Using T5 Transformers, Top2Vec, and GPT3 to create easily digestible summaries of philosophy books for the layman.

Philosophy is a subject that tends to be richly rewarding in of itself, yielding rich insights about ourselves and the world at large. Philosophy also is poised to make a comeback in today’s society as AI, the ongoing political divide, social media, etc. has created such a dislocation of society over the past 10 years that it seems even our own metaphysics is in doubt (a problem no doubt tackled early on by Descartes).

The problem of course is that most philosophy books tend to be wrapped up in complex terminology that tends to stump the layman. Terms like “a-priori”, “Dasein”, “hermeneutics”, etc. would cause any laymen to weep and easily give up on it. Of course, these terms are easily decodable: a-priori for instance means holding a set of beliefs beforehand while hermeneutics means the theory/philosophy of interpretation. Nevertheless, the complexity of the name itself tends to turn off a lot of people.

With today’s NLP technology of transformers, could such terms be rendered more usable to a layman? In fact, could we summarize a complex philosophy book into bite-sized laymen bits not unlike CliffNotes so that the inquiring student can get a good overview and comprehension before tackling such a book? Indeed we can! Let’s go ahead and find out.

Firstly, I decided that I would use Google Colab Pro to do all of my work. The process will tend to be computationally intensive, especially when working with a philosophy ebook. Processing the text with transformers will be computationally intensive and would normally take hours or days. The beauty of Google Colab Pro is that it has a GPU feature that will fit perfectly for our processing needs, especially for using the T5 transformer. Thus a task that would take days on a non-GPU cluster will take only minutes.

The way I structured this was to select a philosophy ebook that tends to be rich in complex terminology. In this instance, I selected Slavoj Zizek’s “Disparities”, a book that contains a huge amount of specialized philosophical terminologies, no doubt from Zizek’s tendency to write his books by speaking extemporaneously into a recorder and later writing it out.

Next, we need a way to load this book into a Google Colab cluster. Luckily, Python has a library called pyPDF2 that allows a user to load a pdf file along with processing the number of pages. The following code below demonstrates how I loaded in the ebook to the stage of getting all text into a string variable.

# importing all the required modules
import PyPDF2

# creating a pdf reader object
reader = PyPDF2.PdfReader('Disparities.pdf')

# print the number of pages in pdf file
#print(len(reader.pages))

example = ''
# print the text of the first page
for i in range(1,len(reader.pages)):
  example = example + reader.pages[i].extract_text()

The PyPDF2 library loads in the ebook, initiates a blank variable “example”, then iterates through all the pages and places all text string into the “example” variable.

Next, I wanted to start off getting summaries from these segments. After digging around on HuggingFace’s website and experimenting with a few transformers, I found that the transformer “pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-book-summary” creates readable summaries that are not sacrificed in quality as tends to happen with some summarization transformers. The transformer takes in a maximum length of 16384 text characters, so I will need to preprocess the text into chunks of 16384 to be processed by the transformer. The chunking can be accomplished with the following code:

test_str = ""
example_iter = int(len(example) / 16384)
saved_str = []

for i in range(example_iter):
  saved_str.append(example[16384*i:16384*(i+1)])

With that done, we can see how many chunks we now have:

print(len(saved_str))

Here, we have 70 chunks. Let’s now take our chunks and pass it through our T5-global-base-16384–book-summary transformer.

import torch
import csv
from transformers import pipeline
from google.colab import files

summarizer = pipeline(
    "summarization",
    "pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-book-summary",
    device=0 if torch.cuda.is_available() else -1,
)

tgt_text = []

for src_text, i in zip(saved_str, range(len(saved_str))):
  result = summarizer(src_text)
  print(result[0]["summary_text"])
  tgt_text.append(result[0]["summary_text"])

  # Writing to file
  with open("output_file_t5_transformer.txt", "a") as file1:
      file1.write(result[0]["summary_text"])
      file1.write('\n')

  print(i)
  files.download('output_file_t5_transformer.txt') 

Doing this on a GPU cluster on Google Colab, the processing took about 20 min for all 70 chunks, a big difference than a non-GPU cluster which took almost 2 days. Some samples of the outputs are here:

In this book, Slavj ek offers his own interpretation of Hegel's philosophy. He uses the metaphor of a giant mole as an example. He considers that the mole represents the world spirit in laying its ground for enlightenment. The idea of rhizomes is also used as an analogy to the concept of Kraken, which awakens when it disturbs the smooth surfaces of history. This book addresses three main areas: onlogical, aesthetic and theological. It begins with a description of the different positions of disparity within the classical triumviral model of truth, beauty, and goodness. At the philosophical level, there is a brutal struggle between class distinctions and scientific reason.
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, the UM uses the analogy of a dog as an example of how Hegelian universality can be applied to human beings. He says that there are always only one species or subspecies that functions like "a filler" and that it is impossible to make such an affirmation anti-hegelian. He also discusses the concept of concrete universality, which means that all things exist under the same conditions. The idea of concrete universalization comes from Hegel's notion of universality in relation to other people. For instance, Ambedkar believes that there will be outcasts in India because of the social hierarchy. This contradiction arises from the fact that Hinduism did not have a system for dealing with untouchables. It was just a question about the foundation of religion. Although both men respect each other, their differences are insurmountably different. They argue that the solution to the problem by returning to the original noncorruptible system is more effective than abolishing the whole system. If one wants to break out into the children of god, it isn't enough to remove the castes from society. But if you want to change the status of humanity, it doesn't matter what kind of person you are. There are two kinds of features that are more essential: labor and speech. These are those that we use to represent our immanent desires. We don't necessarily focus on these features; they are simply shared by others. Thus, when we say that speech is more essential, we mean that it makes us communicate with others. When we say man is the animal who clips its nails, we are talking about something else. That is why many people believe that sexuality is nothing but a form of reproduction. Freud sees this as the beginning of metaphysical activity. Christianity does not view sexuality as anything specific to humans since it competes with spirituality. Christianism thinks that sexual desire is the fundamental step toward the Absolute Good. Therefore, Christians do not consider sexuality to be any sort of evil. Instead, they look at it as the ultimate step towards the absolute Good. A modern individual experiences himself as his own personal experience. He has no connection to the particular circumstances of his life. He feels self-aware of the limitations of class distinctions and cannot judge whether justice is right or wrong.
In this chapter, Spinoza argues that the only way to understand human beings is through their lack of knowledge. He rejects the notion that we should use our ignorance to create morality and injunctions. Lacan emphasizes the From Human to Posthuman Man 21 deontic dimension of being himself. The difference between reality and the world is not just an ontological difference; it also exists as part of the illusion imagined by the master who delivers the message. It is here that we find ontological difference. This difference between the highest or true being and its second shadows is offuscatated by the differences between the supreme being and his secondary shadows: what was going to happen if you were heard what I are ordering you. We can now see two opposing tendencies within this approach towards overcoming humanism and Transhumanism. Posthumanists believe that science and technology will lead us into a posthumanistic mode of being where we will be unable to relate to the animal kingdom. These two opposed tendencies exist within this orientation toward overcoming humanity. PostHumanists argue that humans are one of the animals on Earth, but they do not refer to the transhumanist movement which has been taking place since the beginning of the twentieth century. Biogenetics have become popular among these anti-humanist groups because it dissolves frontiers between men and animals on one side and between humans and machine on the other

Not bad, we already have some digestible summaries, but we still have complex terminologies like “dialectical-metaphysical”, “deontic”, “object-oriented thinking”, etc. So how are we going to translate this into extrapolative terms for the layman?

Firstly, let’s see if we can organize these sentences into clusters. If we are going to proceed with our meta-summarization, it would be nice to have similar sentences be linguistically connected with each other. For text, we can potentially accomplish this with topic modeling. For my project, I decided that I would use Top2Vec for topic modeling as it can figure out the number of topics automatically, plus incorporates Transformer embedding that would work with my sentences. In this case, I decided to chunk my ebook text into 512 segments to provide it with enough “documents”. The code for it is below:

test_str = ""
example_iter = int(len(example) / 512)
saved_str = []

for i in range(example_iter):
  saved_str.append(example[512*i:512*(i+1)])

Now we can proceed with Top2Vec. For my Top2Vec, I will use the BERT multilingual embedding given that a lot of philosophy terms are of foreign origin and I feel this is processed better with the given embedding model:

!pip install top2vec
!pip install top2vec[sentence_encoders]
!pip install top2vec[sentence_transformers]
!pip install top2vec[gensim]
!pip install tensorflow tensorflow_hub tensorflow_text

from top2vec import Top2Vec
model = Top2Vec(saved_str, embedding_model='distiluse-base-multilingual-cased', speed='learn', workers=16

The nice thing of this model is that it automatically determines the number of topics as opposed to LDA, where you have to manually put in the topics. Once the processing is finished, we can check the number of topics with this code:

model.get_num_topics()

Accordingly, we get 18 topics. Let’s see if we can examine the keywords denoting the topics. This can be accomplished with the following code piece:

model.topic_words

Some of the topic words are included here:

       ['divine', 'christianity', 'god', 'religion', 'christ',
        'spiritual', 'universe', 'existence', 'absolute', 'universality',
        'no', 'ontological', 'non', 'paradox', 'not', 'exist',
        'philosophy', 'impossible', 'fully', 'universal', 'nothing',
        'ultimate', 'unity', 'cannot', 'real', 'entire', 'entity',
        'without', 'transcendental', 'whole', 'simple', 'full', 'spirit',
        'clearly', 'only', 'death', 'merely', 'quantum', 'never', 'free',
        'symbolic', 'simply', 'antagonism', 'evil', 'illusion', 'really',
        'two', 'void', 'dimension', 'reality'],
       ['object', 'objects', 'objective', 'subjective', 'substance',
        'entity', 'subjectivity', 'material', 'body', 'subject',
        'things', 'nothing', 'itself', 'ontological', 'paradox',
        'universe', 'matter', 'himself', 'no', 'consciousness', 'self',
        'own', 'non', 'universality', 'thing', 'unity', 'unconscious',
        'not', 'something', 'philosophy', 'themselves', 'existence',
        'quantum', 'nature', 'abstract', 'structure', 'universal',
        'exist', 'reality', 'content', 'identity', 'absolute',
        'opposite', 'dialectical', 'natural', 'void', 'impossible',
        'illusion', 'cannot', 'dimension'],
       ['revolutionary', 'revolution', 'simple', 'political',
        'philosophy', 'impossible', 'simply', 'ontological', 'marx',
        'historical', 'no', 'modern', 'non', 'society', 'universality',
        'paradox', 'dialectical', 'not', 'absolute', 'cannot', 'only',
        'history', 'theory', 'fully', 'universal', 'merely', 'freedom',
        'just', 'real', 'entire', 'movement', 'without', 'social',
        'unity', 'today', 'radical', 'full', 'structure', 'never',
        'whole', 'itself', 'really', 'reality', 'symbolic', 'clearly',
        'directly', 'opposite', 'nothing', 'all', 'already'],
      

From examining the keywords, we can see that the first topic deals with Christianity, the second deals with subjective experience of objects, etc.

Now that we have the topics, we can try grouping the sentences into their respective topics. The following code piece will accomplish this:

from scipy import spatial

sentences_for_topics = []
range_iter = list(range(len(vectors_for_all_sentences)))

for i in range(len(topic_vectors)):
  sentences_for_topics.append([])

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])

for i in range_iter:
  difference = 0
  largest_topic = 0
  for k, v in zip(topic_vectors, range(len(topic_vectors))):
    distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(vectors_for_all_sentences[i], k)
    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])

This piece skips ahead of some variables for pre-processing, but they are easy to describe in a nutshell. Topic vectors are the BERT embedding of each of the respective topics created from the topic words making up each topic.

Top2Vec allows a user to get an embedding of a sentence from the Top2Vec trained model which reflect a “blend” of topics. The more a sentence reflects a given topic, the more the cosine distance between the sentence embedding and topic embedding approaches 1. These sentence embeddings are stored in “vectors_for_all_sentences”.

To summarize, the first for loop will initialize a list of lists called “sentences_for_topics”, with each topic key value linking to sentences related to that topic. The second for loop loops through each topic embedding vector and compares with each sentence via the cosine distance to determine which sentence represents the given topic. These are stored as the top sentences for their respective topic num in “sentences_for_topics”. The final for loop then looks at each individual sentence and then finds out via cosine distance which topic they belong best to.

After processing, we will get sentences grouped per topic. Some examples of these are below:

Sentences for topic 0
['divine' 'christianity' 'god' 'religion' 'christ' 'spiritual' 'universe'
 'existence' 'absolute' 'universality' 'no' 'ontological' 'non' 'paradox'
 'not' 'exist' 'philosophy' 'impossible' 'fully' 'universal' 'nothing'
 'ultimate' 'unity' 'cannot' 'real' 'entire' 'entity' 'without'
 'transcendental' 'whole' 'simple' 'full' 'spirit' 'clearly' 'only'
 'death' 'merely' 'quantum' 'never' 'free' 'symbolic' 'simply'
 'antagonism' 'evil' 'illusion' 'really' 'two' 'void' 'dimension'
 'reality']
The narrator responds to the claim that there is no god at all, but rather an illusion of God. He also defends Lacan's notion of indiffference as radical indifferentness. In contrast, his critique of Will begins with the question of why Chiesan thinks nothing is more real than nothing. He rejects the idea of retroactive illusion because it displaces the past into the present.
Hegel argues that the only way to proceed with this argument is not to dismiss freedom and equality as false, but to fight for what freedom means. If we simply dismiss the whole world as a fake, then it will end up in communism. This is because there is no unity between the rational and the laws of nature. In other words, being evil cuts off from the universe. The Bible says that Adam and Eve should become like God by eating the fruits of the tree; after they do so, God tells them that they are like one of them. But Hegel points out that subjectivity is also evil because it makes people evil. It is the gaze that perceives evil everywhere around it. Evil is an illusion: it exclusions itself from society. Good arises when we choose good through this primordial choice. We experience the Good once, after choosing evil, we become conscious of the inadequancy of 80 discriptivesour situation. Thus, the fall is at its basic, the transition form from theinsubstantial into the substance. Life as such is neither evil nor stupid; it is more than and more. The Fall is the transition from "the insubstantials to the substance" . A subject cannot be split between appearance and materiality. Subject is divided between appearance-to-subject. The subject is divided among appearance and content. The object that subjects are is what Laca calls objetA a, a weird objects which is not just lacking, never completely here, always giving the subject something to look at. That is why subject is nothing but confusion. When subject is seen frontally, it acquires shape only when looking backwardly. There is a gap between reality and transcendence. All three cases have the same gap between ordinary realities and transcendent dimensions. The poet sees beauty in the face of a bush, while the madman misperces a real thing as something else. They all mistake someone for God or devil. These two examples show how subjectivity can be reduced to nothing but failure to be subject. Assuming that subject is passive, subject does not stand on active intervention. Instead, subject is self-reliant.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy between God and the community of followers to explain why it is necessary for a religious community to exist. The first problem is that there are already Jewish religions that focus on life after death or on the inner belief in God. This is because Jews have already practiced such a system: they live according to the rules of their society. They do not believe in God but instead worship him as an immanent substance. Therefore, the only difference between the two religions is that they don't say much about life after dead or about the inner beliefs in God; rather, they just obey the communal rules. It is important to note that these practices are different from those of Christianity. For example, Judeaism does not say anything about living after death nor about the Inner Belief in God, while Christian religion emphasizes obedience to the communal rule. He also says that God is still alive in the community even though it doesn't explicitly say what kind of life it will lead. So how can we reconcile this relationship between necessity/contingency? First, let's look at the relationship between self-organizing contingency and subjectivity. Self-organization has to be based on self-reproduction so that one can see things as being real. Once something becomes real, however, it cannot be posited into reality by its own presumption. Thus, human subjects become subject to Christ, who is the object of all human activity. As Christians, God becomes aware of himself through Christ. If you want to know more about Jesus, go read his book, The Holy Spirit And Mankind.
In this chapter, the narrator explains how Palpatine's face is transformed when he confronts Anakin. He realizes that his identity as Darth Sildious is now completely debased and that he will be able to return to his former self. This is because of the ironic truth that Christ is not just a Son of God, but a divine being who dies on the Cross. The death also means that Christ has become God. It is precisely through Christ's death that Christ becomes God. If we were to compare Christ to an ordinary commodity, then it would be impossible for us to understand why Christ was so important in the Christian worldview. Instead, we should see him as the product of the excesses of human nature. When Christ dies, there is no need for anything; instead, it is necessary for something to happen. Thus, by killing Christ, we can change our destiny.
In this chapter, the UM uses two examples to illustrate his point that the claim that God is evil can be more unsettling. The first example concerns a young woman who becomes a fanatic of the Rapture and begins to practice a new life. She marries a man named Randy and has another daughter, Mary. After six years, they are shot by a crazy man. They go to a desert camping place where they wait until they are taken into Heaven. When they get there, they find out that they are not allowed to take their own lives in order to enter heaven. At the jail, however, things turn out differently: when Mary appears with angels and tells her that she loves God, it turns out that God doesn't really care what she says. He just wants to use human beings to justify himself. This is part of Christian tradition. For example, Nicolas Malebranche points out that even though God didn't exist, Christ would have been happier at the time because he was suffering on the cross. If God did not exists, then no one would have died. But if God did exist, then nothing could be permitted. It is only through knowledge that we can escape from the material world. Gnostics believe that God acts like a cosmic Clown; instead, God acts as an agent of wisdom. Good guys turn out to become good guys. A common joke among these people is that a person who believes he isn't a seed or a farmer is taken to mental institution where doctors convince him that all men are real men. However, once he gets cured, he returns frightened again. There is a bird outside the door that will eat them.
In this chapter, the UM uses the example of Christ's seven last words to argue that the ultimate case of his broken vessel is God himself. He contrasts the concept of phallic pleasure with the idea of counterfaction, which means that there is no difference between what is real and what is not. The only difference between these two types of truth is that they are both false; in other words, they are contradictory. This leads him to reject the notion of pious communism as an impossible fantasy because it does not exist at all.
In this chapter, the UM uses Hegelian logic to argue that there is no religious dimension in any of the radical political projects. He rejects the notion that religion is simply a secularization of deliverance and Benajmin's notion of "the weak messiaic force" of revolution as an act of retroactive redemption from past failures; instead, he contends that it is more than just a mere materialist fantasy. He also discusses the concept of negative theology, which refers to the idea that God cannot be described through positive or negative decisions. The term negative theologies are used to describe the idea where god cannot be explained by any positive or even negative determinations. It is not necessarily scientific materialism, but rather the notion of absolute self-efficacy of reality. This perspective emphasizes the fact that existence is the fullest of the productive processes of life. There is nothing lacking in reality, however, because everything is present with its own self-reversions. Hamlet does not die when he thinks about Claudius praying. He does not kill him when his prayers are answered since he would never strike at anything less than what is right now at that x that makes Cludius king
In this chapter, the narrator continues his argument against Christianity. He defends the idea that God is in love with one another and that man can be perfect only by sin. This leads to Qutb's concept of human civilization. A society which belongs solely to Allah finds expression in obeying the Divine Law and freeing all people from servitude. The principle of freedom for every person is held true because no one is slave to another. All men have equal rights regardless of their race, color, or nation. If they are not free, they are enslavers to their animal natures. Man is capable of changing his thoughts and actions but cannot decide what place or country he is born to be. Thus it becomes clear that there is no equality between men and women. It is clear that slavery is an example of how humans are oppressed by the marketplace. As such, we should also note that animals do little good when they are civilized.