Martin Davies-Roundhill · A working position
I have always thought it important for a man to have his own philosophy: an account of what is real, what can be known, and what makes a life worth choosing.
01 / The beginning
At about fifteen or sixteen, in Form Five — Year 11 now — I was reading Jean-Paul Sartre and Immanuel Kant, and a little Marx. Existentialism caught me because it asked the question underneath every other question: given the world as it is, how are we to live?
I suspect I have spent the next forty years trying to understand that question. Not by building a sealed system, but by testing ideas against experience: bodies, relationships, work, money, technology, care, Australia and the stubborn irregularity of human beings.
The world does not hand us a final meaning or a guaranteed script. That is frightening, but it is also an opening. Meaning is something we participate in making — through attention, commitment, responsibility and the lives we actually conduct.
Influence · SartreAyn Rand gave me a respect for reason, independence and the demand that ideas meet reality. I like the stark question of whether a decision leads towards life or towards death. But Objectivism can be unforgiving of the flaws it asks people to overcome. A philosophy for humans must include weakness, dependence, forgiveness and care.
Influence · RandSkinner taught me to look at the conditions that shape behaviour instead of treating every action as an isolated act of will. I am less behaviourist than I once was, but I still distrust explanations that ignore reinforcement, environment, learning, incentives and material conditions.
Influence · SkinnerDavid Walsh and Robert Sapolsky have sharpened the question of free will. I am persuaded by the possibility that what we call choice is the result of causes we did not choose. That does not make action meaningless. It makes humility, compassion and the design of better conditions more important.
Influence · Walsh / Sapolsky02 / The test
One of the principles I keep returning to is simple enough to be useful: when assessing a decision, ask whether it leads towards life or towards death. This is not a licence to reduce every moral question to crude biology. It is a way of exposing what an argument is doing underneath its language.
Does it make people more capable, more connected and more able to continue? Does it protect the conditions of thought, care, freedom and future generations? Or does it narrow the world, consume the people within it and call that narrowing necessary?
The test is a compass, not a machine. Human life includes grief, sacrifice, conflict, art, risk and the right to choose badly. No formula can replace judgement.
03 / What follows
I do not see philosophy as an escape from practical questions. If people are to have time for care, learning, relationships, sex, art, rest, exploration or chosen work, then the hidden infrastructure has to exist: housing, energy, food, health, transport, knowledge, safety and community.
This is the thread running through Australia Can Be, the New Earth Catalog, my work on AI and robotics, and the smaller experiments collected here. Technology matters to me because it may change the conditions under which people live — not because machines are automatically progress.
The political and ethical question is always: who gets the freedom, who carries the cost, who remains responsible, and what kind of human life is being made possible?
04 / Still becoming
I am not claiming to have resolved free will, consciousness, morality or the meaning of existence. I am trying to keep asking better questions, to notice when my beliefs meet reality, and to build things that increase the room in which life can happen.
Return to End Up Here