David Chapman

David Chapman
Website	https://meaningness.com
Known for	Meaningness; stances; meta-rationality
Notable ideas	Stances; meta-rationality
Main interests	Meaning; rationality
Notable works	Meaningness
Era	21st century
Occupation	Philosopher and writer
Wikidata	Q1173963

David Chapman is an independent writer and thinker whose work bridges technical reasoning, philosophy, and Eastern-inspired spirituality. Trained as an artificial‐intelligence researcher, Chapman later developed original frameworks to address life’s big questions. He coined and explores ideas such as “meaningness” – a middle path between absolute purpose and nihilism – and “stances” – habitual attitudes people take toward meaning, self, and values. In recent years he introduced meta-rationality, a way of steering traditional rational methods by stepping back and considering context and goals. Chapman's ideas, presented largely through online essays and a self-published “hypertext book,” have attracted a niche following among technologists, rationalists, and modern Buddhists.

Early life and education

Chapman studied mathematics and computer science, ultimately earning a PhD in Artificial Intelligence from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) around 1990. His doctoral work, later published by MIT Press as Vision, Instruction, and Action (1991), focused on computer vision and planning. A journal article from the late 1980s, “Planning for Conjunctive Goals” (Artificial Intelligence, 1987), reflects his early contributions to AI research. In addition to computer science, Chapman has pursued a broad range of studies. He reports an undergraduate degree in mathematics and supplemental studies in fields such as cognitive science, biochemistry, and literature (including Old English and Ancient Greek). This varied academic background underpins the interdisciplinary nature of his later writing.

After completing his PhD, Chapman briefly worked in AI research. He decided in the early 1990s to leave academic AI, partly due to worries about the social uses of technology. He later founded and grew a biotechnology informatics company, which he eventually sold. These practical experiences – in technology and business – gave Chapman a hands-on orientation that shapes his philosophy: he emphasizes real-world problem solving over abstract speculation. In interviews and biographical notes, he describes himself as a technologist turned writer, blending STEM rigor with literary and spiritual interests.

Chapman’s personal background – including his date and place of birth – is not widely publicized. He is known to have become involved in a Western form of Tibetan Buddhism (the Aro gTér tradition), and this spiritual element influences his work on meaning and mind.

Major works and ideas

Meaningness and stances

One of Chapman’s central contributions is the concept of meaningness. This term refers to the quality of having meaning or significance in life and the world – but understood in a dynamic, fluid way. Chapman argues that conventional approaches to meaning fall into two extremes. The first extreme, which he calls eternalism, assumes that life’s meaning is fixed and absolute (often entrusted to a god, ideology, or eternal truth). The other extreme, nihilism, denies any inherent meaning as illusory or irrelevant. In Chapman's view, both extremes are “confused stances” that cause suffering: eternalism can lead to rigid dogmatism, while nihilism can lead to despair or cynicism.

Meaningness itself is essentially the middle ground: it holds that meaning is real but uncertain. In other words, life and events do have patterns of significance, but those patterns are nebulous (vague, context-dependent, and changeable). This position rejects the idea that any meaning can be permanently nailed down or that meaning must come solely from us. Chapman often uses the image of a nebulous pattern: meanings exist like shapes in the clouds – neither entirely subjective nor rigidly given. This insight borrows from Buddhist skepticism about essential nature combined with an acceptance that people do experience meaningfulness.

Chapman explores meaningness in his self-published Meaningness hypertext book (an evolving collection of essays and blog posts). He writes for a general audience rather than as a formal academic. The book is organized into linked chapters addressing topics such as purpose, ethics, selfhood, and value. Each chapter describes how a “complete stance” can replace confused ones. For example, in the realm of ethics, he contrasts eternalist moral theories (fixing universal rules) and nihilistic moral skepticism (declaring all values invalid) with a meta-ethical stance that sees ethical values as nuanced and emergent.