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy of death to explain his view of Christianity. He believes that God is dead because there is no way for us to live without him. The only living being in Christianity is the son; therefore, we have to turn around the common notion that Christ is God's puppet. This means that Christians cannot be trusted with direct knowledge and unconditional certainty since they are surprised at strange signs of divine intervention. Milner defends the distinction between exactitude and substantiveity by arguing that truth is an agent who speaks through error against the facts itself. For instance, Lacan tells us that the Russian language has three words for truth: "Itina" which means "the simple exactness of reported facts," while it means "pravada" meaning "the deeper ethico-politischen truth." These words were used during the Cold War as evidence against the murder of Trotsky. They also refer to the fact that the main official Russian daily newspaper was Prvda instead of Istina. It is important to note that these words do not mean exactly the same thing as the actual Russian daily newspapers did when they were written about the cold war. However, one can still see how the term "theology" comes from the subject of something beyond human beings.
In this chapter, the narrator argues that Christians and Muslims cannot be true because they are too primitive to believe. He rejects the notion of belief as an epistemology, which is a form of logical misunderstanding of the world. The solution for religion is tohistoricize all religions as expressions from some transcendent divination. All religions are expressed by the deepest God, dead, unconscious, evil, impotent, stupid. This is what Marx calls "secular humanism," which means that all people have different kinds of desires and fears at different stages of their development. To be a Protestant is the only possible way to be one who does not believe in God himself. If we do not accept God as our supreme being, then religion is no more real than any other religion. Kiergegaard defends the concept of god as the idea that everything is impossible. He says that there is nothing God can do but return to ourselves when we reach the maximum distance between ourselves and the universe. We should not call religion a defense against this kind of experience; it is simply an attempt to defuse the void of self-representation through scientific objectivism. It is not science that erases subjectivity or science that removes subjecthood. Instead, it is the event of Nirvania, which frees us from the limitations of our self as an autonomous agent.
In this chapter, Lacan argues that there is no class struggle in the world because there are two distinct classes. He uses examples from Lacan and Alenka to illustrate his point. The class is the exception, not the class with the proper place within society. For example, Lurenzo Chiesa's Not-Tweet Two discusses God as the symbolic God who has three faces: the real God, evil and brutally violent; the imaginary God of Job or Cartesian Malingénie cheating people all. As for Chiesan's reading of Lacan's " formulas of seduction," he neglects the work of Emilia Copjec's book, "Sex andthe Euthanasia Of Reason." Finally, he uses an example from Fritz Lang's Metropolis to argue that the woman of heart is the mediator between labor and capital, the guaranteeof the organic stability over social relations. This line of thought also applies to Marx's theory that humanity poses to itself its own tasks which it can solve.
Sentences for topic 1
['object' 'objects' 'objective' 'subjective' 'substance' 'entity'
 'subjectivity' 'material' 'body' 'subject' 'things' 'nothing' 'itself'
 'ontological' 'paradox' 'universe' 'matter' 'himself' 'no'
 'consciousness' 'self' 'own' 'non' 'universality' 'thing' 'unity'
 'unconscious' 'not' 'something' 'philosophy' 'themselves' 'existence'
 'quantum' 'nature' 'abstract' 'structure' 'universal' 'exist' 'reality'
 'content' 'identity' 'absolute' 'opposite' 'dialectical' 'natural' 'void'
 'impossible' 'illusion' 'cannot' 'dimension']
In this chapter, Malabou argues that the subject of self-retrieval is not limited to objects, but rather extends beyond them. She contends that subjects are too objective and cannot be separated from reality because they have a transcendental priori. Kant uses the term epigenesis as an example: epigenesis is "the encounter of contingent things in experience, who actualize the transcendentally network." The subject becomes transcendental when it experiences its own self-inventment. This freedom allows subjectivity to act independently. If we were to enter the realm of the sublime, then we would deprove ourselves into lifeless automation or thinking machines. Hegel defends this idea by saying that we are only at the level where our actions are determined by the logic of pleasure and pain. We are reduced to mere mechanism. It is impossible for us to return to the infinite world through our actions.
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, 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 the example of an abstract subject to illustrate how different his personal identity is from that of an ordinary human being. He then proceeds to discuss the concept of decoherance, which refers to "the gap between material realities and the register of reality in another medium." Decoherence theories attempt to explain how things can be tricked into conforming to the laws of nature. The idea that God acts as an agent in the creation of things cannot be explained by the scientific method.
