Every major author who has influenced me has “his own totalising and self-consistent worldview/philosophy”. This list includes Paul Graham, Isaac Asimov, Joel Spolsky, Brett McKay, Shakyamuni, Chuck Palahniuk, Bryan Caplan, qntm, and, of course, Eliezer Yudkowsky, among many others.
Maybe this is not the distinction you’re focused on, but to me there’s a difference between thinkers who have a worldview/philosophy, and ones that have a totalising one that’s an entire system of the world.
Of your list, I only know of Graham, Asimov, Caplan, and, of course, Yudkowsky. All of them have a worldview, yes, and Caplan’s maybe a bit of the way towards a “system of the world” because he does seem to have a overall coherent perspective on economics, politics, education, and culture (though perhaps not very differentiated from other libertarian economists?).
Paul Graham definitely gets a lot of points for being right about many startup things before others and contrarian in the early days of Y Combinator, but he seems to me mainly an essayist with domain-specific correct takes about startups, talent, aesthetics, and Lisp rather than someone out to build a totalising philosophy of the world.
My impression of Asimov is that he was mainly a distiller and extrapolator of mid-century modernist visions of progress and science. To me, authors like Vernor Vinge are far more prophetic, Greg Egan is far more technically deep, Heinlein was more culturally and politically rich, Clarke was more diverse, and Neal Stephenson just feels smarter while being almost equally trend-setting as Asimov.
I’d be curious to hear if you see something deeper or more totalising in these people?
Yes, Bryan Caplan is not noticeably differentiated from other libertarian economists.
I’d be curious to hear if you see something deeper or more totalising in these people?
My answer might contain a frustratingly small amount of detail, because answering your question properly would require a top-level post for each person just to summarize the main ideas, as you thoroughly understand.
Paul Graham is special because he has a proven track record of accurately calibrated confidence. He has an entire system for making progress at unknown unknowns. Much of that system is about knowing what you don’t know, which results in him carefully restricting claims about his narrow domain of specialization. However, because that domain of specialization is “startups”, its lightcone has already had (what I consider to be) a totalising impact.
Asimov’s turned The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire into his first popular novel. He eventually extended the whole thing into a future competition between different visions of the future. [I’m being extra vague to avoid spoilers.] He didn’t just create one Dath Ilan. He created two of them (albeit at much lower resolution). Plus a dystopian one for them to compete with, because the Galactic Empire (his sci-fi version of humanity’s current system at the time of his writing) wasn’t adequate competition.
As to the other authors you mention:
I haven’t read enough Greg Egan or Vernor Vinge to comment on them.
Heinlein absolutely has “his own totalising and self-consistent worldview/philosophy”. I love his writing, but I just don’t agree with him enough for him to make the list. I prefer Saturn’s Children (and especially Neptune’s Brood) by Charles Stross. Saturn’s Children is basically Heinlein + Asimov fanfiction that takes their work in a different direction. Neptune’s Brood is its sequel about interstellar cryptocoin markets.
Clarke was mostly boring to me, except for 3001: The Final Odyssey.
Neal Stephenson is definitely smart, but I never got the feeling he was trying to mind control me. Maybe that’s just because he’s so good at it.
Maybe this is not the distinction you’re focused on, but to me there’s a difference between thinkers who have a worldview/philosophy, and ones that have a totalising one that’s an entire system of the world.
Of your list, I only know of Graham, Asimov, Caplan, and, of course, Yudkowsky. All of them have a worldview, yes, and Caplan’s maybe a bit of the way towards a “system of the world” because he does seem to have a overall coherent perspective on economics, politics, education, and culture (though perhaps not very differentiated from other libertarian economists?).
Paul Graham definitely gets a lot of points for being right about many startup things before others and contrarian in the early days of Y Combinator, but he seems to me mainly an essayist with domain-specific correct takes about startups, talent, aesthetics, and Lisp rather than someone out to build a totalising philosophy of the world.
My impression of Asimov is that he was mainly a distiller and extrapolator of mid-century modernist visions of progress and science. To me, authors like Vernor Vinge are far more prophetic, Greg Egan is far more technically deep, Heinlein was more culturally and politically rich, Clarke was more diverse, and Neal Stephenson just feels smarter while being almost equally trend-setting as Asimov.
I’d be curious to hear if you see something deeper or more totalising in these people?
Yes, Bryan Caplan is not noticeably differentiated from other libertarian economists.
My answer might contain a frustratingly small amount of detail, because answering your question properly would require a top-level post for each person just to summarize the main ideas, as you thoroughly understand.
Paul Graham is special because he has a proven track record of accurately calibrated confidence. He has an entire system for making progress at unknown unknowns. Much of that system is about knowing what you don’t know, which results in him carefully restricting claims about his narrow domain of specialization. However, because that domain of specialization is “startups”, its lightcone has already had (what I consider to be) a totalising impact.
Asimov’s turned The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire into his first popular novel. He eventually extended the whole thing into a future competition between different visions of the future. [I’m being extra vague to avoid spoilers.] He didn’t just create one Dath Ilan. He created two of them (albeit at much lower resolution). Plus a dystopian one for them to compete with, because the Galactic Empire (his sci-fi version of humanity’s current system at the time of his writing) wasn’t adequate competition.
As to the other authors you mention:
I haven’t read enough Greg Egan or Vernor Vinge to comment on them.
Heinlein absolutely has “his own totalising and self-consistent worldview/philosophy”. I love his writing, but I just don’t agree with him enough for him to make the list. I prefer Saturn’s Children (and especially Neptune’s Brood) by Charles Stross. Saturn’s Children is basically Heinlein + Asimov fanfiction that takes their work in a different direction. Neptune’s Brood is its sequel about interstellar cryptocoin markets.
Clarke was mostly boring to me, except for 3001: The Final Odyssey.
Neal Stephenson is definitely smart, but I never got the feeling he was trying to mind control me. Maybe that’s just because he’s so good at it.