Stances are another key idea in Chapman's work. A stance is simply a broad attitude or philosophy that a person habitually adopts when thinking about life. Chapman identifies many common stances or dichotomies, especially in Meaningness. For instance:

Eternalism vs. Nihilism: (as above) belief in fixed meaning versus belief in no meaning.
Monism vs. Individualism vs. Participation: ways of looking at unity and diversity (Chapman calls these “stances” on the unity–diversity dimension).
Selflessness vs. Egoism: views about the self and others (he criticizes extreme self-negation and extreme self-centeredness alike).
Higher purpose vs. Mundane pragmatism: attitudes toward goals (a “mission” stance expects great overarching purposes, whereas a mere pragmatic stance focuses only on immediate comfort or profit; Chapman finds both problematic).
Authority vs. Autonomy: whether one blindly obeys authority or mindlessly rebels.

In each case, Chapman argues that the polarized “confused” stances cause problems. These stances typically arise without conscious thought, by mimicking our culture or upbringing. The complete stance he advocates generally involves recognizing and balancing both sides of each issue. In practice, Chapman suggests deliberately testing one’s assumptions: noticing when one ignores complexity (declining “nebulosity”) and learning to accept ambiguity. He says shifting into a complete stance can take years of practice. The ultimate result is a more flexible, skillful way of thinking that incorporates, rather than denies or over-simplifies, the uncertainty inherent in meaning.

Chapman’s writing style in Meaningness is informal and interactive. It resembles a blog or “hypertext book” more than a linear treatise. He often uses concrete examples, humor, and Buddhist analogies to illustrate abstract points. For example, he equates the practice of a complete stance with certain meditative insights: instead of searching for some hidden “better world,” he urges people to fully inhabit the actual world (echoing a Zen-like acceptance of “here and now”). He also warns against emotional stances such as excessive hope or despair, drawing on Buddhist terms. In sum, Meaningness is aimed at helping readers live better by changing how they understand meaning in life.

Meta-rationality

In addition to meaningness, Chapman has developed the idea of meta-rationality. This concept addresses how experts solve problems when standard methods fall short. In domains like engineering, management, or science, professionals sometimes display a kind of intuition or skill that goes beyond the textbook “rational” procedures (that is, strictly logical, rule-based reasoning). Chapman describes these experts as doing something not taught in school but extremely valuable – seeing connections or solutions that aren’t obvious. He coined “meta-rationality” to name this invisible capability.

Meta-rationality can be defined roughly as thinking about and adjusting the thinking process itself when using rational systems. It involves stepping outside a single framework of reasoning to consider additional factors: the purpose of the work, the broader system context, or alternative methods from other fields. For example, a project manager who recognizes that the real problem is people’s motivation, not the technical design, is using meta-rational insight. Or an engineer who realizes that a project’s requirements need to be redefined, rather than applying the same formula, is thinking meta-rationally. In a sense, meta-rationality is to rational problem-solving what second-order control is to first-order control systems: it’s controlling the controlador.

Chapman explores this idea most fully in his book-length project tentatively titled In the Cells of the Eggplant, which provides an introduction to meta-rational thinking. (The “eggplant” metaphor comes from Zen koans and signifies situations that are paradoxical or require new perspective.) He argues that while formal education gives people tools for logical analysis (Bayes’ theorem, decision theory, algorithms, etc.), it neglects the very meta-skills that senior practitioners rely on. He suggests that meta-rationality cannot be taught by slides alone – it requires mentor-guided experience in unpredictable, messy problems.

To illustrate meta-rationality, Chapman lists traits of those “magicians” who can tame chaos: they notice factors others overlooked, ask unconventional questions, change how a problem is described, combine contradictory ideas, or even simply choose to ignore certain difficulties. These moves are not formally “correct” within the original problem statement, but they can transform the situation so that normal logic succeeds. For example, he points out that sometimes a difficult technical task can suddenly become easy if one redefines the goal or alters constraints – a meta-rational strategy. When such insights occur, observers might call it intuition or luck, but Chapman says it is actually a kind of hidden rationality at work.

