Blending philosophy books with T5 Transformers, Top2Vec and ChatGPT to gain novel philosophical insights.
It is said that the age of philosophers has been over for some time. Whether it was with Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc., the claim is that no philosophers since them have created any fundamental changes in Western philosophy. Others say that philosophy is undergoing a golden age with authors like Badiou, Zizek, Nozick, etc. providing fresh insights into mundane situations; Zizek in particular using pop culture to highlight his blend of Marxian, Lacanian and Hegelian philosophy.
Whether or not this is true, recent advances in Large Language models (LLM) and ChatGPT certainly make it tempting to generate novel philosophy, especially using philosophy books as a template. Is it possible to generate novel philosophical insights using past and existing philosophers as a template? Let’s find out!
For my program, I will plan to blend in six different philosophers, some that on the outset have incongruous philosophies, in order to see if there are novel insights that can be generated. I plan to use five philosophers from the past and present: Heidegger, Badiou, Nozick, Zizek and Conant. Each of them are well known for a given philosophical bent: Heidegger for being the founding father of existentialism and his discussions on the nature of “being”, Badiou for discussing pop philosophy, Maoism, and use of mathematics in describing philosophical concepts, Conant for his philosophy of logic and whether more than one type of philosophical logic exists, Zizek for interpreting the world through a blend of Marx, Lacan and Hegel, and finally Nozick for kicks, as his philosophy of free market capitalism and need for a minimal state seems to be in direct contravention to Zizek and Badiou.
For my program, I had passed their books through my previous philosophy program summarizer (https://medium.com/@danielmachinelearning/using-t5-transformers-top2vec-and-gpt3-to-create-easily-digestible-summaries-of-philosophy-books-49679a20f80a) to generate outputs for each of their works. This I think will provide a good contrast to the novel generation that my program has created, seeing where the layman summaries are still present, and where novel ones had been created. When say a discussion on Lacan by Zizek transitions to a discussion on set theory by Badiou or to a discussion on logic by Conant, we can find the generated philosophical bits and see if there is a novel philosophical insight generated in comparison to the summaries.
The books which I have chosen and summarized beforehand are the following: Zizek’s “Sublime Object of Ideology” and “Disparities”, Badiou’s “Being and Event”, Nozick’s “Invariances”, Conant’s “The Logical Alien” and finally, Heidegger’s “Being and Time”. I chose the titles mainly due to most of the titles being the magnum opus for the given authors. The exception is Nozick; whose crowning achievement is “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, but I chose one where his work is more philosophically abstract. I also added Zizek’s “Disparities” given that there are some commonalities with Badiou’s “Being and Event” in viewing objects as separate incongruent entities and to give it some connection.
The way my program is structured is that I will largely reuse my old program with some additional changes to account for the multiple philosophical books. First, all the books via pdf files are loaded in via PyPDF2. Next, I had generated summaries of my books via ““pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-book-summary”, so instead of running it again, I loaded them via text files that were saved with them. The LLM is available on HuggingFace and was chosen for its ability to provide summaries from book sections that were complex enough to capture the meaning, while being compressed enough for our purposes. An example of such summaries is presented below from Zizek’s “Sublime Act of Ideology”:
The narrator begins this chapter with a discussion of the concept of "the idea's constipation." He uses examples from his own writing to illustrate how it is possible for an idea to be transformed into something else. For example, when a scientific revolution is in progress, one might try to change the fundamental framework of science by adding new complications or changing minor premises. But then, instead of simply adding complicated things and changing minor assumptions, the basic frame itself becomes trans-formed. This process takes place when the basic framework undergoes some trans-formation. In other words, there are many Ptolesmizations that have taken place in the past because they were trying to replace the old paradigm. These include theories like string theory and social theory. However, these ideas do not seem to be really revolutionary at all. Instead, they appear to be just attempts at replacing the old concepts with more radical changes in the basic principles. So here we go back to Hegel: If we take Hegel as an example, let us look at his dialectics. Hegel says that the power of understanding is sublated into the totality of reason. It is only through our imagination that we can understand what is going on. When we pass from understanding to reason, everything is reduced to its constituent parts. We pass out from experiencing reality to its prefate. There is no more foreign to him than a LamentatioN for the richestness of reality -- that gets lost once we proceed to their conceptual grasp
In this chapter, Hegel argues that art is now free to express its subjectivity. This means that subjects no longer need the "visual medium" as their primary means of expression; instead, they can express their inner life through poetry. Thus, art does not have to serve as an expression of subjectivity and thus allows it to stand on its personal terms. The only way to abrogate one's subjectivity is by sublating it with something else. For example, in order to be free from attachment, one has to release nature into its own self-absorption. Hegelian consciousness is both active and passivisive, but at the same time, it is completely passivable. It takes all kinds of effort to develop such a thing as the Notion. Hegel uses the term "absolute freedom" to refer to his idea that there is no immediate transition between the object and its reality. If we were talking about God, then God isn't necessarily a concept or even a predicament. But Hegel also says that material reality doesn't always exist because it depends on notional elements. And truth is totally immanent.Next, I ran my topic modeling program with Top2Vec again to see what automatically generated topics were generated. The code for running this portion is here below:
!pip install top2vec
!pip install top2vec[sentence_encoders]
!pip install top2vec[sentence_transformers]
!pip install top2vec[gensim]
!pip install tensorflow tensorflow_hub tensorflow_textfrom top2vec import Top2Vec
model = Top2Vec(saved_str, embedding_model='distiluse-base-multilingual-cased', speed='learn', workers=16)After running it, I came up with 79 topics. So obviously this is to be expected due to the large input. In my previous program, I used the BERT model for encoding sentences into BERT embeddings for use with the topic modeling. The model would take each summarized sentences and use cosine distance to measure each sentence’s relevance to a topic. However with 79, we run the risk of segmenting all the summary sentences from the T5 transformer into specialized niche topics that will very likely focus on one book. Example word topics that can be found from this segmentation are here:
model.topic_wordsarray([['infinite', 'theorem', 'infinity', ..., 'define', 'defines',
'singular'],
['logically', 'logical', 'logic', ..., 'realize', 'ability',
'conscious'],
['divine', 'theological', 'god', ..., 'logically', 'metaphysical',
'rationality'],
...,
['water', 'existentially', 'metaphysical', ..., 'exist', 'global',
'theorem'],
['color', 'green', 'red', ..., 'contradiction', 'eyes',
'mechanism'],
['chess', 'rules', 'rule', ..., 'cardinals', 'items', 'sequence']],
dtype='<U15')Since we want to blend summaries from all six books together, we want to compress these topics. Luckily, top2vec has a feature that allows us to reduce the number of topics, much like hierarchical clustering where we go up the cluster to get its more broader cluster.
One idea to get the broad number of clusters is to take the number of books, multiply it by 2, then divide it into the number of topics. We end up with six topics (integer round, but who is counting?). Although this is the same number of books and still has the potential to only be with one book, given that some topics intersect with each other, this isn’t likely. Let’s plug it in and see the results:
given_topics = int(model.get_num_topics()/12)
topic_mapping = model.hierarchical_topic_reduction(given_topics)
model.topic_words_reducedarray([['existentially', 'existential', 'realism', 'relativism',
'existentiell', 'relativist', 'philosophically', 'ontologically',
'paradoxical', 'theological', 'philosophical', 'ontological',
'existent', 'authentically', 'ontology', 'metaphysical',
'paradox', 'terminology', 'inauthentic', 'idealism', 'infinite',
'philosophy', 'ideology', 'materialism', 'universality',
'philosoph', 'absolute', 'completely', 'metaphysics', 'theology',
'definition', 'absolutely', 'genuinely', 'exist', 'ideological',
'real', 'actuality', 'intrinsic', 'authentic', 'universe',
'reality', 'exists', 'existence', 'relativity', 'entirely',
'conceptual', 'universally', 'objectivity', 'existing', 'no'],
['logically', 'logical', 'logic', 'logician', 'philosophically',
'rationality', 'ontologically', 'theorem', 'philosophical',
'philosophy', 'rational', 'philosoph', 'ideological',
'relativism', 'ontological', 'conceptual', 'ideology',
'relativist', 'reasoning', 'paradoxical', 'theoretical',
'paradox', 'ontology', 'philosophers', 'theory', 'concepts',
'concept', 'ethics', 'theological', 'understanding', 'argument',
'theories', 'metaphysical', 'phonological', 'idealism',
'ethical', 'comprehension', 'terminology', 'notion',
'intellectual', 'arguments', 'metaphysics', 'dialectical',
'principles', 'principle', 'comprehend', 'relativity',
'consciousness', 'methodological', 'theology'],
['infinite', 'theorem', 'relativism', 'quantum', 'relativist',
'infinity', 'universality', 'terminology', 'universe',
'paradoxical', 'multiplicity', 'paradox', 'existentially',
'theoretical', 'mathematics', 'mathematical', 'universal',
'complexity', 'existential', 'unity', 'universes',
'existentiell', 'absolute', 'universally', 'denumerable',
'theory', 'incompatible', 'definition', 'multiples',
'relativity', 'terms', 'totality', 'ontologically', 'multiple',
'constitutive', 'ontological', 'existent', 'theories',
'inconsistency', 'finite', 'arbitrary', 'inconsistent',
'metaphysics', 'metaphysical', 'defines', 'entirely', 'define',
'complex', 'ontology', 'two'],
['philosophically', 'philosophy', 'philosoph', 'philosophical',
'philosophers', 'ontologically', 'ideological', 'ideology',
'ontology', 'ontological', 'relativism', 'theological',
'relativist', 'phonological', 'paradoxical', 'logically',
'paradox', 'theorem', 'terminology', 'theories', 'theory',
'theoretical', 'metaphysical', 'theology', 'logician',
'rationality', 'phenomenology', 'metaphysics', 'philo',
'conceptual', 'logical', 'idealism', 'dialectical', 'logic',
'thematic', 'dialectic', 'ethics', 'methodological', 'rational',
'dialectics', 'interpretation', 'concepts', 'aristotelian',
'ethical', 'contradiction', 'literature', 'interpreted',
'disagreement', 'reasoning', 'skepticism'],
['consciousness', 'cognitive', 'sensory', 'cognition',
'mechanism', 'psychologism', 'unconscious', 'metaphysical',
'understanding', 'ontology', 'relativism', 'psychoanalysis',
'ontological', 'brain', 'ontologically', 'psychological',
'conscious', 'awareness', 'comprehension', 'intuition',
'philosophically', 'metaphysics', 'philosophical', 'conscience',
'comprehend', 'phonological', 'no', 'terminology', 'relativist',
'ideology', 'phenomenology', 'consciously', 'biological',
'ideological', 'non', 'ethics', 'conceptual', 'materialism',
'two', 'physical', 'ne', 'philosophy', 'incompatible',
'intuitions', 'mechanics', 'sensibility', 'psychologistic',
'organisms', 'senses', 'recognize'],
['terminology', 'linguistic', 'phonological', 'interpretation',
'interpreted', 'dialectical', 'dialectic', 'syntax',
'dialectics', 'context', 'language', 'begriffsschrift', 'words',
'comprehension', 'term', 'articulate', 'word', 'understanding',
'signification', 'terms', 'grammatical', 'ambiguity',
'literally', 'meaning', 'meanings', 'articulates', 'definition',
'lexicon', 'comprehend', 'ontology', 'explanation', 'explaining',
'symbolic', 'explication', 'ontological', 'explicit',
'abstraction', 'explanatory', 'understood', 'elucidation',
'ontologically', 'understand', 'explained', 'expressions',
'discourse', 'communication', 'explain', 'grammar', 'bility',
'explicitly']], dtype='<U15')So here we see some interesting topics. The first one has terms like “existential”, “relativism”, “ideology”, “materialism”, etc. This topic seems to broadly cover existential, though ideology and materialism are sort of ancillary. This has the potential to blend several books given Heidegger deals with existentialism, but Zizek deals more with ideology and materialism.
The second topic has words like ‘logical’, ‘logically’, and ‘rationality’. This would seem to cover only the James Conant’s book on logic, but we also see terms like ‘ontology’, ‘ideology’, ‘materialism’, etc. These are topics covered by Badiou and Zizek, so we may have some convergence here.
The third topic has words like ‘infinite’, ‘multiplicity’, ‘mathematics’, etc. These topics tend largely to coincide with Badiou’s “Being and Event” where he uses a lot of mathematical terminology. However, Conant’s book also discusses math in relation to logic, plus there are terms including ‘ontology’, which is discussed by Zizek. It would definitely be interesting to see the insights here.
The fourth topic has keywords “philosophy”, “ontology”, “relativism”, “metaphysics”, etc. This one is indeed broad and would encompass all authors. Nevertheless, I still think it would be interesting to see what insights are yielded here.
The fifth topic has keywords “consciousness”, “cognitive”, “sensory”, etc. So this topic will cover insights created related to consciousness. Since there is no one book on the list that specifically covers this theme in depth, it sounds like that topic modeling has picked up tidbits from each individual book. This one indeed may prove most fruitful to look at.
The last topic has keywords “language”, “dialectic”, “interpretation”, etc. Thus this will cover more philosophy of language, along with possibly hermeneutics. Since again no book has specifically dealt with this theme (although Heidegger does talk a lot about language in discussing the philosophy of being), it will again be really insightful to see what tidbits were found from all books.
So on a first go, this sounds very exciting. Our program is promising to create novel insights in the following derived themes based on the topic keywords: existentialism, logic, mathematics, philosophy, consciousness and language. Already, I can imagine ChatGPT sitting on the Left Bank of the River Seine, drinking wine, and extrapolating on all these topics.
With the topics now broadened, the next step is to place all the sentence summaries into their corresponding topic. Top2Vec creates an embedding vector from the embedding structure used (‘Distillbert’ in this case) that encapsulates the topic keywords used. Thus, we can see semantically where each sentence would be placed.
For the first step in this process, I will examine the cosine distance of all sentences embedded with Top2Vec and the embedding vector of a given topic. The sentence with the largest score will be the leading sentence in the “philosophical” extrapolation by virtue of it being semantically closest to the given topic. The following code piece will accomplish this task:
import random
from scipy import spatial
sentences_for_topics = []
for i in range(len(topic_vectors)):
sentences_for_topics.append([])
summary_statements = []
mylist = ["BeingAndTime.txt", "Invariances.txt", "BeingEvent.txt", "SublimeIdeology.txt", "Disparities.txt", "Logical_Alien.txt"]
random.shuffle(mylist)
for i in mylist:
with open(i, "r") as f:
temp = f.read()
temp = temp.split("\n")
#summary_statements
print(len(temp))
summary_statements += temp
random.shuffle(summary_statements)
vectors_for_all_sentences = []
for i in summary_statements:
vectors_for_all_sentences.append(model.embed([i])[0])
range_iter = list(range(len(vectors_for_all_sentences)))
largest_iterations = []
for k, v in zip(topic_vectors, range(len(topic_vectors))):
difference = 0
largest_iter = 0
for i in range_iter:
distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(vectors_for_all_sentences[i], k)
if distance > difference:
difference = distance
largest_iter = i
sentences_for_topics[v].append(summary_statements[largest_iter])
largest_iterations.append(largest_iter)
for i in sorted(largest_iterations, reverse=True):
del summary_statements[i]
del vectors_for_all_sentences[i]The summaries gathered for each book were saved in a corresponding text file. These are opened, shuffled randomly, then compared with the topic vector (in the variable topic_vectors). The largest cosine distance per each topic_vector is found in “largest_iter”, which is then appended to a data structure “sentences_for_topics” per topic.
Once each topic has now acquired their leading sentence summary, we now want to incorporate all the remaining sentences. In this, I plan on using the following structure: comparing each sentence to the topic vector. The one with the highest cosine score is then appended to the given topic. The code for this is as follows:
import numpy as np
range_iter = list(range(len(vectors_for_all_sentences)))
for i in range_iter:
difference = 0
largest_topic = 0
for v in range(len(topic_vectors)):
test = model.embed(sentences_for_topics[v][-1])
distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(list(vectors_for_all_sentences[i]), test)
if distance > difference:
difference = distance
largest_topic = v
if (summary_statements[i] not in sentences_for_topics[largest_topic]):
sentences_for_topics[largest_topic].append(summary_statements[i])Once the sentences are placed in, I do a final preprocessing step. To make sure the sentences are as semantically similar to each other, I will compare each sentence with the ones below it. The sentence that has the highest cosine score is swapped with the next sentence following it. That sentence then is compared with the ones below again. The steps are repeated until the sentences are ordered as semantically close to each other as possible. Thus our ChatGPT program will be able to gain more novel insights smoothly. The code for this is below:
for k in range(given_topics):
length_topic = len(sentences_for_topics[k])
ordering = [0]
while len(ordering) < length_topic:
difference = 0
largest_sentence = 0
whole_list = list(range(length_topic))
iter_list = [x for x in whole_list if x not in ordering]
for j in iter_list:
test1 = model.embed(sentences_for_topics[k][ordering[-1]])
test2 = model.embed(sentences_for_topics[k][j])
distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(test1, test2)
if distance > difference and j not in ordering:
difference = distance
largest_sentence = j
ordering.append(largest_sentence)
sentences_for_topics[k] = [sentences_for_topics[k][i] for i in ordering]With our sentences now segmented and ordered, let’s take a sneak peak. Checking Topic 2 and the first few sentences, we see the following:
Sentences for topic 2
['infinite' 'theorem' 'relativism' 'quantum' 'relativist' 'infinity'
'universality' 'terminology' 'universe' 'paradoxical' 'multiplicity'
'paradox' 'existentially' 'theoretical' 'mathematics' 'mathematical'
'universal' 'complexity' 'existential' 'unity' 'universes' 'existentiell'
'absolute' 'universally' 'denumerable' 'theory' 'incompatible'
'definition' 'multiples' 'relativity' 'terms' 'totality' 'ontologically'
'multiple' 'constitutive' 'ontological' 'existent' 'theories'
'inconsistency' 'finite' 'arbitrary' 'inconsistent' 'metaphysics'
'metaphysical' 'defines' 'entirely' 'define' 'complex' 'ontology' 'two']
In this chapter, Dr. Rivers explains the problem of how language can operate in such a way as to be "qua being." The problem is that there cannot be a pure multiple presentable in any given situation because it cannot be determined whether what the theory presented is true or not. He uses examples from literature to illustrate his point. He then discusses the concept of first order logic, which means that all terms have the same property and that there exists only one property for each term. This principle holds true even though properties do not possess properties. It also holds true that no matter what the definition of the word says, everything will always be true. There are five types of signs: variables, logical conntors, equivalents, quantifiers, and punctuation. These sign designates that which is said of which oneaffirms this or does. A formula is composed of signs that obey rules of correction; they are intuitively written. They are easy to read since they contain primitive signs.
In this chapter, Lacan explains how people take into account the "withdrawn of truth" in order to understand what is going on. He uses examples from Greek philosophy and contemporary philosophical methods to illustrate his theory. He then discusses the concept of minimality as it pertains to ordinals. For example, if an object has a property that is not very small, then no matter how many elements are involved in the object's possession, its property is still the same. This means that even if one element belongs to another, it does not belong to the object itself. The only reason for this is because nature always gives us an ultimate term for something. If there were no such term, then everything would be empty. It is important to note that these terms do not refer to anything but being. Because objects and relations have disappeared as distinct types, mathematics cannot be understood by thinking that they are singularly multiples.
In this chapter, the narrator argues that the denial of identity between mental and physical objects can be justified by thinking that "the property" of having thoughts is realized. This argument does not work because it assumes that people are aware of what they are thinking. For example, Searle suggests that someone who has a certain perspective or an unusual psychological state might be able to have a subjective ontotology. However, since these things cannot be completely explained in objective terms, there will be no way for the person to know what other people think about them. The narrators argue that the physical realm is also a Holmwood-like realm, which means that we don't need to worry about how others interpret our actions. If something happens to someone else, then it doesn't matter whether it's physically or mentally. It's just as important to realize that the object you're talking about is actually different from the thing you've been talking about.
In this chapter, we begin to explore the logical problems that are inherent in the use of self-conscious seeing. The first problem is that the protagonist does not know how to use the word "I see," which means that she can't understand what the other person is saying when they say it. This is because the subject of the scene doesn't have perceptual understanding; instead, the subject needs to be alienated from the subject who has seen the thing being said. For example, if the subject were to say that there was a fire inside the room, then the subject wouldn't believe him. If the subject had no consciousness of such an absurdity, then people would assume that the subject wasn't going to believe them at all. But if one were to assert that the object was green, then someone else would think that the point isn't true and would interpret the statement as meaningless. We also need to figure out how to apply these two concepts to McDowell's parable: 1) in the third person presentative, 2) in the firstperson past indicative, or 3) in the second person pre sentsubjunctive
The narrator tells us that the first person presents the self-ascribed verb, so it's not weird. It's actually more complicated than replying to Hamawaki 717 because there are three levels of consciousness: 1) the I who is presenting the verb; 2) the I with whom the speech is being interpreted; and 3) the third layer of perspective which we see in the movie. In this case, the "I" who says and the I from whom she identifies are all non-identical. This means that you can imagine yourself thinking something in your own mind about what you think when you speak. So let's imagine that our heroine is walking through her favorite department shop where she finds a sign on the wall saying, "Sellars' Tie Shop." She starts telling her sister about how much she misses the place. And then she goes back into the store looking for a shade of green tie. Oh, dear God! If only there were properly lighting in this old crackpot establishment... I would be watching the tie tobe that very shadeof green!" That's right, now we have four different layers of consciousness. First, we see ourselves as an alienated perceived individual who doesn't know anything about herself. Second, we view ourselves as part of a larger world outside of ourselves. Finally, we realize that each of these three points of view has its own set of contexts. For example, one might imagine himself seeing the tie at the same time as the other two. We also learn that the second person pre sent the word "I," meaning "I would like to see the tied to be that really shade ofgreen."
The narrator uses the term "jeweiligkeit" to describe his understanding of being. It's important to note that this definition refers to something else, such as time or experience. In other words, we're not talking about what happens in our world at any given moment. We're just talking about how we know it. See also Jeweiligkeit: Being and Time. This is one of the most frequently used terms in the book. You can think of it as an epithet for "memory," which means "being." Also, you can use jeweiligkeit to mean "temporal specificity." That's right, there's no difference between saying "being" and saying "time." There are two kinds of phrases used in the text: "actually" and "actual." These are usually translated as "on each particular occasion" or "in every particular case." For example, when you say "Being And Time," you're actually saying "I'm going to live." When you say I'm living, you mean I'll live forever. If you want to be me, you've got to get out of my way. But here's where things get tricky: people don't always act like they're acting like they really are.
In this chapter, Stambaugh explains the various ways in which Heidegger uses the word "be" to describe being. He does not use the word as a super-thing or transcendent Being, but rather as an expression of something else. The words that are most frequently used for being and time are Sorge, besorgen, filrsorge, attunement, and Rückholung. These words have their own meanings, however, and are more appropriate to people than they were before. This is because these words refer to things; they do not relate to others. For example, one might say that we belong to other people, while another might say it means us. Finally, his final word, Augenblick, has been translated as "move."
In this chapter, Tommo focuses on some of the more important terms in his English translation of Heidesgger's Later Works. For example, Feick' "Lexicon Being and Time 419" is devoted entirely to the term "Being and Time" which Heidegger used in his later works.
In this first edition of the classic work Being and Time , Martin Heidesgger is reintroduced to the concept of time and its relation to the ontological question of being. He introduces several of the major issues addressed in the book, including the notion of temporality and the relationship between time and spirit.
The narrator continues to address the reader in this chapter with several of his own essays, including Wittgenstein's "Treatement," which he first published in 1932; Milton's Paradiso and Descartes' Meditations, which were later translated into many other works; and some of his earlier writings, such as Philosophical Grammar and Philosophical Resigns, also published in Oxford.So I assumed that Badiou would start off, but instead it seems that Zizek summaries are started off with reference to Lacan (perhaps I need to read him next). We then see the sentences starting to segue into Heidegger when the sentences regarding “jeweiligkeit” and “Being and Time” are included.
For Topic 3 and their first few sentences, we have the following:
Sentences for topic 3
['philosophically' 'philosophy' 'philosoph' 'philosophical' 'philosophers'
'ontologically' 'ideological' 'ideology' 'ontology' 'ontological'
'relativism' 'theological' 'relativist' 'phonological' 'paradoxical'
'logically' 'paradox' 'theorem' 'terminology' 'theories' 'theory'
'theoretical' 'metaphysical' 'theology' 'logician' 'rationality'
'phenomenology' 'metaphysics' 'philo' 'conceptual' 'logical' 'idealism'
'dialectical' 'logic' 'thematic' 'dialectic' 'ethics' 'methodological'
'rational' 'dialectics' 'interpretation' 'concepts' 'aristotelian'
'ethical' 'contradiction' 'literature' 'interpreted' 'disagreement'
'reasoning' 'skepticism']
In this chapter, we will discuss Kant's views about categorical and sylogistic judgments. The Fregean view of judgment is not suitable for our purposes because it does not represent the fundamental structure of an act of mind; rather, it represents our "basic cognitive act" as one of additional deter-mining an extant idea of an object." Kant also discusses his restrictive view on what counts as an inference of reason. He thinks that all slyllogistic statements present a "cognition to the necessity of something through the subumption of their condition under certain gen-eral rule." This means that they must be reduced to a specific subject or predicate. If you are trying to prove that your proposition is true, then you need to show that it applies to the subject you are dealing with. So, even though there might be some puzzling feature about why Kant doesn't just claim that everything stands under universal rules, he still holds that every thing stands beneath these rules is the principle ple of reasoning or of necessity. For example, if you want to know whether someone is mortal, you can use a gistic argument from known premises. But if somebody is assertoric or apodictive, you have to apply a particular set of concepts to determine who should be considered mortal. Thus, any right-thinking power of understanding needs to judge how things stand under these rules. Therefore, when a person says that scholar is determined by mortal, everyone else agrees with him. And thus, scholars are universally determined according to human. As such, humans belong universally to cognition since it belongs to our collective consciousness. We see here that Kant has a pattern of arguments for which proofs must fall into this pattern. These include: 1) general principles, 2) self-determination, and 3) absolute Principles.
In this chapter, Matthew Boyle argues that Kant's definition of pure general reasoning is wrong. It doesn't signify anything more than an ontological import to the subject matter in a particular thought. He says that it does not mean something beyond what we can see in experience. For example: A German word called "Objekt" means nothing more than mere logical concepts. The difference between these two ideas is that they don't require abstracting from any relation to objects; instead, they do have objective content. This is why Leibnism and Kant are both concerned with ontology. They think about things as they stand because they hold real content. Macfarlane disagrees with this idea. He believes that there is no universalist conception of logic but rather a contemporary version of the universalist concept. If you want to understand how Kant thinks about form, you need to read into him an anacro-nistic description of what logical forms exist and how they relate to each other. Both kinds of logic are abstracted from some aspect of the Prior Unity of Form and matter in object-oriented judgment. On the leibnizan side, all branches of logic involve self-conscious awareness of the Actuality of our Ca- pacity or ca-pcity for first order material thought. Each branch of logic also involves abstraction from the reality of the object itself. All branches engage in self-consciously aware inquiry. These types of inquiries take their point of departure away from our own conscious awareness of actuality. Assuming that everything is true, one cannot be free from contradiction. Instead, one can only judge by its outward form. While freedom from contradiction may be useful, it leaves it open to contradictory judgments. Because Kant has a different view of truth, his theory of absolute truth is much closer to those of Fregean philosophy.
In this chapter, the narrator continues his argument that being in the world does not necessarily mean being in contradistinct to being present in an other. It means being present as something else. This is why we need to understand what it means to be in the here and there of existence. The idea that there are things between these two things is misguided because it assumes that they are objectively present objects or subjected to some kind of action. What's more, though, when we say "there," we mean nothing but the existential structure of human being. We can only interpret the meaning of the words "there" and "there-being" as meanings of being within the world itself. That is, our understanding of being inside the world comes from thinking about how people relate to one another. For example, we might say that humans have attunements and fear as ways to communicate with each other. If we were talking about emotions, we would use the word "attunement." But since we don't want to talk about emotion directly, we should instead think about moods. At least for us, bad moods are like burdens. When we get into good moods, however, we find ourselves becoming manifesting as burdens rather than being free of them. Being in the universe doesn't just mean being present; it also means being brought before someone else. And so on.
In this chapter, Lacan explains how subjectivity can be divided between appearance and the inaccessible content of its being. He uses the example of Bostoridge's novel Winterreise to illustrate his point that subjectivity is not just a matter of appearance but also an object. The object we see as subject is nothing but itself; it is only possible because subjectivity exists in its own self-portrait. This means that subjects are separate from other objects and cannot be separated from their substantial content. For example: A stranger comes to the house and does not want to marry or have children. Because there is no reason for him to leave, he is empty. It is therefore the cause of his departure. Furthermore, since the person who left the house was rejected by his parents, they are not alienated from the real world. Thus, subjectivity has two modes of functioning: one which disturbs harmony with another and one which fills in the gap between them. Since sexual relations are part of human society, there isn't any need for prosthetics. We don't have first intersubjectivities without a prothetic supplement. Therefore, our subject is "the Other Quaternal Real Thing" . If we were to think of anything as subjectivity, we wouldn't know what it is until we realize that it doesn't exist at all. Instead, we pass from something to something through a series of passages. From substance to subject becomes a reflective reversional process. Subjectivity is always tearing apart unity. Reason is more important than understanding because it allows us to subsume everything else. As opposed to reasoning, however, Reason is less important than Understanding because it gives us insight into what actually is happening. When we perceive something as abstract, we blind ourselves to its constituent features. That is, we do not understand what the object is really like. What makes sense here is that we view things as abstractions rather than mere notions.
In this chapter, the UM uses his dialectical-metaphysical approach to define the notion of disparities. He draws a line between object-oriented thinking and self-conscious behavior by drawing a distinction between them. The difference between the subject and the substance is the division between them: the subject is the object; the substance has its own doing. The subject cannot fully grasp the substantial content of the object because it does not know how to respond to the opposing material reality. This contrasts with Christianity, where man can only attain unity with god through an effort to remove himself from material filh and ascend back to god. Disparity points toward a whole that does not fit together so that the whole appears artificially composite. It is impossible to understand why science and theology do not work together in the same way. Mao writes about women holding up half of Heaven, which means that there is great chaos beneath heaven. Marcel Prouset tells us that when he was talking to his grandmother, she subtracted her voice from the totality of his body. When he saw her, he realized that she was sick and lost in thought. At the philosophical level, truth is at the side of abstract reduction, subjection, and not upon the sideof organic totality
In this chapter, Hegel focuses on the concept of self-reversal and how it can be used to explain what is going on in the world. He uses examples from the classical literature as an example. A subject cannot achieve its full identity when it does not fully grasp the substantial content of the object being observed. The believer's experience of becoming abandoned by God becomes a gap between God and himself that separates him from God. Pippin also discusses the idea of absolute reflection, which means that everything is always relative to itself but only externally. Hegelian terms are absoluter Gegensetzen, or counterpunch, which refers to the effect of losing something upon itself. This implies that we do not lose our own sense of ourselves because there is no way for us to get rid of these things. We have no access to the profound presubjectative Real, so we cannot get rid off it. Absoluter Ausgangsstoß stands for the coincidence of the opposings in the action. What is found only come to be until being left behind is the result of its own absence. It is the retroactivity of its loss. Self-consciousness is one of the most important subjects in psychoanalysis. Lacan de-substantizes the unconscious into the more modern field of subjectivity. He considers the state as the self-consciously ethical substance of a person.
In this chapter, the UM uses Hegel's concept of self-consciousity to explain how one can be "one's self" without being conscious. The UM also discusses his theory of time and space, which is used to describe the relationship between experience and reality. Seeking to understand what it means to be in the world, he compares himself to Dasein, who is the "who," and then describes how Hegel sees things as they are. He concludes by explaining that Hegel believes that there is a kind of unity between the two worlds.
In this chapter, the UM uses the term "tempority of understanding" to describe his approach to understanding. He begins by explaining that understanding is an existential thing; it's something that can be understood in terms of its own potentiality and existence. The idea here is that Dasein has always been aware of what's going on with himself, which means that there's no way for him to know anything about what happens next. This doesn't mean that a person can't understand everything because they don't have enough knowledge to do so. It just means that one can see things as they are now. That's why we call attunements--they're like being thrown into a fit of emotion. At least you can feel yourself throwing away from someone else when you throw yourself out of your body.
In this paper, the author focuses on the concept of being in itself and asks whether there is a path to follow from being-initself to "shoying the phenomenon" of world. He wants to know how something like world shows itself to be taking care of people who are encountering within the world. If we can't find out what that means, then why doesn't Dasein have an understanding about the world? Doesn't it just come into view before we get too far into the world because they don't need explicit ontological explanations? The way things are taken care of by humans is not just through looking at them but also paying attention to their dealings with them. When we see something unhandily, our missing element again discovers its meaning. This makes us realize that handiness is still important even though everything else seems to be missing. It becomes clear that these things are useful only because they are present. But when we notice something unhandedly, our presence changes. What is more, as we deal with things without knowing what it is, we become aware of the fact that nothing is at hand yet. We cannot catch sight of the world until we learn how to take care of it. That is, until we understand how to make sense of what is going on around us. For example, when we use a piece of wood that has been damaged, we lose all the handiness associated with it. And now we recognize that the object of the wood is actually at hand. So instead of using it as a tool, we use it as part of the whole workshop. As such, we never pay attention to it anymore. Instead, we look at it as one of the things at hand which is already known. Now we will see for the first time what the missing item was at hand or would be if it weren't at hand; otherwise, it won't be seen. Thus, while circumspection does not focus on beings alone, it concentrates on other things. Therefore, whatever happens in the world is always revealed. These reference points reveal the existence of the universe. There is no point in getting caught up in the reality of what goes on around you, since your own self is invisible to anyone else. You can tell that the world exists behind the scenes of making things happen.
In this paper, Heidegger focuses on the concept of being and its relation to the idea of being itself. He uses examples from Plato, H.X., and Aristotestle to illustrate how these concepts relate to the notion of being. He discusses the importance of prioritizing being in order to develop an understanding of what it means to be. This is necessary because we do not yet know what "be" means. The first step in understanding the question of Being is to avoid the OtTyecria.t 5 theory that claims that beings are interrogated by their origins. It is only when they have been discovered that they are already involved in something else that they can gain access to. If there is no such thing as being, then all questions about being must be answered directly. These questions include: 1) whether being is the definition of being; 2) whether being has priority in the creation of the question; and 3) whether being's meaning is predetermined or not.
In this chapter, Conant focuses on two positions in theological debate. The first is that God's understanding is Prior to every thing and the second is that logic is before everything else. This means that we have to be able to grasp the principles of logic so that we can understand what it is like to be human. He then discusses some of the most important issues in the philosophical debate concerning existence and creation. Kimhi has recently published Thinking and Being, which deals with the concept of divine creation. These terms are used frequently in medieval philosophy because they denote concepts never found anywhere in ancient Greek or medieval philosophy. They come to demark two new concepts: existence and causation. It is necessary for us to understand these words because they relate to God. We see them as being related to the idea of existance. There is also a discussion about how metaphysics plays a key role in explaining how to create God.
In this chapter, Conant explains the six main characteristics of self-reflection in the theories of logic. The first is that thought is prior to judgment and that judgment is preceded by a notion of generality. Thought is Prior to and ductively simpler than judgement; to judge is an affirmation/denial of its basic content. Kant and Wigenstein also discuss the concept of object and capacity. Both men believe that their knowledge of logic depends on a first-person point of view: "The priority of the First-person form of understanding" and "the one who think or perceives." This means that they do not have to imagine what it is like to know something through a second-person perspective. It doesn't matter how much you can understand from a third-hand perspective because there are still important distinctions between the two types of thinking. For example, Leibzian and Frege both claim that God will create the world as soon as he sees it is better for it than when he saw it was better in time. Descartes claims that God did not create the universe in time because He saw that it could be better in terms of time. But Geach disagrees with this interpretation.So the leading summaries start off with Kant and logic, mirroring Conant’s work. Then the summaries shift into Lacan and Hegel, mirroring Zizek’s work. Finally, we get a detour into Heidegger before going back to Conant.
So it seems our topic reducer did work and we now have heterogenous sentences from all six books in each given topic. I’m already excited to read the sentences by themselves and see what coherent narrative is already forming. However, this would spoil the fun of using ChatGPT. So let’s now get into the final section of our program.
The first part of the “ChatGPT” part will be to look at a sliding window of sentences per topic and prompt ChatGPT to create a layman summary of the given window. The sentences are inputted with a window size of 4 and a sliding window of 1: meaning that 4 sentences at a time will be analyzed by ChatGPT; the sentences analyzed per topic will go sentence 1–4, 2–5, 3–6, etc. in keeping with the sliding window. The code for this is as follows:
import os
import openai
import random
openai.api_key = ""
from operator import itemgetter
overall_responses_by_topic = []
for topic_num in range(given_topics):
final_text = ''
response_text = []
chunk_text_size = 512
max_token_size = 2048
past_lookup = max_token_size + 5*chunk_text_size
if len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) > 4:
step = 4
elif len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) <= 4:
step = 1
else:
step = len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) - 1
for k in range(len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num])-step):
print("Given iteration is: %d" % k)
text_input = ""
indices = range(len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]))
for i in indices[k:k+step]:
text_input += sentences_for_topics[topic_num][i] + "\n"
if len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) > 1:
text_input += "The following statements can be summarized in layman terms as: "
else:
text_input += "The following statement can be summarized in layman terms as: "
response = openai.Completion.create(
model="text-davinci-003",
prompt=text_input,
temperature=1.0,
max_tokens=max_token_size,
top_p=1,
frequency_penalty=1,
presence_penalty=1,
)
response_text.append(response["choices"][0]["text"])
print(response["choices"][0]["text"])
overall_responses_by_topic.append(response_text)
print(overall_responses_by_topic)Let’s check the output with some sample topics and sentences. Taking Topic 2, the first few sentences are now:
Summary for topic 2:
['infinite' 'theorem' 'relativism' 'quantum' 'relativist' 'infinity'
'universality' 'terminology' 'universe' 'paradoxical' 'multiplicity'
'paradox' 'existentially' 'theoretical' 'mathematics' 'mathematical'
'universal' 'complexity' 'existential' 'unity' 'universes' 'existentiell'
'absolute' 'universally' 'denumerable' 'theory' 'incompatible'
'definition' 'multiples' 'relativity' 'terms' 'totality' 'ontologically'
'multiple' 'constitutive' 'ontological' 'existent' 'theories'
'inconsistency' 'finite' 'arbitrary' 'inconsistent' 'metaphysics'
'metaphysical' 'defines' 'entirely' 'define' 'complex' 'ontology' 'two']
In this chapter, Dr. Rivers explores the phenomenon of language as it relates to being “qua being” - its inability to present a pure multiple in any given situation. He uses examples from literature and concepts like first order logic and minimality as they pertain to ordinals to explain how people take into account the "withdrawal of truth" when reading/hearing statements. By examining how someone's subjective ontology can be misinterpreted, we can better understand why physical objects are also thought of as Holmwood-like realms, where elements do not overlap or have properties that belong exclusively to them. Ultimately, we must recognize that words have meaning but don't always refer to something tangible; understanding the concept behind them is key for properly interpreting what someone says.
In this chapter, Lacan explores how individuals reconcile the “withdrawn of truth” in order to understand their reality. He does so by using examples from classical and contemporary philosophical methods, such as minimality with regards to ordinals. People must take into account different layers of consciousness when it comes to interpretation as they interact with others or try to make sense of a situation around them. In doing so, they must assess what is being said objectively and subjectively to gain a fuller understanding.
Self-consciousness is complicated, as it involves three factors: what we perceive ourselves to be (first person presentative), who we feel the effect of others on us (second person pre sent subjunctive), and how outsiders view us (third layer perspective). This can lead to confusion over different interpretations of words, such as "I see." Furthermore, expressing our identity through language requires an understanding of experiential reality that goes beyond mere objectivity or literal meaning. Finally, recognition of this reality allows individuals to recognize themselves within various contexts in order to live authentically.
Heidegger does not use the term ''be'' to refer to a transcendent Being, but rather as an expression of something else. He uses words such as Sorge, besorgen, filrsorge, attunement and Rückholung to describe being and time more accurately than before because these words refer to things instead of relating one thing directly with another. Finally, his last word for being is Augenblick which translates into “move” meaning that we should move through life focusing on moments which enable growth.
Heidegger's later works focus on terms such as 'Being and Time,' 'Sorge,' 'Besorgen,' ''Fürsorge' *Attunement* and 'Rückholung.' These words refer to the concept of being; they do not relate explicitly to others. He also uses the term “Augenblick” which is translated as “move”, suggesting that although we may seem static, our relationship with time might imply change.
Martin Heidegger's Being and Time is a classic work that explores the ontological question of being and its relation to time. It introduces various concepts such as temporality, spirit, actuality, Sorge, besorgen, filrsorge, attunement and Rückholung in order to articulate how one can understand the idea of "being." It also uses terms such as "jeweiligkeit" ("temporal specificity") and "Augenblick" ("move") which are used to describe an individual's experience of living.
In this chapter of Being and Time, Martin Heidegger talks about various ways he uses the word "be" to describe being. He does not use it as a super-thing or transcendental Being, but as an expression of something else. He examines terms such as Sorge, besorgen, filrsorge, attunement and Rückholung which have their own meanings that are more appropriate for human understanding than before. Finally, his last phrase Augenblick was translated as ‘move’ . In addition to these concepts he also references works by other philosophers such Wittgenstein's "Treatement," Milton's Paradiso and Descartes' Meditations in order to demonstrate connections between time and spirit.
In this chapter, Tommo provides an in-depth look at some of Heidegger's most important philosophical terms from his later works. He uses examples from other books to illustrate his point and references timeless classics such as Moore’s The Covering Lemma, Szoo’s Les Debut des Mathematiques Greques, and Lacoue-Labarthe’s Kant's Critique de La raison pure.
In this chapter of his book, Martin Heidegger discusses some of the major works in mathematics and philosophy to shed light on concepts such as temporality, spirit, determinacy, non-identity, self-effacingness and anarchy. Classics like Georg H. Moore's The Covering Lemma; John S. Szoo's Les Debut des Mathematiques Greques; and Philippe lacoue-labarthe's Kant Critique de La raison pure are explored in depth.
In this chapter, the narrator explores the philosophical and mathematical theories applied to ethics. He explains how objectivity in moral judgment can influence decisions and describes such principles as Newton's theory of determinacy and Nietzsche's philosophy of non-identity. Additionally, he discusses various theories that involve Priori Criterion for deeming facts objectively true or selecting appropriate changes in which something may qualify as an objective fact.
In this chapter, the author discusses various mathematical and philosophical topics, such as Newton's theory of determinacy, Nietzsche's philosophy of non-identity, self-effacingness and anarchy. He also explains how genealogy can be used to explain ethical decisions from an evolutionary standpoint. Finally, he tells us that historically Marxists have advocated state ownership as a way to organize societies for progress.
In this chapter, Anderson discusses three ways in which moral progress can be achieved: reducing the scope of mandated morality and allowing individuals more freedom; using elections at a local level to prevent biased decisions; and emphasizing ethics as an essential tool for developing cooperation between people. He also explains how philosophical concepts such as determinacy and non-identity are linked with ethical considerations. He introduces various theories related to objectivity in facts, reasoning, and justification behind moral judgments. Ultimately, he advocates for incorporating Marxists ideals into modern political systems so that everyone can benefit from fairness in decision making.
Anderson talks about the objectivity of ethical principles, how genealogy can explain moral decisions, and other theories on justifying decisions. He explains how Marxists once advocated state ownership as a way to create progress, and proposes using single-person elections in legislative districts as a way to reduce majority sway over politics. Lastly, he uses Plato and Socrates’s Republic illustrations to explain why it's important for an ethical person to prioritize being moral rather than chaotic or conflicted."
In this chapter, Anderson examines how ethical views can be affected by evolution and reason. He looks at different scenarios that could influence moral decision-making such as when personal autonomy is increased or sociological issues like state ownership are advocated. The author discusses Hegel's philosophy of mind and his theory of cubism to examine the concept of ugliness in art and how people perceive it differently from one another. Finally, he concludes that ethics should serve as a tool for improving our individual lives rather than being used to further majority interests.
Philosopher Anderson proposes a new system in which voters are able to cast individual votes in legislative districts, giving candidates more power and reducing majorities. Tommo suggests that morality is more important than being chaotic or conflicted, while Phillips uses cubism as an analogy to illustrate conflicting perspectives. The narrator discusses phenomenology as a way of understanding experiences and predicting reactions.
In this chapter, the narrator reveals that it is important to hold onto moral values. He uses examples from Plato and Socrates, as well as his own teaching experiences, to argue that being orderly and following ethical standards are more valuable than simply acting selfishly. Furthermore, he explains how we can use phenomenology to understand reality better by looking at multiple perspectives. Ultimately, he concludes that although our understanding of being must come through experience, oneness still exists in everything.
Hegel's philosophy of mind and his theory of cubism involves the idea that ugly objects can be interpreted in ways to make them appear attractive. Furthermore, Deleuze stresses that one should live according to their desires rather than try to break boundaries. Finally, Rivers asserts that being cannot be viewed as a single entity - it must be seen through multiple perspectives as nothing is completely singular or plural.
Phenomenology is a reflection on our experiences which can be used to predict what we might see and respond to in different situations. Ontology, meanwhile, is the concept of being without any single or multiple categories - it explores how we interact with the notion of nothingness through an empty space. Finally, Dr. Barlow explains how counting multiples can help us determine if there's anything more than just being present in a situation.Checking the first few sentences, we see that it is now indeed simplified. This is indeed exciting as I normally have to take time to decode complicated terminologies. Even when there are complicated terminologies like “Augenblick”, ChatGPT will provide a layman’s definition. Neat!
For Topic 3 and the first few sentences, we also get the following:
Summary for topic 3:
['philosophically' 'philosophy' 'philosoph' 'philosophical' 'philosophers'
'ontologically' 'ideological' 'ideology' 'ontology' 'ontological'
'relativism' 'theological' 'relativist' 'phonological' 'paradoxical'
'logically' 'paradox' 'theorem' 'terminology' 'theories' 'theory'
'theoretical' 'metaphysical' 'theology' 'logician' 'rationality'
'phenomenology' 'metaphysics' 'philo' 'conceptual' 'logical' 'idealism'
'dialectical' 'logic' 'thematic' 'dialectic' 'ethics' 'methodological'
'rational' 'dialectics' 'interpretation' 'concepts' 'aristotelian'
'ethical' 'contradiction' 'literature' 'interpreted' 'disagreement'
'reasoning' 'skepticism']
Kant's views on categorical and syllogistic judgments involve a restrictive view of what counts as an inference of reason. To prove that a proposition is true, one must show that it applies to the relevant subject. Matthew Boyle argues that Kant’s definition of pure general reasoning does not signify anything more than an ontological import to the given thought. Lacan suggests that subjectivity can be divided between appearance and inaccessible content. He believes our understanding of being in the universe requires us to interpret words such “there” and “there-being" as meanings of being within the world itself, with subjects as separate objects unable be separated from their substantial content.
In this chapter, the author discusses how object-oriented thinking and self-conscious behavior are two sides of the same coin. He asserts that Kant's definition of "pure general reasoning" is wrong as it does not signify anything beyond what can be seen in our experience. Lacan then adds to this point by asserting that subjectivity involves understanding both appearance and inaccessible content which lie beyond mere concepts. The UM then adds his view on disparities between abstract thought and reality, suggesting that reason must play an important role if we are to understand these inconsistencies. Finally, Marcel Prouset’s notion of a “whole” being composed of elements which don’t fit together perfectly is presented as evidence for the importance of attaining unity with truth through an effort to transcend material constraints.
In this chapter, Hegel and Lacan suggest that being in the world does not necessarily mean being in contrast to being present somewhere else. Instead, subjectivity is a matter of interplay between appearance and inaccessible content. Phenomena like moods and emotions enable us to understand our place within the world, while people's relationships with one another has implications for understanding how we create meaning. Ultimately, self-reflexive awareness is crucial to grasping what it means to be inside the world itself and how it relates to other objects around us.
Hegel proposes that a person's understanding of his or her own identity comes from both the internal and external aspects of reality. He believes this can be seen through self-consciousness and "Dasein," which refers to how we exist in the world. Furthermore, he emphasizes that time and space create a relationship between experience and reality, as well as notions of unity within two different worlds. In other words, knowledge about one's self is found through an examination of the broader environment in which one lives.
The UM uses the Dialectical-Metaphysical approach to discuss how individuals can determine their own identity and understanding of reality. He uses Hegel's concept of self-consciousness, temporality of understanding, Christian unity with God, Marxist women’s struggles, Pippin’s absolute reflection and Lacan's de-substantization as examples to support his argument.
Hegel's concept of self-consciousness discusses how one can become their true selves without being consciously aware. To understand and explain what happens in the world, Hegelian terms such as 'absoluter Gegensetzen' (counterpunch) and 'Absoluter Ausgangstoß' (initial punch) are used to describe how objects losing something upon themselves enacts a kind of retroactivity that changes our perception of them. He also explains how realities can be revealed through controlling attention and reflecting on different objects or beings around us.
Heidegger examines the idea of "being" and how it is related to existing in a world. He looks at how philosophers like Plato, H.X., and Aristotestle described human understanding of being and used examples to explain why prioritizing this concept is important for gaining an understanding of what it means. He also discusses the theory that beings are questioned by their origins and considers whether being has priority when posed with questions, as well as whether its meaning is predetermined or not.
In this chapter, Heidegger focuses on understanding being and how it relates to the concept of existence and creation. He uses examples from Plato, H.X., and Aristotestle to illustrate that there is a priority towards gravitating towards "being" as an entity in order to gain clarity on its meaning. Additionally, he explains that logic must be understood prior before looking at other concepts related to God or metaphysics, as they relate directly with one another.
Heidegger focuses on the concept of being in itself and how it relates to our experience of the world. He uses examples from Plato, H.X., and Aristotle to explore how these concepts can inform an understanding of what it means to be human. Conant then discusses two positions that are debated in theological arguments: one that claims God's understanding is prior to all else, and another that prioritizes logic before everything else. He also touches upon metaphysics' role in understanding existence and divine creation.
Heidegger argues that in order to understand the concept of being, it is necessary to prioritize being over its origin. Conant further examines two theological positions and how they relate to logic: that God's understanding is Prior to every thing, and that logic's importance should come first. He then illustrates how Frege and Kant interpreted this notion through their own theories on self-reflection and rationality.
Conant explores two main concepts in theological debate--that God's understanding precedes creation, and that logic must come before everything else. He looks at how various philosophers such as Kimhi, Kant, Frege, and Wittgenstein discuss these ideas through the use of language and playing chess metaphors. Ultimately Conant concludes with his own take on why Frege views logic not as an ontological structure but rather a doctrine of coherent thought applicable to all people.
Conant argues that Kant and Frege's theories of logic share important characteristics, such as the notion of thought preceding judgement. He also details Wittgenstein's use of language to support his logic. Stroud then responds to Conant's views by questioning the necessity of logical laws and showing how concepts explicated by Frege may be open to interpretation in order to explore truth beyond what can be determined perceptually.
Conant argues that Frege and Kant both share certain features in their theories of logic. In contrast to a ‘ontological’ approach, Conant suggests reasoningmust be based on a priori structures. Stroud disagrees with the idea that the laws of logic are necessarily necessary, claiming instead that insight must surpass our capacity for perception in order to determine which exercises or theories are correct. He further defends the use of 'idealism' by arguing that it ultimately allows us to understand knowledge from an internal perspective rather than needing language as explanation.
Again, we get a nice layman summary that extrapolates the given sentences. First, we see that Kant’s views on judgments are defined as having a narrow sense and what that narrow sense is. The next sentence extrapolates Kant’s view on thinking and how it relates to subjectivity and experience. Finally, we see a simplified summary of Hegel and Lacan’s views on subjectivity. So you can see, the sentences are semantically similar; starting from Kant on judgement, to how this relates to his views on experience and subjectivity, to then Hegel and Lacan’s views on subjectivity.
Now we have a nice summary to understand these complicated terminologies, but I can’t help but notice that there seems to be a little bit of incongruity here. We see a discussion of Kant’s judgement, to Kant’s view on subjectivity to then Hegel and Lacan’s view of subjectivity, but no indication of how one leads to the other or no sense of narrative.
Let’s see if we can do some final processing to tease some overarching narrative out of this. Let’s take these sentences and input it into ChatGPT again. This time however, we will ask ChatGPT to create a narrative out of these sentences. The code for this is below:
import os
import openai
import random
from operator import itemgetter
openai.api_key = ""
current_iter_now = 0
for m in ['test_0.rtf']:
with open(m) as f:
lines = f.readlines()
input_text = [x.split('\\n')[0] for x in lines]
input_text = [ x for x in input_text if "Given iteration is:" not in x ]
input_text = [ x for x in input_text if len(x) > 3 ]
input_text = input_text[8:]
final_text = ''
if (current_iter_now == 0):
response_text = []
max_token_size = 2048
step = 18
for k in range(current_iter_now, len(input_text), 9):
text_input = ""
indices = range(len(input_text))
for i in indices[k:k+step]:
text_input += input_text[i] + "\n"
text_input += "A narrative can be built from the following sentences as: "
response = openai.ChatCompletion.create(
model="gpt-3.5-turbo-0301",
#prompt=text_input,
messages = [
{'role': 'user', 'content': text_input}
],
temperature=1.25,
max_tokens=max_token_size,
top_p=1,
frequency_penalty=1,
presence_penalty=1,
)
response_text.append(response["choices"][0]["message"]["content"])
print(k)
print(response["choices"][0]["message"]["content"])
#response = openai.Completion.create(
# model="text-davinci-003",
# prompt=text_input,
# temperature=1.0,
# max_tokens=max_token_size,
# top_p=1,
# frequency_penalty=1,
# presence_penalty=1,
#)
#response_text.append(response["choices"][0]["text"])
#print(response["choices"][0]["text"])
overall_responses_by_topic.append(response_text)
print(overall_responses_by_topic)To make sure we get as much of a connecting narrative as possible, we will work with 18 sentences at a time with a sliding window of 9 sentences. Thus, ChatGPT will analyze sentences 1–18, 9–26, 18–35, etc. We will be using the gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 for ChatGPT’s latest version along with a temperature of 1.25 instead of 1 so that the sentences are more “burned” together.
We now run the program with the summarized layman sentences. For topic 2, we have the following:
0
The chapters discuss various philosophical concepts, including language and ontology. Heidegger's philosophy explores the meaning of being through different terms like Sorge and Augenblick. Anderson discusses ethical principles and how objectivity can be achieved in decision making. The narrator emphasizes the importance of holding onto moral values despite societal pressure to act selfishly. Additionally, phenomenology can be used to predict reactions in different experiences while ontology addresses being without singular or multiple categories.
9
In this chapter, the author explores various philosophical theories relating to ethics and their influence on moral decision-making. Among the theories discussed are determinacy and non-identity as proposed by individuals such as Newton and Nietzsche. The author discusses how genealogy allows for ethical decisions to be explained from an evolutionary standpoint, and also suggests incorporating Marxist ideals into modern political systems for fairness. Additionally, concepts of ontology and multiplicity are examined, with fidelity being a key determinant in accuracy of results. Finally, Lacan's ideas related to "forced choice" are explored along with its impact on power structures thus defining paradoxes inherent within societies leading ultimately into morality that maintains socialism without events affecting areas such anonymity preservation, maintaining independent alter sharing items yielding greater utility in Nash equilibrium thereby acting ethically instead of anonymously selfishly or shady decision making.
18
In this chapter, the concept of Being is explored by considering how everything is presented as multiple entities. Fidelity and ontology are used to determine proper representation without depending on outcome, and trust in intuition is necessary for understanding complex relationships between multiples. Set theory and proof-based methods such as forcing can be used to verify whether a statement is true or false regardless of language. Lenin argues that the constancy of an event depends on its location within the universe while Hegel's vision of an ideal society inspires further exploration into ontology. Frege understands thinking through perception while Wittgenstein believes truth values should not be separated from their source, and Kant sees logic stemming from sensation while Frege derives it from objectivity without reference to sensibility. The importance of remaining faithful to one\'92s homeland according to Henry Holderlin's "deductive fidelity" is also emphasized.
27
In this chapter, various philosophers discuss the concept of ontology and its relation to understanding reality. Lenin suggests that one's location in space and time can have an impact on the constants of events. Harman and Lebrun argue that morality is essential for progress in society. Hegel's vision of an ideal society involves individuals having control over their own lives. Henry Holderlin proposes "deductive fidelity" where people must stay true to their homeland when exploring new places.
Frege believes thought should be grounded in truth value rather than source, while Kant argues that logic stems from sensation instead of objects without reference to sensibility. Wittgenstein criticizes both theories and emphasizes the role of language in thinking and knowledge. Conant proposes a positivity account, suggesting we project our existence onto the world in order to gain understanding.
Other philosophers such as Gustafson, Stroud, and UM contribute alternative perspectives on ontology related subjects including logical aliens, illogical thinking or systems connecting consciousness with ideas of truth sourcing being apart tend towards limitations dictated through language manipulation/intent or lack- there-of they may stumble upon – respectively , aiming at supplementing current thinking processes so as paradigm participation describes reflection until suitable answers occur whence accords meaning therein generating meaningful intellectual contribution.\
36
In this chapter, philosophers such as Kant and Frege discuss the importance of logic in understanding thought and judgment. Wittgenstein critiques their theories on self-consciousness and the relationship between thought and judgment. Boyle argues that Kant's theory is superior to Frege's due to its ability to form logical truths about mental processes. Philosophers also debate whether or not "illogical thought" is even possible, with Conant arguing for a positive approach towards contradictions. The chapter ends with a discussion on God's ability to create, with Descartes suggesting creation through divine will while others argue that something prior must exist for creation to occur.
45
In this chapter, the Anonymous Monk (UM) uses various analogies to explain how contradictions can be overcome through self-awareness and projection. He also discusses the importance of making choices based on both God and human factors. The UM then emphasizes the necessity of reflection in decision-making, as well as having an understanding of good and true principles before trying to understand why God did what he did. Descartes' theory on creation is debated by Conant, Leibungen, Hobbes who argue that something must exist prior to God creating it, while Kant suggests a distinction between judgment-simpliciter and knowledge-based judgments. Finally, Hegel's philosophy explores self-consciousness regarding massive physical objects or hyperobjects; moreover he emphasized exercising our own judgement when science influences subjects alike society itself. Badiou states his definitive oppositional approach in a philosopher's work about theories including Hegelianism for authors Deleuze and Plato.In Davis's text "Living Machines," she elaborates on philosophers such as Hume comparing his distinct argument with inspiration from ideas themselves challenged concepts throughout philosophical narrative history.\
54
In this chapter, the UM explores the relationship between consciousness and physical systems. He suggests that information needs to be collapsed in unique ways when it encounters physical matter in order for conscious observations to occur. The resulting laws can either be emergent or subject to universal principles such as number theory. Additionally, he discusses the concepts of responsibility and guilt, asserting that individuals sometimes bear responsibility for others' actions and that guilt is an existential concept with implications beyond direct control. Finally, he examines how state structures require inclusion and collaboration among individual elements in order to prevent conflict.
63
The UM discusses being towards death and how it can be used for self-reflection. He also delves into subjectivism and its relationship with evil in Christian theology. In addition, he explores the role of conscious laws in relation to emergent properties and genetic codes.
Anderson highlights the importance of reading and writing in a child's development, emphasizing their ability to understand words and use them effectively for communication. He also argues that truth is relative to context and perspective rather than fixed within time or space.
Conant critiques Frege’s outlook on logic as solely scientific, stating that objects have features beyond just structural ones. Nozick acknowledges support during his illness while also discussing critics’ responses to his book. Additionally, Heidegger’s criticisms against Nazis are reflected upon along with Schiller’s poem contributing insights into why Heidegger held related beliefs.%
72
The chapter explores different theories on responsibility and how it can be understood as having an obligation to care for something or someone. Anderson argues that reading and writing are important for a child's development and understanding of the world, while also stressing the importance of examining assumptions in language when seeking truth. Lacan believes in an omnipotent agent and spatiotemporal positions play a role in understanding truth according to Anderson, but societal variables may impact this as well. A universal definition of what is true isn't possible per Anderson due to different perspectives, which statements from Conant and Nozick support with their views on explaining reality through more than structure alone. Heidegger emphasizes care as authentic potential, with help endured studying Spinoza's realisms about being./ Emotion helps create empathy towards others we meet seemingly at random involving phenomenal discernment detailed by Allison - grounding ethics within animal life may cease according to posthumanists'/ attunement presumes sensing existence without prior knowledge helping adapt responses accordingly. Finally, fear warns us against potential threats acknowledged by Wollstonecraft./
81
Marx emphasizes that the value of a product goes beyond its monetary value. Labor invested into a product determines its true worth, and disclosing the hidden meaning behind this requires an immersion in trading complexities. Understanding history means acknowledging past events' shaping presence, be that through objects we find in museums or temple's legacy in ancient Greece.
Norman Bates' songs about abandonment associate with creepiness due to their conjunction with fear themes found on Freud's child Hans. Mortality and death are complex topics made confrontational by art and literature continually referring them symbolism and direct portrayal over fear elements - aspects all existing alongside one another but also separating from their individual existence to influence surroundings inflaming emotions alongside desired effectiveness.\
90
Wollstonecraft discusses attuneements and how understanding affects helps us understand our emotions better. Anderson uses the example of a hammer to explain how projection can help us better understand being. Marx emphasizes that a commodity's value exists beyond just its monetary value. Geschick argues that different interpretations generate varying histories over time. Creepiness is an effect of confronting difficult topics associated with death and mortality in art and literature.So this seems to create some sentences that seem more “authentic” rather than having dry summaries. The first sentence says the following:
“The chapters discuss various philosophical concepts, including language and ontology. Heidegger’s philosophy explores the meaning of being through different terms like Sorge and Augenblick. Anderson discusses ethical principles and how objectivity can be achieved in decision making. The narrator emphasizes the importance of holding onto moral values despite societal pressure to act selfishly. Additionally, phenomenology can be used to predict reactions in different experiences while ontology addresses being without singular or multiple categories.”
So it seems we have a more coherent if somewhat incomplete narrative. The first sentence summarizes Heidegger’s philosophy of Sorge and Augenblick. The next sentence about ethical principles and being objective in decision making can be coherent with the previous one to explain that a person’s “being” should be as ethical and objective as possible. The next sentence of being as moral as possible can be tied to the previous one in regards to decision making. Finally, the statements of phenomenology and ontology can be interpreted in someone being aware of their surroundings in order to be ethical, while ontology can help to deconstruct “being” into various multiple categories to be studied. Thus, we can say these statements discuss how someone should be aware of their own “being” and how that can allow someone to be self-aware of their surroundings, along with acting ethically with others.
The next sentence is as follows:
“In this chapter, the author explores various philosophical theories relating to ethics and their influence on moral decision-making. Among the theories discussed are determinacy and non-identity as proposed by individuals such as Newton and Nietzsche. The author discusses how genealogy allows for ethical decisions to be explained from an evolutionary standpoint, and also suggests incorporating Marxist ideals into modern political systems for fairness. Additionally, concepts of ontology and multiplicity are examined, with fidelity being a key determinant in accuracy of results. Finally, Lacan’s ideas related to “forced choice” are explored along with its impact on power structures thus defining paradoxes inherent within societies leading ultimately into morality that maintains socialism without events affecting areas such anonymity preservation, maintaining independent alter sharing items yielding greater utility in Nash equilibrium thereby acting ethically instead of anonymously selfishly or shady decision making.”
The sentences seem to continue the vein on ethics as stated before, with an argument that ethics and ethical decisions are evolutionarily explained, along with how Marxist ideals can be incorporated into modern political systems to align with this ethical viewpoint. Also, an explanation of Lacan’s “forced choice” along with its impact on political structures lead to contradictions in society, with such contradictions being resolved afterwards with a socialist system that will lead to fairness without compromising independence and anonymity.
Now these two sentences are intriguing! First, we get an idea that understanding ourselves phenomenologically and ontologically will allow us to make more ethical decisions, leading into a discussion on how increased ethical awareness can create a socialist system that promotes fairness and an ethical society without compromising identity as traditional Communist societies have. Now of course, past socialist systems were not able to preserve people’s identities in an anonymous context, but perhaps by reading the authors, we can see if we get lead to a different outcome or have insights aligning with these.
For topic 3, we have the following narrative sentences:
0
The chapter discusses the views of Kant and others on various philosophical concepts. Hegel and Lacan argue that subjectivity is a matter of interplay between appearance and inaccessible content, while Heidegger focuses on understanding being as it relates to existence. Conant explores theological debates regarding logic, and Stroud questions its necessity. Hamawaki delves deeper into Kantian philosophy's relationship with Cartesian skepticism towards self-consciousness. Finally, the UM examines how anxiety plays a role in our concept of care within being together with other beings.\
9
The chapter delves into various philosophical concepts such as being, logic, and self-reflection in order to examine key theological debates. Conant argues that the laws of logic are not necessarily necessary, while Stroud believes they must be rooted in an idealistic philosophy. Consequently, both scholars have different interpretations of Frege's theories on logical cohesion and Kant's emphasis on thought formation over judgement using language metaphors like chess-playing and linguistic inquiry respectively. Hamawaki pushes for a more refined understanding of Descartes' ontology towards Kantian self-consciousness which allows us to better discuss topics such as care-taking actions and certain modes of being present within physical space at different times. Throughout all these discussions the theme revolves around looking beyond our own capabilities of reasoning via perception so we can gain insight into ultimate reality or truths about ourselves as sentient beings inhabiting this world where difference exists yet lived-experience is common ground much misunderstood until each second as it passes by leaving something useful clues for those who listen intently enough!
18
In this chapter, the UM examines how Descartes' ideas of existence and Kant's concept of "I" as an existential subject shed light on concepts like care and being in the world. He argues that contemporary philosophers cannot rely solely on intuitions for their claims if they want to build a reliable and trustworthy philosophical theory. The narrator discusses how falling prey demonstrates evidence against the existence of care, while also exploring anxiety as a fundamental ontological question concerning being. The UM uses analogies from Hegel and Moore's theory about necessity and possibility, working through different implications posed in these theories to explore the question of God's existence.\
27
In this book, various philosophers including the UM, Leibniz, Nozick, Stroud, McDowwell and Anderson explore topics related to ontology perspectives. They discuss how multiples can be used to create multiple identities without being physically presentable in a situation and how introducing an indeterminate element may lead uncertainty into certain situations. The authors cover concepts such as perception and self-consciousness, with Kant's philosophy forming the cornerstone of these discussions. Furthermore logical inference offers us perspective into ways that we can understand the world through science-disciplined propogation theories etc., focusing on Frege's notion of logic ans autonomy However objects involve objectivity wherein from bias comes accuracy leading some alternatives manifesting relativity because they consist its allies rarely even being just sidelined form part-and-parcel truths or intrinsic categorial versions thereof until something comes along to throw another light on it.; As philosophy cannot dwell only theoreticals experience turns valuable always but their limits come in capacity which separates 'Our Nonopenness' restricted exclusively determinate linguistic paradigm veer closely incomplete infinite mechanics involved ensuing infinitesimals transformed making scientific application realistic assisting detailed interpretations valid conclusions- resulting undoubtedly significant plmthic inquiries crucial historical data techniques mind should reckon too strategic potential divulged epistemology spawner objective answers explainable accounts insights further expedient modes utilisation for reasons appropriate legitimate dimension realms reality prioritized verified evidential supports usher up brazenly dilettantic reasoning accountability no-man lands quantum theoretical gravity driven backgrounds functionalities invariant standards lucid examinations sober introductions mode adaption retention succulence worthily reflecting time passing transformative multiplicities invanecological settings which allow our experience flexibility.
36
Frege argues for a content-neutral form of reasoning to help understand and apply logic to the real world. He believes truth in thought is independent of external language or factors, using categorical propositions and functions. Kant's "Transcendental Deduction" emphasizes sensitivity being limited by experience approach that defines limits of knowledge through human limitations. Anderson explores objectivity and relative truths in science with an indispensable need for specificity in understanding scenarios essential to evaluation. Also, he divides beliefs into two groups: those involving bias and objective ones based on reasons rather than facts while introducing morality as a potent driver affecting choosing courses of action ultimately proposing the desire towards an authentic life existence potentially guarantees meaningful experiences overcome limitations experienced within society to bring out better decisions which result from such reflections over conscience drive manifested through meditation such instances acquire significance by placing these events relevantly consciousness continuum extend identity beyond mortal opposable temporalities tensions between general rules imperative visualizations choices ex vivo molded which hinges centrally existential crises implemented imaginative applications retrospective reframing requiring use-value critique interpretation experiencing eternity involves reconciliation perceived reality with potential reality this idea drives validation difference reciprocity efforts build `faculty anatomy' In views fashioned arguments transcendental ultimacy arising matter tension non-standard epistemological concerns while providing much-needed grounding observations about functionally distinctions kinds relevance relation paradigm realities underwent germane philosophical tradition over decades tackling hardest explanatory faults demonstrated coherence getting access worlds needed unprecedented unity knowledgeable pursuits where hidden interest intellect renders instead foreground phenomenal recognition appreciation importantly developing uses metaphor extensive literary relevance offers rich vocabulary creativity promoting outlook invaluable overcoming manifold moral material obstacles besetting today's societies.
45
The chapter discusses how some truths may be more valid than others based on a variety of factors. Anderson examines the role of objectivity and relative truths, contingencies in events and phenomena, and the relationship between value and function. He also delves into morality's influence on human behavior, considers retroactive illusion as an obstacle to understanding reality without God, explores ontology as a potential source of knowledge about ourselves and the world around us, discusses learning a second language through observational knowledge along with theoretical acumen for auditory differentiation e.g., telegraphic syntax which form vocabulary acquisition prioritization at every stage starting plosives to fricatives' long vl near /J/-like ~ ch (non-sharp pronunciation). Finally, he mentions blindsight where consciousness only requires low-level sensory reporting while slower continuous unitary stream two concatenated 40 character-long descriptions meditated after state alterability are high in cognitive load so analysis becomes disrupted necessitating fragmenting visual scans forming successive outlines each amalgamated pieces resulting text.
54
The chapter discusses philosophical concepts of language, including acoustic phonetics and motor-phonetics for learning a second language. Frege talks about the difficulties of predicating objects and concepts, while Wittgenstein emphasizes the use of symbols over signs in language learning. The paper explores multiples as a tool for understanding reality and examines constructivism's approach to change. Stanley argues against Wittgenstein's example with wood-sellers regarding communication without formal languages, and emphasizes the importance of differentiating between symbolic and imaginary identification. Finally, history cannot be fully reconciled due to its complex nature but understanding it can unlock potential within ourselves towards revolutionary ideals.
63
The chapter examines the use of language to express concepts, including phonetics and historical phonography. The author also discusses how natural multiples can be used to formalize situations. Dr. Rivers expands upon this concept using examples such as a multiplication table and introduces constructivism theory. Stanley argues that Wittgenstein's example fails to accurately represent communication without language but provides his own example using builders and private lullabists. Additionally, he explains the differences between symbolic and imaginary identification in relation to movies like Woody Allen's or Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Finally, various philosophers are mentioned regarding politics as an event-based process with reality understood through symbolic meaning, history not always having objective interpretations due to its underlying structures; proposing music and love bringing us closer to truth while Slavoj Zikzek applies hegemony philosophy as analogies of a giant mole waking up from stasis state further back Hegel linking good beauty with truth whilst Richard explains about aliens recognising familiar rhythmic stresses when hearing languages different from theirs typically displayed via Conrad ``he passing across jurisdictional terrain'' taken aback once signal cutoffs arisim%.
72
The narrator talks about the consequences of past actions, highlighting how history is always subject to interpretation and new information. He believes that ideologies have blind spots due to repeated patterns of bureaucracy and perpetual friction, and politics operate on an event-based process where individuals are subject to laws. References to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments on general will, Richard Rorty's emphasis on truth through love and music as well as Wollstonecraft's analogy of reality being accessed symbolically shape his views. Slavoj \'8ei\'9eek introduces the idea of rhizomes representing historical struggles between truth, beauty, and goodness while also examining Hegel's philosophy in relation to language using metaphors like a giant mole. Finally, speakers like Conant argue that language can be learned by recognizing meaningful sounds without understanding their explicit meanings while acknowledging children need exposure to many sound types for proper linguistic comprehension; similarly remarkable abstract forms can convey emotion through their structure irrespective of written or spoken textual meaninglessness or unpredictability.
81
Hegel believed that language goes beyond mere words, and people can recognize meaningful sounds even if they don't know their exact meaning. In order for children to learn languages effectively, they must be exposed to different types of sound. And just like music can express emotions through abstract forms without clear meanings, a piece like Schumann's Carnaval may evoke multiple ideas in the listener despite its lack of consistency or clarity.Again, we have some authentic sentences that we can deconstruct and examine further. The first sentence below states:
“The chapter discusses the views of Kant and others on various philosophical concepts. Hegel and Lacan argue that subjectivity is a matter of interplay between appearance and inaccessible content, while Heidegger focuses on understanding being as it relates to existence. Conant explores theological debates regarding logic, and Stroud questions its necessity. Hamawaki delves deeper into Kantian philosophy's relationship with Cartesian skepticism towards self-consciousness. Finally, the UM examines how anxiety plays a role in our concept of care within being together with other beings.”
So here, we get an interplay on subjectivity that was lacking in the first iteration of ChatGPT. We now see that subjectivity is an interplay between appearance and inaccessible content, along with “being” on our own existence which can be seen as subjective in our own eyes. We also see how logic can be used for theological debates that would help understand our “existence”, along with their given necessity. We also see how Kant and Descartes can be used to evaluate this self-consciousness related to being. Finally, we get an idea of how anxiety is used to care for ourselves and our “being” as well as other “beings”.
The second sentence is shown here below:
“The chapter delves into various philosophical concepts such as being, logic, and self-reflection in order to examine key theological debates. Conant argues that the laws of logic are not necessarily necessary, while Stroud believes they must be rooted in an idealistic philosophy. Consequently, both scholars have different interpretations of Frege's theories on logical cohesion and Kant's emphasis on thought formation over judgement using language metaphors like chess-playing and linguistic inquiry respectively. Hamawaki pushes for a more refined understanding of Descartes' ontology towards Kantian self-consciousness which allows us to better discuss topics such as care-taking actions and certain modes of being present within physical space at different times. Throughout all these discussions the theme revolves around looking beyond our own capabilities of reasoning via perception so we can gain insight into ultimate reality or truths about ourselves as sentient beings inhabiting this world where difference exists yet lived-experience is common ground much misunderstood until each second as it passes by leaving something useful clues for those who listen intently enough!”
So the sentences continue in the vein of being, logic and self-reflection as in the first sentence. We have overall sentences in how to think about logic and its nature that would allow us to approach theological matters. A discussion is also continued on using Descartes and Kant’s methodology in order to approach the concept of care towards our “being” (a Heideggerian concept) and others’ “beings”. The final sentences seem very novel: the idea we should transcend our reasoning about ourselves and understand lived experiences about others so that it provides common ground for understanding, even when others tend to be different.
So from each topic, we now have more coherent narratives. Already, I am getting insights on how I need to understand myself better in order to be ethically and the need to understand experiences of others in order to better relate to them. So it seems we can indeed top our ChatGPT with that philosopher’s beret among its many accomplishments.
Some future ideas will be to take the narrative summaries and work with an AI writing program like sudowrite to create an even more coherent narrative.
Do the summaries look consistent? Let me know! I have the project uploaded here at the following link:
