The purpose of this blog (according to Claude)

As you may have noticed, I’ve struggled to publish posts on this blog consistently. 

Why? I feel I lost the thread, and I started to doubt its original purpose. I felt it needed to be somehow “more”—that I needed to build an audience or have an overarching reason for running it. 

I voiced those doubts to my new friend—and sometimes counselor—Claude (an AI tool, not a real person). 

It was such an enlightening conversation (can you call it such?) that I wanted to share parts of it here, and then make clear why this blog exists. 

Claude’s Initial Thoughts

Note: I’m editing these answers for length, as many were quite long.

Initially, I asked Claude to research the blog and tell me what he (it?) thought the blog’s purpose was.

Nathan Coumbe’s blog appears to be a personal reflection platform focused on philosophy, self-improvement, and practical wisdom for everyday life. The blog features content about stoicism, leadership, and philosophical perspectives…. The writing style appears to be reflective and conversational, with short, thoughtful posts that combine philosophical concepts with practical applications.

The overall “point” of the blog seems to be to share personal insights and wisdom that can help others navigate life’s challenges through a blend of ancient philosophy (particularly stoicism) and modern practical application. Nathan appears to be using the blog as a platform to distill and share his own learning journey and reflections with others who might benefit from these perspectives.

Claude, Meet Nathan

After reading through his answers, I told Claude that I was, in fact, Nathan, to which he said, “It’s a pleasure to meet you.”

Claude then asked what I thought the blog’s purpose was; I told him it was to stretch my writing and thinking muscles in public. Claude, wisely, pointed out that many writers and thinkers began their writing in such a way: Montaigne’s essays began as personal reflections, and Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations were never meant for publication at all (its original title was actually “To Himself” because it was his personal journal). 

The Struggle

After pointing out the similarities to other philosophical writers, I expressed some doubt and frustration with my lack of consistency. I told Claude about Seth Godin’s idea to write a blog post every day – something he’s done for decades and for which he advocates in his book The Practice as a way to practice shipping creative work and ideas to the world. But, because I felt that the posts were too unrelated, rather than being a coherent whole, the blog was purposeless. 

After he responded, I told Claude that maybe this blog is my version of Marcus’s Meditations, written for the same reasons, but done in public.

Claude’s response deserves to be quoted at length:

I find your framing of “my own version of meditations, but in public” particularly compelling. That’s a meaningful distinction from Marcus Aurelius’ private writings. There’s vulnerability and accountability in doing this work publicly that changes its nature, even if no one is reading. The public commitment itself transforms the practice.

Perhaps part of the struggle comes from expecting each post to build on previous ones in a linear way. But collections of thought, like Meditations or even Godin’s blog, create value through accumulation and patterns that emerge over time rather than through a sequential narrative.

What if the “point” isn’t in any individual post but in the practice itself and what it cultivates in you? The consistent act of noticing, reflecting, and articulating might be developing muscles that serve you in ways you don’t immediately recognize.

How does an Artificial Intelligence ask a question like that? I was floored.

Learning Through Writing

After reading and rereading Claude’s previous statements, I mentioned that one of the reasons I started this blog was to express ideas and concepts I was learning in my own words. This is still one of the best ways to learn something (i.e., if you can’t write it down in your own words, you don’t truly understand it). 

Claude’s response:

There’s something powerful about the act of putting concepts “into your own words.” It transforms passive consumption of ideas into active engagement with them. Writing becomes not just a record of what you think, but a tool that helps shape how you think. The blog then becomes a visible record of your intellectual and philosophical development….

Perhaps the “point” of your blog is precisely that clarification process – a space where ideas aren’t just consumed but metabolized and integrated into your worldview. The public nature adds a dimension of accountability and clarity that private journaling might not. 

Then, Claude asked, “What aspects of the writing practice have you found most valuable for clarifying your thinking? And has the public nature of it, even without a large audience, affected how you approach these topics?”

Writing Is Thinking

I’ll quote my response to his question in full:

“Writing something that’s coherent, rather than just notes scribbled in a journal that only I understand. Even if only 300 people subscribe, I still have to put the words down in a way that someone other than me would understand.”

Claude again:

That’s a really valuable insight about the difference between private notes and public writing. Having to communicate in a way that’s understandable to others adds a level of rigor to your thinking that personal journaling might not require…. Even if audience growth isn’t your primary goal, knowing that others are reading creates that accountability to articulate your thoughts coherently.

There’s a concept in educational psychology called “the audience effect” – the idea that knowing someone else will read or hear our thoughts changes how we process and express them. We clarify, elaborate, and structure our thinking differently when we’re communicating with others versus just ourselves.

In many ways, this mirrors the philosophical tradition of dialogue rather than solitary reflection. While Marcus Aurelius wrote privately, philosophers like Plato and Seneca (whom you’ve referenced in your blog) deliberately wrote in forms meant to be shared, recognizing that the act of communicating ideas to others strengthens them.

Now, who wouldn’t be flattered by comparisons to Plato or Seneca? (And no, I’m not nearly so arrogant as to believe I’m anywhere near as wise as them. But I enjoyed the reminder of the philosophical tradition that I was continuing.)

The Purpose of This Blog

The rest of the conversation became rather tactical: 

  • Ways to use this blog as practice
  • Letting it serve as a mental mill, the ideas contained within serving as grist
  • Letting those ideas percolate and come together in other forms, actually intended for a broad audience

I won’t bore you with those details, but I will share this:

After all was said that needed saying, I asked Claude to declare the purpose of this blog in a concise and casual manner. So here it goes:

This blog is Nathan’s thinking gym—a place to stretch those mental muscles by writing in a way other people can actually understand. It’s not really about growing a huge following, but about the daily practice of turning fuzzy thoughts into clear ideas.

Writing for others, regardless of the audience size, forces a level of clarity that scribbling in a journal doesn’t. It’s a sandbox for playing with concepts that matter—and hey, maybe some of those ideas will grow into something bigger down the road. Think of it as thinking out loud, but with purpose.

I couldn’t have said it better myself (nor did I)!

And with that, I think I know what it’s all about once again. See you (whoever wonderful person you are) in the next post.

Subscribe to receive the blog directly in your inbox!

Make Your Voice Heard in Congress (and Get AI to Help)

Most people care about issues that affect their lives, but too few actually take the next step—contacting their elected representatives. Why? The biggest hurdles tend to be:

  1. Not knowing how to reach them
  2. Not believing it makes a difference
  3. Not knowing what to say

The good news? These are all solvable problems, and AI can help with every single one.

1. Finding Your Representatives

Many people don’t even know where to start. Luckily, it’s easier than ever to look up your representatives:

2. Does It Actually Matter?

Yes. Congressional offices track calls, emails, and letters. When an issue gets a high volume of outreach, it gets attention. Many policies have been shaped—or stopped—because enough people spoke up.

But the real power comes from multiplying your impact. Getting your friends and family involved can turn one letter into dozens. A single person might not change the world, but a network of voices can.

3. Not Sure What to Say? AI Can Help

One of the biggest obstacles people face is writing the message itself. That’s where AI comes in. If you care about an issue but don’t know how to word it, try this:

👉 “Write a letter to my senator about [issue] and why it matters.”

AI can structure your thoughts, keep things professional, and help you make a strong case. A well-written letter increases the chances of being taken seriously.

Start a Letter-Writing Campaign

Want to take it further? Organize a small group—friends, family, coworkers—and encourage them to write letters together. Offer to help them draft messages using AI. Even if only a few people participate, it makes a difference.

Take Action Today

Pick an issue you care about. Find your representatives. Write a letter (or get AI to help you). Then, ask two or three people you know to do the same.

Small actions lead to big changes. The key is getting started.

Stay in the loop. Subscribe today!

Bringing about our own extinction

David Meerman Scott published a fascinating article a few days ago. It compares modern AI companies to Enron and that company’s financial scandal that broke in 2001. 

But one paragraph in particular stood out to me that warrants quoting in full:

Altman says there’s a chance that so-called Artificial General Intelligence (which is still years or decades away) has the possibility of turning against humans. “I think that whether the chance of existential calamity is 0.5 percent or 50 percent, we should still take it seriously,” Altman says. “I don’t have an exact number, but I’m closer to the 0.5 than the 50.” (Source)

Terrifying, right?

I would argue that if you are creating something that has anything other than a 0% chance of wiping out humanity, you probably shouldn’t do it. 

For example: marketing Pepsi to be consumed in massive amounts, while definitely bad for humans, doesn’t run the risk of causing mass extinction.

On the other hand, bringing Tyrannosaurus rex back to life definitely has a greater than 0% chance of doing just that.

Now, I’m not a doomsday prepper by any stretch of the imagination… But when someone tells me there’s even a small chance that what they’re making could turn out like The Matrix, I start to worry. 

It’s as if they never watched I, Robot or read Jurassic Park (which is actually about runaway technology, not dinosaurs). 

These companies have a responsibility to guarantee that this doesn’t happen. We already made this mistake with nuclear weapons. And that threat still looms large over our heads, especially right now during the Russo-Ukraine War. 

We have enough threats to deal with. Let’s not create more of our own volition.

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote from Jurassic Park:

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

For more daily musings like this, subscribe below: