Re: Bard and ChatGPT?
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:45 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
You defeated your own argument just the other day, Iwan.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:25 pmOne of Kant's friends was an open homosexual. Kant was not conservative on religious matters, given that he was a near atheist. He argued that there was no way to know God or prove God. Kant was liberal in relation to freedom from authority and in wanting a republic.
Plato thought that women could be equals of men in philosophy and even in ruling. That they had the same capacities. That's not just not conservative, that's hysterically radical or his time. He did not believe women needed AT ALL to enter traditional females roles: marriage or motherhood. He was quite socialist in some ways, thinking the state or society should make sure that everyone had the basics for survival include access to health care. He was anti-liberal anti-conservative in thinking that people should do what they are told by the authorities and was not big at all on individual freedom.
Arthur Schopenhauer didn't believe in individual freedom. Which pretty much makes him antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. Otherwise he was pretty conservative, though
he
did
not
like
the Western Traditions as much as the Eastern ones, especially in religion and philosophy.
IOW if you'd been around at that time you'd have called him a parasite on Western Civilization.
LOL.
You mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???
How am I not interacting with what you wrote the other day? Isn't that exactly what I'm doing? Your "point", that Liberal and Liberty are heavily contextual...then let's compare contexts. During Plato and Socrates' time, it was written that the homos/transexuals, males that made themselves up as women like they do today, would try to seduce Socrates, and fail. He rebuked and rejected them every time.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:33 pmLOL.
1) That doesn't mean they weren't radicals in other ways, upsetting Western Civilization. I mentioned earlier to you or AJ that people can be mixtures. And notice what their legacy is: they made a radical shift against traditions. Others had to eliminate slavery.
2) Are you saying that slavery is a traditional, conservative value?
3) None of this has anything to do with those three philosophers.
I notice that you tend not to interact with what other people write.
On the contrary, I think Slavery is worse now than it's ever been.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:33 pmYou mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???
Wrong.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:53 am You just tried to use cGPT to write an essay for you on the subject of Grice, but your knowledge was so lacking that you couldn't see it was irrelevant. You trusted the bullshit output because you are captive to the tool now.
Kant could likely be gay.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 4:40 pmBingAI is less pedanticHarbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 4:07 pm I just tried ChatGPT. I did it out of curiosity, not because I had anything in particular to ask. One question I asked was; "was Emanuel Kant gay", and I was more or less told to mind my own business.
In fact, I gat a mild telling off for speculating about the sexuality of historic figures.There is no definitive answer to whether Immanuel Kant was gay, as he never married or had any known romantic or sexual relationships with anyone. However, some scholars have speculated that he may have had homosexual tendencies or attractions, based on his writings, his personal life, and his views on sexuality and marriage.
For example, some have argued that Kant’s condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and immoral was a sign of his own internalized homophobia, or a projection of his repressed desires12. Others have suggested that Kant’s friendship with Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk, a fellow philosopher who was openly gay, may have involved some degree of affection or intimacy3. Still others have pointed out that Kant’s account of marriage as a contract of mutual ownership of the sexual organs, which requires equality between the spouses, could be seen as more compatible with same-sex than with different-sex marriage, given the historical and social inequalities between men and women45.
However, these interpretations are not conclusive, and they may reflect more about the contemporary debates and perspectives on sexuality and gender than about Kant’s own personal life and feelings. Kant himself never explicitly disclosed his sexual orientation, and he may have been simply asexual, celibate, or private about his sexuality. Therefore, the question of whether Kant was gay remains open and unresolved.
You asked about Grice and implicature because implicature was the only Grice thing I referenced, so it's the only one you've ever heard of.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:14 amWrong.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:53 am You just tried to use cGPT to write an essay for you on the subject of Grice, but your knowledge was so lacking that you couldn't see it was irrelevant. You trusted the bullshit output because you are captive to the tool now.
I only ask AI to explain what is Grice's Implicature, not the whole of Grice's philosophy.
Generally what I understand is;
Grice [in 'Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy] is countering the traditional analytic philosopher that is claiming language can bridge the reality gap between the subject and the external mind-independent object.
I do have some degree of trust with AI but also be mindful of its limitations and that I should check with the original sources.
The present AIs are programmed to be very woke & always to give alternative views. Many of the alternative views are in my opinion wrong [fall short of expectations].
