Argues that algorithmic interiorisation erodes shared moral life, emphasizing interdisciplinary integrity for a humane technological future.
This paper argues that one of the deepest crises of the contemporary age is not only the visible collapse of states, institutions, or political orders, but the quieter collapse of shared moral life. Here, collapse does not mean a sudden civilisational end-state; it refers to a gradual erosion, fragmentation, and thinning of the shared moral conditions under which people learn to live together. The human being is increasingly relocated from society into the private room, from the room into the screen, and from the screen into the algorithm. The paper introduces the concept of algorithmic interiorisation to describe the movement of digital power from the external organisation of behaviour into the internal formation of attention, emotion, desire, memory, loyalty, and belonging. It also develops the principle of methodological boundary integrity, arguing that genuine interdisciplinarity requires disciplined translation between philosophy, religion, neuroscience, medicine, physics, political theory, and artificial intelligence rather than indiscriminate methodological collapse. The argument is not anti-technology. Technology is treated as an assisting instrument for human development, not as a substitute for human judgement, conscience, dignity, or presence. The paper concludes that a humane technological future requires the restoration of shared spaces, moral education, intergenerational responsibility, and public life, alongside human-centred governance of algorithmic systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osama S Qatrani (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: