post-structuralism is its emphasis on the idea that meaning is not fixed or stable but is instead constantly shifting and contingent on a variety of factors. This can be relevant to the development and use of blockchain technology, as the meaning and significance of the technology may be understood differently depending on cultural, social, and political contexts. The work of post-structuralist thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Jean-Francois Lyotard has explored the ways in which technology shapes our understanding of language, meaning, and knowledge.

Jacques Derrida’s (1967) deconstructionist approach to language and meaning emphasizes the ways in which language is inherently unstable and ambiguous wich contrasts rogramming languages used for smart contracts since they bring stability.

In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how blockchain technology creates new forms of linguistic instability, such as through the use of cryptographic hashes and other cryptographic techniques. These techniques create linguistic instability by introducing complex and technical language that can be difficult for non-experts to understand. For example, the use of terms such as “hash function,” “digital signature,” and “nonce” can create a language barrier that makes it difficult for individuals without a technical background to understand how blockchain technology works.

Moreover, the use of cryptographic techniques also creates new forms of linguistic instability by introducing new ways of encoding and decoding information. For example, the use of cryptographic hashes creates a one-way function that can be used to verify the integrity of data, but which cannot be reversed to recover the original data. This introduces a new form of linguistic instability, in which the meaning of data is transformed by its encryption and decryption.

On the other hand, post-structuralism challenges notions of fixed identity and stable meanings over time. Blockchain, with its immutability and timestamped transactions, offers a record of events and interactions that challenge traditional conceptions of temporality. This intersection prompts critical reflections on how the permanence and transparency of blockchain impact our understanding of time and the construction of identity.

Continuing this thought, post-structuralism highlights the fragmented and multiplicitous nature of subjectivity and knowledge. Blockchain, as a distributed ledger, consists of multiple nodes maintaining a synchronized record. This multiplicity and distributed nature align with the post-structuralist critique of unified and essentialized identities, allowing for a more decentralized and diverse approach to data management.

Moreover, post-structuralism emphasizes the deconstruction of hierarchical power structures and the examination of power dynamics. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, challenges traditional centralized power structures by enabling peer-to-peer transactions and eliminating intermediaries. The distributed ledger of blockchain can contribute to the decentralization of power and disrupt existing systems of authority.

Also, post-structuralism’s focus on the role of power relations and social structures in shaping meaning and knowledge can be relevant to understanding the potential social and political implications of blockchain technology. For example, post-structuralist thinkers may be interested in analyzing the ways in which blockchain technology can either challenge or reinforce existing power structures and systems of control.

Among philosophical works that have examined the idea of transparency is Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1975). Furthermore, Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge is concerned with the ways in which knowledge is used to exercise power and control over individuals and societies. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how blockchain technology represents a form of knowledge production and distribution, and how this relates to questions of power and control.

Michel Foucault, well-known for his analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge, has explored the ways in which technology can be used to control and regulate human behavior. Foucault’s work on discipline and surveillance has been particularly relevant to the study of digital technologies, including blockchain.

Moreover, post-structuralist feminist theorists such as Donna Haraway have explored the intersections between technology, gender, and power, and have highlighted the potential for technology to either challenge or reinforce existing power structures and hierarchies.

Worth noting here is the concept of Acephale — one of the key concepts in the work and life of French philosopher Georges Bataille. Derived from the Greek ἀκέφαλος (akephalos, literally “headless”), Acephale was the name of a surrealist magazine created by him in the 1930s and a para-religious society of the College de Sociologie. Acephale’s headlessness parallels the concept of decentralization, as a man without a head may be seen as a symbol of the elimination of centralized power.

* 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

Our exploration of blockchain in terms of philosophy, spanning from ancient Greek philosophy to post-structuralism, has revealed the interesting interplay between this innovative technology and the fundamental concepts that have shaped human thought throughout history.

Through our journey, we have witnessed the convergence of ancient philosophical ideals with contemporary digital realities. The decentralized nature of blockchain echoes the quest for a more just and equitable society, resonating with the utopian aspirations of thinkers like Plato and Rousseau. Simultaneously, blockchain's cryptographic mechanisms and emphasis on transparency confront the pervasive power structures scrutinized by Nietzsche and Foucault.

Furthermore, our exploration has unveiled the potential for blockchain to challenge prevailing economic systems, opening avenues for Marxist analysis and critiques of capitalism. At the same time, blockchain's fusion with postmodern ideas reflects the fragmentation and multiplicity of identities in a hyperconnected world.

As we conclude this article, it becomes evident that the philosophical inquiries surrounding blockchain extend far beyond its technical functionality. Blockchain intertwines with the very essence of human existence, raising profound questions about the nature of truth, power, and individual agency in our increasingly digitized society.

While our exploration has illuminated many facets of blockchain in relation to philosophy, it is clear that this is merely the beginning of a multidisciplinary dialogue. Further research and inquiry are necessary to fully grasp the philosophical depths of blockchain and its implications for our collective human experience. By engaging in this dialogue, we can collectively harness the potential of blockchain to shape a future that aligns with our highest ideals, while remaining attuned to the ethical, social, and philosophical considerations that underpin its development and implementation.

In the symbiotic relationship between blockchain and philosophy, we find fertile ground for innovation, introspection, and the co-creation of a world where technology and humanity flourish in harmonious coexistence.

References

• Aristotle. (1984). Politics (C. Lord, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
• Aristotle. (2004). Rhetoric (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.). Dover Publications.
• Bacon, F. Novum Organum. Oxford University Press.
• Baudrillard, J. (1976). Symbolic Exchange and Death. Sage Publications.
• Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213–238.
• Charmaz, K. 1995. “Between positivism and postmodernism: Implications for methods.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 17:43–72.
• Coeckelbergh, M., & Reijers, W. (2015). Cryptocurrencies as Narrative Technologies. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), doi:10.1145/2874239.2874264.
• 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.
• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
• Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1972). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
• Deleuze G. (1992) Postscript on the Societies of Control.
• Derrida, Jacques. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• 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.
• Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? John Hunt Publishing.
• 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.
• Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books (April 25, 1995).
• 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.
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. “The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno”. In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, translated by F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 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.
• Husain, S.O., Franklin, A. & Roep, D. The political imaginaries of blockchain projects: discerning the expressions of an emerging ecosystem. Sustain Sci 15, 379–394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00786-x
• Ihde, Don (1990) Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Indiana University Press.
• Ihde, Don (2009) “Postphenomenology and Technoscience”. The Peking University Lectures.
• James, W. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Locke J. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1974). The Libidinal Economy. Indiana University Press.
• Marx, Karl. “Capital: Volume 1.” Penguin Classics, 1990.
• Marx, Karl, On the Question of Free Trade. Archived 26 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels, 9 January 1848.
• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The Communist Manifesto.” Penguin Classics, 2002.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908–1961. Phenomenology of Perception. London: New York: Routledge & K. Paul; Humanities Press, 1974.
• 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.
• Plato. (1992). The Republic (D. Lee, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
• Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, Volume 3, Ricoeur, Blamey, Pellauer. 1988.
• Rousseau, J. J. (2003). The Social Contract. Penguin Classics.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” Yale University Press, 2007.
• Searle, J. Social Ontology: Some Basic Principles. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations., London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
• 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.
• Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin.
• 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.
• Tariq, O. The End of Digital Libertarianism? The Wayback Machine. London School of Economics.
• de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. University of Chicago Press; 1st edition (April 1, 2002).
• Wittgenstein L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Dover Publications; 471st ed. edition (January 12, 1998).