Bard and ChatGPT?

[Atla]

I've heard that Schopenhauer is considered a God in red-pill philosophy though..

The only thing I know about Schopenhauer is that he wasn't known for being the life and soul of the party.

He had mommy issues..

[Wizard22]

One 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.

You defeated your own argument just the other day, Iwan.

Remember when you claimed Washington, Hamilton, Franklin were "liberals" because they liberated the American colonies from the British crown? Well, hate to break this news to you, but they were slave-owners.

Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???

[Iwannaplato]

Remember when you claimed Washington, Hamilton, Franklin were "liberals" because they liberated the American colonies from the British crown? Well, hate to break this news to you, but they were slave-owners.

LOL.
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.

Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???

You mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?

Welcome to complicated realiy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

You ridiculously accused all sort of people of being traitors to Western Civilization as if Western Civilization hasn't been changing radically over time. Fine you see LGBTQ as morally wrong etc. But you attack it in a categorical way. Oh, you are changing traditions, you are bad liberls. When the fact is you hold in high esteem people who changed Traditions and has anti-traditional beliefs: both philosophers and politicians. So, by this esteem you hold those people in, you are a traitor to Western Civilization.

Your views have no sense of history. No sense of the context of what we call traditional that were radical breaks from tradition. You treat the whole thing as a monolith, when it is not. You speak respectfully of the Catholic Church that might well have killed you for some of your views, for example. But I've pointed this out before and off you went on tangents or just kept silent.

The assumptions in this response on your part are silly. NOTHING in what I said entails that the people who radically went against tradition need have done it in all ways. All that matters is that they did make large changes in tradition and yet you hold them in high esteem, because you have no sense of context.

[Wizard22]

LOL.
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.

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.

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???

Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???

You mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?

On the contrary, I think Slavery is worse now than it's ever been.

The problem with Slavery today, is that the Western masses actually fooled themselves/yourselves that it was "Abolished".

It was not. It merely got updated. There are more Western Slaves now than ever before.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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].

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

BingAI is less pedantic

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.

Kant could likely be gay.
Kant had a man-servant as a preference when I suppose female maids/servants would be more common during his days?

What counts philosophical is the validity and soundness of Kant's arguments.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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].

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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].

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.

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.

I have presented why how analytic philosophy originated around 100 years ago with Frege,
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868
i.e. started with countering Kant,
Do you agree? Perhaps you did not even know about it?

Up to the present analytic philosophy has failed miserably in many revised attempts.

Since then traditional analytic philosophy has morphed into post-analytic philosophy which has nothing to do with the essentials of the original intent of the original analytic philosophy.

At present, what is analytic philosophy is merely a focus on general analysis.

You are confused and straddles between traditional philosophy [fact vs statement of fact] and at times try to cuddle with post-analytic philosophers like Grice, Rorty?

At most your what is fact is merely conditioned upon a human-based linguistic-FSRK which can never bridge that speculated illusory mind-independent reality.

[Iwannaplato]

How am I not interacting with what you wrote the other day? Isn't that exactly what I'm doing?

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.

And this is not a fresh or isolated pattern with you.

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???

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.

The same accusation you aim at Liberals could have been aimed about the founders of the country. The same accusations could be made at other figures in history that you hold in high esteem, because they broke tradition. Smashed it, some of them.

And as I said: arguing our values on the issue is one thing, but arguing in this historyless, contextless way and trying to make it seem like the people whose values you differ from are per se doing something wrong because they are going against tradition is a confused and hypocritical posiiton.

Does that therein mean slave-owners are liberal and a liberal institution???

You mean it was a conservative traditional one and you admire them for maintaining it?

On the contrary, I think Slavery is worse now than it's ever been.

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.

[Wizard22]

The same accusation you aim at Liberals could have been aimed about the founders of the country.

No they couldn't.

Conservatism and Tradition are very specific when it comes to sexual immorality. The fact that the Lib-Left slander all Conservative geniuses as 'secretly homo', is more revealing about them than the targets of their gossiping. It is a fact that cuts through Liberal-Leftism like a hot knife through butter. Liberal-Leftism is premised on sexual debauchery, perversion, impotency, for very specific reasons.

Liberal-Leftists cannot produce philosophical geniuses as a result; because the essence of their/your "philosophy" is to twist, deny, and corrupt Nature.

Anti-Nature.



Here's a lesson you and other Lib-Leftists would do well to remember:

Evolved life only reproduces and survives through successful, potent Heterosexuality.

If you do not reproduce, genetically, then you go extinct.



No amount of obfuscation, gossiping, slandering, smearing Conservatives' reputations, is going to change that Absolute, Irrefutable, Fact-Truth-100%-Certainty.

No amount of: hurr hurr hurr! KANT WAS GAYYYYYYY! BAHAHAHA! is going to make it so.

[Iwannaplato]

No they couldn't.

Conservatism and Tradition are very specific when it comes to sexual immorality.

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.

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.

[Wizard22]

No they couldn't.

Conservatism and Tradition are very specific when it comes to sexual immorality.

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.

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.

My position is rock solid, no "evasion" required.

First of all, your Anti-Catholic sentiment is noted. Second of all, your Pro-Pornography Western Society is noted. Why is sexual control "bad" when Catholics do it, but not Hollywood whom dominates the pornography 'industry'? Or created and now promotes "LGBTQMAP+"? It seems that you have the 'evasive' position: Liberal-Leftism in a nutshell, "do what you want in the confines of your own home"....except, what? "Except against those who cannot consent", yet it is the Lib-Left (You) who 'accepts' and tolerates genital mutilation to appease these religious fanatics across Western Civilization. And who tolerates the "Minor Attracted Persons", the Left or the Right?

(It's the Left)

Acceptance of pedophilia and paraphilia of any kind, has never been tolerated by the Conservative-Right, ever! Not once in human history. It is only the Religious-Left that want to "express" their sexual perversions as-if they were Morally-Good and Righteous, Socially Just Warriors, for doing so.

No, it's just the same excuse the Hippies used, to 'stick it to the man' (their Fathers who won World War II, by the way), freeeeee sex and looooove, maaaaaan.

Nope, just Degeneracy. It's that simple. And here you are, defending it.

[FlashDangerpants]

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seems there is a problem of "implicature" here.
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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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.

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.

Seems there is a problem of "implicature" here.
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.

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.