Importantly, Chapman does not propose firm rules for meta-rationality. In his view, meta-rational insights come from practice and experimentation, not from axioms. He warns against thinking of meta-rationality as just another algorithm. Instead, he frames it as a skill or craft. He draws an analogy to how a person becomes rational in the first place: one cannot teach rationality by lectures alone; a student must struggle to formalize their thinking. Similarly, Chapman says one must wrestle with breakdowns of rational plans to develop meta-rational wisdom.

Meta-rationality is closely tied to Chapman’s critique of narrow rationalism. He argues that many rationalists implicitly accept absolute rules (like “use Bayes’ theorem on any problem”), and thus react skeptically when something called “meta-rationality” is mentioned. Chapman’s answer is that meta-rationality doesn’t contradict good reasoning; it just recognizes that rational methods have bounds. In In the Cells of the Eggplant, he proposes a curriculum of sorts: learning first-order rational tools and then consciously going beyond them by noticing their limits.

In practice, Chapman has applied meta-rational ideas to topics like artificial intelligence and business strategy. On his AI-focused blog (BetterWithout.AI), he argues that hype in AI research is a symptom of lack of meta-rationality – people chasing flashy results without understanding deeper implications. Similarly, he suggests that tackling global issues (like climate change or societal conflict) will require meta-rational approaches, not just more technical innovation.

Other writings

Besides these major frameworks, Chapman has written across a range of subjects. He is the author of the novel Buddhism for Vampires (2016), a satirical story that introduces Buddhist ideas in a dramatic, fictional context. In it, he explores similar themes of inner transformation and meaning under the guise of a thriller. He has also written extensively about Buddhism itself, reinterpreting Tibetan practices for the modern world (for example, his website Vividness discusses secular adaptations of Buddhist meditation).

Chapman has become an outspoken critic of traditional academic philosophy. He wrote an essay provocatively titled “Philosophy Doesn’t Work,” in which he argues that abstract philosophical debates get in the way of solving concrete problems. In this piece and related talks, he claims that many branches of philosophy are needlessly obscure or detached from reality. Instead, he urges grounding thought in experience and empiricism. This position naturally aligns with his emphasis on doing (practical action) over just thinking.

In recent years Chapman has also turned his attention to technology and society. He wrote Better Without AI (2023), a book and blog about the risks of unchecked artificial intelligence. There he applies his meta-rational perspective to argue that the promised utopias of AI often overlook crucial human and ethical factors.

Method

Chapman’s approach to his work is informal, eclectic, and interdisciplinary. He mostly publishes on the internet rather than in academic journals, finding that long-form essays and a hyperlinked “website book” suit his style. His flagship project, Meaningness, is described as a “hypertext book” because it is organized as interconnected chapters and essays online, rather than one fixed volume. Readers are free to click through topics, read sequentially or jump around. Chapman uses this format to weave in multimedia (for example, short audio lectures) and to keep updating the content over time.

He frequently uses metaphor and example from science, engineering, and Buddhism. For instance, he applies the map-and-territory analogy (a common theme in his writing): rational models are like maps, and real situations are the territory; meta-rationality is about noticing where the map fails to capture the territory. He also references Zen and Tibetan Buddhist concepts, treating them as sources of practical insight. Chapman tends to define his terms carefully—words like “meaningness”, “alienation”, or “nobility” have a specific sense in his framework. He often humorously acknowledges his own intellectual quirks, saying for example that his Buddhism is “the opposite of whatever you’d expect.”

A hallmark of his method is the focus on personal experience. He encourages learners to test the ideas in their own lives. For example, if one adopts a particular belief too strongly (a confused stance), one should notice the problems that arise and gradually try the opposite assumption to see what happens. This trial-and-error process is central to Chapman’s pedagogy. In his book on meta-rationality, he explicitly suggests a kind of apprenticeship: people must work on real projects and reflect on how rigid reasoning sometimes fails. He contrasts this with classroom learning, noting that meta-rational insights can’t be acquired by quizzes or axioms.