I said, I present my views [assisted by AI].FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:50 amYou asked about Grice and implicature because implicature was the only Grice thing I referenced, so it's the only one you've ever heard of.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:14 amWrong.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:53 am You just tried to use cGPT to write an essay for you on the subject of Grice, but your knowledge was so lacking that you couldn't see it was irrelevant. You trusted the bullshit output because you are captive to the tool now.
I only ask AI to explain what is Grice's Implicature, not the whole of Grice's philosophy.
Generally what I understand is;
Grice [in 'Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy] is countering the traditional analytic philosopher that is claiming language can bridge the reality gap between the subject and the external mind-independent object.
I do have some degree of trust with AI but also be mindful of its limitations and that I should check with the original sources.
The present AIs are programmed to be very woke & always to give alternative views. Many of the alternative views are in my opinion wrong [fall short of expectations].
But you still have the audacity to try and lecture me about this stuff. to make it worse, your lecture was random irrelevant nonsense about whether scientists should imply things. And you got an AI to write it all for you. And you still have no idea what you are on about and you don't know anything about Grice because all you've done is regurgitate nonsense.
And you are so shameless with it that you will learn nothing from yet another mistake, as always.
Because you didn't respond in regard to the philosophers. YOu jumped back to an earlier post about politicians. And you didn't deal with the ways in which they were radical/liberal, you went to an issue where they were not as if that somehow undermined my point. I point this out and you don't respond to that argument.
Again, not the point. You were making a categorical criticism of liberals (though actually you were really criticizing people further out on the Left than Liberals). They are betraying Western Civilization. As if this has had a clear set of values that you agree with, and you don't, and as if things that you value were put in place by people going against, often in radical ways, Western Civilization before them.So does that not fit the context today, exactly? And that, were they alive today, they would take the same 'Conservative' position I've defended???
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:33 pmYou mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???
Great, so perhaps you would have been liberal then. So, change in itself, even going against traditional values and practices is no per se betraying Western Civlization.On the contrary, I think Slavery is worse now than it's ever been.
No they couldn't.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:23 amThe same accusation you aim at Liberals could have been aimed about the founders of the country.
Western Civilization has changed it's view many times through out its history. Even the way you talk about sex would have gotten you in trouble or worse. And which parts of Western Civilization. The parts that allowed rape when dealing with another culture. The parts where if it could be shown that you had sex, even with your wife, for pleasure, it was a sin and punishable. The part where masturbation was a punishable sin. Nobless oblige allow nobles to have sex with newlywed wives. You dragged Plato into the tradition. He believed in reincarnation and that the soul is sexless. There have always been pagan facets to sexuality, expecially in rural areas or areas where the Catholic Church, in its often beastly approach to controlling everyone's sexuality in the while imposing their values on sex on pagan traditions, had less control. Masters could stop servants from getting married in European tradition, which meant, given that extramarital sex was then illegal, unlike now, masters could stop servants from having legal sex. There's a lot more, as meantioned earlier, about class control of sex, including killing men for having consensual sex with noble women.
My position is rock solid, no "evasion" required.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 11:02 amWestern Civilization has changed it's view many times through out its history. Even the way you talk about sex would have gotten you in trouble or worse. And which parts of Western Civilization. The parts that allowed rape when dealing with another culture. The parts where if it could be shown that you had sex, even with your wife, for pleasure, it was a sin and punishable. The part where masturbation was a punishable sin. Nobless oblige allow nobles to have sex with newlywed wives. You dragged Plato into the tradition. He believed in reincarnation and that the soul is sexless. There have always been pagan facets to sexuality, expecially in rural areas or areas where the Catholic Church, in its often beastly approach to controlling everyone's sexuality in the while imposing their values on sex on pagan traditions, had less control. Masters could stop servants from getting married in European tradition, which meant, given that extramarital sex was then illegal, unlike now, masters could stop servants from having legal sex. There's a lot more, as meantioned earlier, about class control of sex, including killing men for having consensual sex with noble women.
For some reason you an atheist, when it is convenient consider the Catholic Church part of European tradition, period, even though the CC represented radical changes in sexuality and sex from Plato's time, for example.
The Catholic Church has and still has a perversion as central to their practices: celibacy of their supposedly most holy people - the priests. This has always led to pedophilia, but the Catholic Church, unlike most Protestant Churches, does not allow marriage for their most holy member, despite the overwhelming evidence this leads directly to the abuse of children. Let alone the unbelievable sexual and other practices by Popes. There isn't even geographical unity around sex and sexuality, let alone chronological unity.
Of course, I said some of this earlier and you didn't respond.
But really this is all besides the point. As said earlier, if someone wants to change a facet of the Civilization one is a part of, it is not by category betraying or being a parasite to that set of mixed traditions. Those traditions are made up of people who challenged core facets of the tradition and changed them. And this is true for sex, sexuality, government, economy, freedom of speech and assembly, rights to due process and many other facets of modern life, some of them which you yourself value highly.
That doesn't mean any specific change is good or should be accepted. What it does mean is that your who whole betraying Western Civlization bullshit is just that.
You squiggle all around and are evasive. Mull this over or don't, but I'm not playing this game with you anymore right now.
So you remember the question you were addressing? I - who have read Grice - don't see anything in my own words that is contradicted by his writings, so I asked you to explain why you keep invoking Grice at me.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 3:09 amI said, I present my views [assisted by AI].FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:50 amYou asked about Grice and implicature because implicature was the only Grice thing I referenced, so it's the only one you've ever heard of.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:14 am
Wrong.
I only ask AI to explain what is Grice's Implicature, not the whole of Grice's philosophy.
Generally what I understand is;
Grice [in 'Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy] is countering the traditional analytic philosopher that is claiming language can bridge the reality gap between the subject and the external mind-independent object.
I do have some degree of trust with AI but also be mindful of its limitations and that I should check with the original sources.
The present AIs are programmed to be very woke & always to give alternative views. Many of the alternative views are in my opinion wrong [fall short of expectations].
But you still have the audacity to try and lecture me about this stuff. to make it worse, your lecture was random irrelevant nonsense about whether scientists should imply things. And you got an AI to write it all for you. And you still have no idea what you are on about and you don't know anything about Grice because all you've done is regurgitate nonsense.
And you are so shameless with it that you will learn nothing from yet another mistake, as always.
This is a philosophical forum, if you have alternative views, present them.
I am aware Grice alluded to 'the Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy';
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
If you are grounding your views on Ordinary Language Philosophy, your philosophical views are dead ones.
Seems there is a problem of "implicature" here.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:05 pmSo you remember the question you were addressing? I - who have read Grice - don't see anything in my own words that is contradicted by his writings, so I asked you to explain why you keep invoking Grice at me.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 3:09 amI said, I present my views [assisted by AI].FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:50 am
You asked about Grice and implicature because implicature was the only Grice thing I referenced, so it's the only one you've ever heard of.
But you still have the audacity to try and lecture me about this stuff. to make it worse, your lecture was random irrelevant nonsense about whether scientists should imply things. And you got an AI to write it all for you. And you still have no idea what you are on about and you don't know anything about Grice because all you've done is regurgitate nonsense.
And you are so shameless with it that you will learn nothing from yet another mistake, as always.
This is a philosophical forum, if you have alternative views, present them.
I am aware Grice alluded to 'the Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy';
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
If you are grounding your views on Ordinary Language Philosophy, your philosophical views are dead ones.
You went on a random tangent with any old shit that you could get an AI to write for you and gave me a worthless essay on whether science should imply stuff instead of handling the question.
This is another example of you being the problem in every conversation. You boast about how selfish you are often, but you are quite a lot worse than you actually realise.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:26 amSeems there is a problem of "implicature" here.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:05 pmSo you remember the question you were addressing? I - who have read Grice - don't see anything in my own words that is contradicted by his writings, so I asked you to explain why you keep invoking Grice at me.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 3:09 am
I said, I present my views [assisted by AI].
This is a philosophical forum, if you have alternative views, present them.
I am aware Grice alluded to 'the Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy';
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
If you are grounding your views on Ordinary Language Philosophy, your philosophical views are dead ones.
You went on a random tangent with any old shit that you could get an AI to write for you and gave me a worthless essay on whether science should imply stuff instead of handling the question.
How can I know you "don't see anything in my own words that is contradicted by his writings"?
Again, my inference is this;
1. I noted 'the Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy' [OLP] with reference to Grice;
2. You keep harping about your reliance on Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Based on the above you are relying on dead philosophy.
So you need to apply the 4 maxims of conversation to give more details if you think my inference is wrong.
If you think the additional I reference from AI [as points for discussion, not a lecture] is irrelevant, then ignore it.