Hoge Noorden/Jacob van EssenLegal scholar and philosopher Andrej Zwitter identifies a profound crisis of meaning currently affecting many individuals across Western society. Potential solutions can be found within the framework of ‘human flourishing’, a concept dedicated to the core questions of existential purpose. However, how do emerging technologies like artificial intelligence intersect with these competing dynamics, and what can they genuinely contribute to the advancement of human prosperity?

What drives researchers to study human flourishing in a world where so many people perceive so little of it around them?
We are currently witnessing a widespread phenomenon that I would describe as a crisis of meaning. This is particularly prevalent among adolescents, though it affects adults as well, and it appears to manifest in very specific psychological symptoms, such as rising rates of depression. Several years ago, I began to explore how society might counteract this trend. One promising framework for investigating this issue is the concept of human flourishing. In a research project based in Hamburg, we examined how the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals intersect with human well-being. We soon realised that even if all these targets – including food security, healthcare, education, and environmental protection – were fully met, the foundational questions of human existence would still remain unanswered.
What are these fundamental questions, and how can the concept of human flourishing help address them?
These existential questions have occupied humanity for millennia: Where do I come from? Where am I going? What defines a human being? The concept of human flourishing originates in classical Greek philosophy, specifically within virtue ethics. This tradition posits that the purpose of human existence is realized through the cultivation of specific virtues that enable an individual to lead a truly fulfilling life.
When did this distinct crisis of meaning first emerge for humanity?
The loss of existential certainty directly coincided with the spread of secularisation across Western society. The crisis of meaning is therefore a relatively modern phenomenon, which is clearly reflected in historical literature. In the 1930s, Carl Gustav Jung published ‘Modern Man in Search of a Soul’; this was followed in the post-war era by Viktor Frankl’s seminal work, ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’. While I do not mean to suggest that religion is the sole solution, a purely material focus inevitably raises difficult questions: What is the purpose of the individual? What is humanity actually for? Left unaddressed, this underlying vacuum triggers wide-ranging consequences across psychological, economic, social, and medical spheres.
Do you approach this question from the perspective of a legal scholar or a philosopher?
In this context, I view law and philosophy as entirely inseparable. Philosophy allows us to ask teleological questions regarding our ultimate orientation and societal goals. The legal perspective then introduces the practical framework: how do we regulate our pursuit of those objectives? Both dimensions must converge. If the overarching goals we share as a society and as individuals remain undefined, legal work amounts to little more than the bureaucratic administration of daily affairs. Modern politics faces numerous secondary questions stemming from this: How do we move towards our goals? Do we achieve this by compelling everyone to move in a uniform direction? Or do we instead attempt to engage individuals, respecting their personal desires and autonomy? We must find a way to balance individualistic and collectivistic values. In this regard, the journey truly is the destination; our choice of path is every bit as vital as our ultimate goal.
Your book is entitled ‘Human Flourishing Across Cultures and Disciplines’. Having addressed the disciplines, let us turn to cultures: do certain societies find it easier to resolve the question of meaning than Western cultures do?
I believe this issue operates on three distinct levels: the historical timeline of this crisis, the societal layer at which it occurs, and the extent to which we can find parallels in other cultures. Regarding the first two aspects, a purely materialistic or physically reductionist worldview is a relatively minor phenomenon globally, having only taken root over the past century. Even within Western science, we are witnessing trends where physical reductionism reaches its structural limits, particularly when attempting to provide a comprehensive explanation of human consciousness. Consequently, contemporary consciousness studies are increasingly drawing upon Hindu and Buddhist models to redefine the concept. It is becoming evident that the mainstream, materialistic perspective has met its match. Our publication therefore attempts to re-examine the human ideal through the lens of diverse cultures, where we find distinct variations.
Did you discover any common denominators during your research?
Yes, indeed. The first common ground is the growing recognition, even in the West, that human beings are not isolated, atomised individuals, but are deeply embedded within an ecological network. We are part of a greater whole from which we cannot separate ourselves. Secondly, a mindset fixated on short-term outcomes does not serve humanity well in the long term; it is far more beneficial to view human life as a continuous process of personal development and meaning-making. Thirdly, we observe across many societies that conventional metrics of success rarely align with what genuinely fulfills a human being.
Could you give an example of this misalignment?
The concept of ‘the pursuit of happiness’ originates from the American Declaration of Independence. This idea was heavily influenced by John Locke’s philosophy of property and estate, which, broadly speaking, suggests that material wealth and property naturally secure a good life. Over time, however, the metric used to measure progress has mistakenly been transformed into the ultimate objective itself.
Does that mean instruments like Gross Domestic Product are incapable of measuring true happiness?
Exactly; this is a core criticism we raise in our research. If we look at what truly matters to human beings, we constantly encounter joy. Yet, how does one quantify the joy of a child? By tallying how many times or how loudly they laugh each day? Quantitative methods struggle immensely to capture the qualitative experiences we actually value. Consequently, we require alternative frameworks. One such model, which we explore in detail in the book, is the Gross National Happiness Index, developed alongside colleagues from Bhutan.
Why is it necessary to measure these factors at all?
Because governments still have a structural obligation to justify their actions to their citizens and demonstrate how tax revenues are being allocated. We require clear frameworks to provide transparency regarding the ultimate value and impact of our collective economic productivity.
You mentioned earlier that human beings are integrated into broader networks rather than existing as isolated atoms. Recently, new actors have entered this ecosystem – namely technology giants and their innovations. These entities are increasingly viewed as equal, or perhaps even dominant, participants in our society. What role do they play in this dynamic?
We must critically evaluate these major tech corporations to understand their exact societal function and the impact of their innovations. In my view, much like transport infrastructure and telecommunications, these technologies ought to function as public goods that benefit the whole of society. To achieve this, regulation is essential. This must happen with artificial intelligence as a matter of urgency, given the profound impacts we are currently witnessing across labour markets. We must therefore ask ourselves a fundamental question: how do we tax artificial intelligence when it replaces human workers? Naturally, the technology industry argues that, as with every previous industrial revolution, while jobs will be lost, new roles will be created. However, this narrative frequently fails to mention that past transitional periods have historically caused immense misery and widespread poverty. Furthermore, these transitions have invariably triggered a massive redistribution of capital, shifting wealth away from the general population and concentrating it in the hands of a few select players. The artificial intelligence revolution is not merely about human beings becoming the product – as occurred with social media – but rather about our freely generated knowledge being harvested to systematically replace our own cognitive capabilities. In other words, the objective is no longer simply to sell our data, but to replace ourselves entirely. This marks a profound shift from a data economy to a cognitive economy.
Yet surely there are many tasks that we, as human beings, are reluctant to perform ourselves and would gladly delegate?
Indeed, the original promise of artificial intelligence was that it would automate the tasks we prefer not to do ourselves. However, I am still waiting for a system that can wash the laundry, empty the dishwasher, or iron clothes. Instead, technology is currently on the verge of encroaching upon the very activities that bring us fulfilment – such as creative pursuits – often doing so quite poorly because the essential human element is missing. We originally assumed that artificial intelligence would remain confined to routine, lower-level cognitive tasks; now, however, we increasingly observe that the professions of knowledge workers are being disrupted and their roles replaced.
A work-free life sounds quite appealing, provided we can establish alternative models for wealth distribution. In your view, however, does the inherent meaning we derive from work outweigh the allure of pure leisure?
The utopian dream of a life without labour is ancient and has a rich cultural history. The challenge we face today, however, is that within an increasingly individualistic and consumer-driven society, we tend to mistake happiness for mere hedonistic indulgence. Stripped of structural purpose, individuals often resort to extreme fitness regimes or solitary hobbies to manufacture a sense of meaning on their own. While this approach may suffice for a few, it leaves many others profoundly unfulfilled.
What would be a more constructive approach at a societal level?
Modern Western societies show a declining willingness to bear responsibility for the wider community and support those who are less fortunate. If, conversely, we began to ask ourselves – both individually and collectively – how we can better serve the vulnerable, the elderly, and the isolated to ensure the well-being of all, we might be pleasantly surprised by the profound sense of personal fulfilment that such collective care generates.
At the soft launch of the AIM Center for [Human and Data] Sciences, which you now head, the Japanese philosopher Yasuo Deguchi, who currently teaches and conducts research at Kyoto University, will deliver a lecture. Do you believe that more collectivist Asian cultures find it easier to cultivate and pass on these communal values?
In Japanese society, an individual’s worth is deeply tied to their meaningful contributions to the community. This explains why, for instance, purposeful civic roles are actively provided for the unemployed or the retired. This represents a fundamentally different perspective on personal utility, which is also reflected in significantly higher rates of community volunteerism.
As a final question, is there any aspect of current technological advancement that genuinely excites you?
I am by no means a techno-pessimist; technology simply demands a balanced assessment of its benefits and risks. The evolution of artificial intelligence forces us to confront fascinating questions: Can a machine possess consciousness? Because we have yet to solve the mystery of consciousness itself, this inquiry inevitably leads us right back to our starting point: what defines a human being? What makes us unique? In this way, AI compels us to look inward. It is reviving profound philosophical, metaphysical, and ethical debates that modern society assumed were long settled. Within a strictly materialist framework, the answer is deceptively simple: humans are merely biological robots navigating a meaningless universe. But does that truly satisfy us? AI has become the ultimate interrogator of our generation, and any development that prompts such vital, self-critical reflection is entirely welcome.

.flex_column.av-143ud7mm-02ca35e00628c03fc4e58473951acd5e{
border-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding:25px 25px 25px 25px;
}

#top .av-special-heading.av-zuehh0e-700c2d7f326a51e3f7ce2ac5f69ce4d5{
margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding-bottom:0;
}
body .av-special-heading.av-zuehh0e-700c2d7f326a51e3f7ce2ac5f69ce4d5 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{
font-size:25px;
}
.av-special-heading.av-zuehh0e-700c2d7f326a51e3f7ce2ac5f69ce4d5 .av-subheading{
font-size:15px;
}

About the person

Andrej J. Zwitter assumed the position of Professor of Human Sciences of the Digital in February 2026. Born in Klagenfurt in 1982, his academic path began with a Master of Laws and a Doctorate in Law from the University of Graz, followed by appointments at the Ruhr University Bochum and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. His extensive international experience includes research at the Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP) in Vienna (2014/15), a tenure as Programme Director at The New Institute in Hamburg (2023/24), alongside various visiting professorships and research fellowships at institutions such as ETH Zürich, Osaka University, and Columbia University. He previously served as the founding Dean of University College Fryslân and spent several years as Dean of the Faculty Campus Fryslân at the University of Groningen. Additionally, his leadership roles include co-founding the regional Urban Data Centre (Data Fryslân), directing the Data Research Centre, and serving as a founding board member of Chapter Zero Netherlands – a World Economic Forum initiative focused on embedding governance and sustainability within corporate strategy.

#top .hr.hr-invisible.av-mpnyu9sz-e334e47fe8f26e42b2f2d081d0b8d92a{
height:50px;
}

.flex_column.av-vz90926-013f7a18953a5c515388f3c0374c00cd{
border-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding:25px 25px 25px 25px;
}

#top .av-special-heading.av-mpnyvgb9-e14a38847c8886d041fc4a876c1a8849{
margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding-bottom:0;
}
body .av-special-heading.av-mpnyvgb9-e14a38847c8886d041fc4a876c1a8849 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{
font-size:25px;
}
.av-special-heading.av-mpnyvgb9-e14a38847c8886d041fc4a876c1a8849 .av-subheading{
font-size:15px;
}

About the book

Zwitter, Andrej (Ed.) (2026). Human Flourishing Across Cultures and Disciplines. Dublin: Bloomsburry, open access: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/human-flourishing-across-cultures-and-disciplines-9781350547810/.
An international team of scholars, practitioners, wisdom keepers, and policymakers come together to construct alternative visions of what a flourishing life could encompass. Their inclusive approach integrates indigenous wisdom, happiness, care, and storytelling and broadens our ideas of what it means to flourish.
Where Western perspectives often emphasize individuality and wealth, here contributors look beyond individual achievement and material success as benchmarks of a successful life. Instead they foreground the intrinsic value of interpersonal relationships, community bonds, and spiritual fulfilment. Interweaving the threads of philosophical, scientific, indigenous, and political thought, they build a holistic understanding of human well-being and flourishing.
We see how spiritual and metaphysical beliefs can coexist with scientific validity and contribute meaningfully to our understanding of human aspiration. A foreword from former Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon lays the groundwork for new attainable utopias that will help shape future Sustainable Development Goals.
By encouraging us to rethink policies and our collective futures, this one-of-a-kind collection introduces us to a truly flourishing society where all dimensions of life are equally valued.

.flex_column.av-r99r1i6-f51f31016a5fbca04103561888588dcb{
border-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding:15px 15px 15px 15px;
}

#top .hr.hr-invisible.av-lj4ety6-23f33c83a5527c73b345897da57f423f{
height:25px;
}

.avia-image-container.av-mpnz0wze-25522f8e878163aef82ddedcb42211ac img.avia_image{
box-shadow:none;
}
.avia-image-container.av-mpnz0wze-25522f8e878163aef82ddedcb42211ac .av-image-caption-overlay-center{
color:#ffffff;
}

#top .hr.hr-invisible.av-aheuqe6-1c327d5715adba924a078be698af8de2{
height:50px;
}

.flex_column.av-6untpr2-15c368e6addf9036977412c046ab320f{
border-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding:25px 25px 25px 25px;
}

#top .av-special-heading.av-mpnz225u-d9d9e93fe8dc3f74264e3ebaf1fae274{
margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding-bottom:0;
}
body .av-special-heading.av-mpnz225u-d9d9e93fe8dc3f74264e3ebaf1fae274 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{
font-size:25px;
}
.av-special-heading.av-mpnz225u-d9d9e93fe8dc3f74264e3ebaf1fae274 .av-subheading{
font-size:15px;
}

About the launch event

Living with AI
Futuretalks
Humans & Technology
Keynote: Yasuo Deguchi (Kyoto University) “From the WE-turn to the Fellowship Model”
Round Table:

• Tatsuhiko Inatani (Kyoto University)
• Elisabeth Steindl (LBI DHPS)
• Oskar J. Gstrein (Groningen University)

11 June 2026 | 4 p.m. | Laecture Hall 3
Der Beitrag What constitutes a human being – and how do we differ from a “biological robot”? How artificial intelligence may become the ultimate interrogator of our age erschien zuerst auf University of Klagenfurt.