Chapman’s writing does not slavishly follow academic norms. He sometimes shuns citations and formal proofs, preferring to argue more directly. He has admitted that his work is not intended as conventional scholarship; rather, it is a form of practical philosophy or modern wisdom literature. As one commentator observed, Chapman declared himself “anti-philosophical” in order to avoid rehashing millennia of prior work – in part to craft a fresh viewpoint unconstrained by tradition.

Influence

Within academic philosophy and mainstream science, Chapman is little known. However, his ideas have resonated in certain online and intellectual subcultures. Tech-centric communities and rationalist forums have discussed Meaningness and meta-rationality. On websites such as LessWrong (a forum for rationality enthusiasts) and various blogs, people have debated and tried to explain Chapman's concepts. For example, threads titled “What is David Chapman talking about when he talks about meaning in Meaningness?” have appeared, indicating active engagement. A self-described systems-thinker has written a curriculum for meta-rationality based on Chapman’s posts. These discussions suggest that Chapman’s work has gained traction with engineers, programmers, and people from STEM fields interested in life philosophy.

Chapman has also been noticed by modern Buddhism practitioners and spiritual bloggers. The popular blog Church of the Churchless (which examines alternative spiritual ideas) has featured multiple posts discussing Chapman’s take on Buddhism and meaning. One blogger described Chapman’s writing as “dizzying” in a complimentary sense, praising his coherent synthesis of science and wisdom. Another blogger provided an extended introduction to Chapman’s work for readers interested in secular meaning. The Tibetan-inspired Aro community (a form of Western Buddhism) is directly connected to Chapman's teaching. The website Approaching Aro is devoted to the tradition that Chapman follows, and it lists his talks and essay themes. Through these channels, his ideas influence people exploring how to integrate meditation-based insights with rational life goals.

Chapman’s influence also emerges indirectly. His concepts occasionally figure into discussions of contemporary philosophy and culture. For instance, Integral Theory forums and online communities interested in “post-rational” or “metamodern” thinking have cited his terms. In 2023, a peer-reviewed outlet (ArXiv) posted a review that mentioned meta-rationality as a way to go beyond “post-truth” discourse. While he has not won awards or established a school of thought, Chapman’s neologisms (“meaningness” and “complete stance” in particular) have started appearing in others’ writings and talks, indicating that his language is seeping into the intellectual landscape.

His influence also extends to individuals in industry. At least one computer science professor quoted Chapman’s critique of optimism in deep learning. And proponents of “applied rationality” sometimes refer to his work when arguing that rational training is incomplete without broader perspectives. In short, Chapman's ideas have become part of a conversation among self-improvement writers, futurists, and even some educational consultants who focus on creative problem-solving.

Critiques

Chapman’s views have attracted criticism, particularly from those who favor traditional philosophy or more rigorous exposition. A common critique is that he too readily dismisses entire fields of thought. For example, in his essay “Philosophy Doesn’t Work,” Chapman labels metaphysics “comprehensively bogus,” provoking pushback. Critics like writer Elena Lanham counter that metaphysical thinking has historically guided science and morality, arguing that Chapman underestimates how abstract ideas can enrich understanding. They point out that questions about reality and values often do require speculation beyond empirical evidence.

Some academic philosophers have also challenged Chapman’s notion that he is “anti-philosophical.” Critics argue that web essays and aphorisms cannot substitute for the careful arguments found in serious philosophical literature. They accuse Chapman of ignoring a vast body of prior work on meaning and ethics, and of reinventing concepts without engaging with established theories. One blogger remarked that Chapman's self-declared break with philosophy may be more rhetorical than substantive, suggesting that any complete stance he finds would have precursors in existing thought.

Others take issue with his style. His tone can be polemical or informal, which some readers find off-putting or unclear. For instance, Chapman sometimes makes broad claims (like “philosophy is just mental masturbation”), which opponents say are exaggerated to boost engagement. Skeptics note that terms like “meta-rationality” and “meaningness” are catchy but vague, and they question how these ideas can be tested or applied systematically. In the rationalist community, some commentators worry that championing unsystematic meta-rationality might invite pseudoscience (“woo”) if not carefully bounded.

On the other hand, supporters might describe these critiques as misunderstandings. They say Chapman deliberately uses provocative language to challenge strong habits of mind (much as Zen masters use shock or humor). Chapman himself argues that some criticism simply shows the cultural bias against stepping outside established systems of thought: if one insists on absolute rational rules, meta-rationality naturally seems like nonsense.

Another area of debate involves his technology views. In Better Without AI, he makes sweeping claims about artificial intelligence being net harmful. Some AI researchers and AI risk analysts may disagree, asserting that he downplays potential benefits or mischaracterizes the field. However, this debate is separate from his core ideas about meaning and rationality.

Legacy

As an active writer, Chapman's full legacy is still taking shape. He has not (so far) founded an academic school or written for a traditional publisher in philosophy. Instead, his impact is cultural and conversational. He has coined terms and frameworks that give people new ways to talk about familiar problems of purpose and problem-solving. If these terms catch on more widely, he may be remembered as an originator of a certain modern integrative outlook.

In the near term, Chapman’s work endures through his websites, podcast, and Substack newsletter. His “Meaningness” site has been online for over a decade, and it continues to attract readers. Online, one can find hundreds of comments, blog posts, and even podcasts referring to his concepts. He is likened by a friend to “a more intelligent, scientific, coherent” version of anyone interested in meaning and purpose – a testament to his fluency and influence in certain circles.

If his ideas inspire individuals to think differently, that is a form of legacy. For example, a software engineer might cite Chapman when re-evaluating their career goals. A Buddhist practitioner might adapt meaningness principles to daily practice. Chapman’s synthesis of Eastern and Western modes may help blur old divisions. In a broader sense, he belongs to a growing trend of thinkers who refuse to accept narrow specialization: his attempt to bring meta-rational habits into fields like AI, business, and ethics could influence teaching or consulting in the future.

Ultimately, only time will tell how widely Chapman's ideas are adopted. So far, he remains a relatively small but lively presence in online thought-leadership. Whether as a stimulant for debate or as a pathfinder of new vocabulary, his legacy may be as a catalyst rather than as an institution.

Selected works

Chapman, David. Vision, Instruction, and Action. MIT Press, 1991. (Based on his PhD dissertation in artificial intelligence.)
Chapman, David. “Planning for Conjunctive Goals.” Artificial Intelligence 32, no. 3 (July 1987): 333–377. (Academic article on planning in AI.)
Chapman, David. Meaningness. (Online hypertext book; ongoing, with major chapters on topics like “Meaningness,” “Eternalism,” and “Complete Stances.”)
Chapman, David. Buddhism for Vampires. (Novel, 2016; a fictional narrative exploring Buddhist ideas and human motivation.)
Chapman, David. In the Cells of the Eggplant: A Practicum of Meta-Rationality. (Upcoming book or manuscript on meta-rational thinking.)
Chapman, David. Better Without AI: A Survival Manual for the Coming Technology Revolution. (Book and companion website, 2023, addressing AI risks.)
Chapman, David. “Philosophy Doesn’t Work.” (Essay, date n.d.; argues for abandoning traditional philosophical methods.)
Chapman, David. Meaningness Podcast. (Audio series on topics of meaning, Buddhism, and rationality; episodes released via his Substack, 2023–present.)

Timeline (major events)

1987 – Publishes “Planning for Conjunctive Goals” in Artificial Intelligence; studies AI at MIT.
1990 – Completes PhD in AI (MIT).
1991 – Vision, Instruction, and Action published by MIT Press.
Early 1990s – Leaves AI research; founds a biotech informatics company.
2000s – Begins writing online under “Meaningness” brand (initially on WordPress).
2011 – Buddhist blogger Clancy Martin and others publicize Chapman’s writings.
2016 – Buddhism for Vampires novel released.
2018–2020 – Launches BetterWithout.AI site and begins speaking on tech risks.
2023 – Publishes Better Without AI book (editions); further develops Meta-rationality book. Continues Meaningness on Substack.