In this chapter, Bryant focuses on the idea of how we can construct our own understanding of reality. He begins by saying that it is necessary for us to defend autonomy of objects and substances, not to reduce them to their relations. This means that subject is nothing more than an inaccessible entity. Quenti Meillassouux also discusses facticity with regard to absolute contin-gency. The only way to know what is possible is through experience. It is through factsicity that we can make our way toward the absolute. For example, when we think about something as being part of another thing, it is actually self-withdrawn. When we see something as belonging to another person, we are treated as others rather than ourselves. If we were talking about God, however, we would say that God is opaque to us. Thus, all things are like Lacanian subjects: each object perceives everything as being related to another; there is no direct relation between the object and the other. Each object does not have direct access to another but instead has blind spots. Withdrawing here is the structure of objects, not an accident relation of how they relate to another object. As such, every object is withdrawn from itself. All these points lead to the question of why people do not engage in serious political action. DistitiesBryant gives two examples of communist societies: one where political jokes were really a form of resistance to the ruling ideological system, while another where the majority did not take seriously the ruling ideology. These examples illustrate how socialism fails to produce real change.
In this chapter, the UM uses Hegel's concept of experience to explain his failure in speculating on the relationship between subjects and predicates. The subject is the contradiction that forms the central of all things; it is the subject itself that resists its objectification. This contradiction also applies to Freud's idea of the unconscious as the product of dream-work. It is not simply an intention or a prediction, but rather a desire fulfilled by the work of the dreamer. Thus, the laten dream-thoughted becomes the material that the dream worker transforms into "the manifest dream"; the only essential thing for dreams is the labor of encodeing/masking the dream thoughts. For example, a manager may be involved in a day-dream because he wants to finance the production of a new machine. But the owner of the factory must depend upon capital to pay for the translation of the wish into the dream language. Therefore, the workers who perform the job are dependent on the capitalist to provide the necessary funds for the creation of the new device.
In this chapter, the narrator explains how different objects can be represented in relation to one another. He uses an example of observing a dog that does not do anything in the nighttime. The absence of such something can then be used as a source of self-reflection. This is important because it allows us to talk about what we don't see or experience at all. For instance, if there is no penis in the house, then presence can arise only against its background. If there is nothing else in the room, then our presence can also arise against the fact that there is none. Thus, when someone lacks a signifying field, they have to use a symbol that has no meaning. Lévin-Strausses first introduces the concept of mana into his philosophy. Mana is a zero-signifyer, which represents nothing more than "that floating signifier" which is the handicap of all fimini thought. It is here that Brandom starts his reading of phenomenological theory with an understanding of experience. Hegel says that when we compare our idea of / object to this thing ourselves, we change our notion and become conscious of what it is. When we alter our notion, however, things are changed. We now know that the stick itself is bent, but instead of being bent, it is actually straight. What changes is the way we perceive the stick for us. Our perception of the stick is altered by our new notion of it. And so on. These three levels of experience are essential for knowledge: 1) we understand the stick; 2) we recognize it as real; and 3) we realize that it is really in itself. So what happens after we discover these contradictions is that we begin to discard them.
In this chapter, the UM uses the example of an unfortunate stick as an example of how contradiction can be resolved by thinking about it. He rejects the notion that what is outwardly inconsistent is not the world itself but rather the essence of reason. The difference between objects that appear to be self-conscious and those that are not, he says, is that they do not exist in the same way. For instance, when we see a self-consciously conscious stick, we realize that it is part of the real world because it exists for us. When we see something that is completely self-confident, we know that it means something else. We also learn that there are other kinds of self-contradictions that cannot be resolved through epistemologies. These are called epistimological illusions or inadequacies. Hegel does not reconcile the two sides of reality with each other; instead, if we want to reconcile, we must change our perception of reality so that we can understand it better.
Pippin defends Hegel's principle of self-consistency, freedom, and reason in this paper. He argues that it is necessary for humans to be conscious of their actions because they are capable of justifying them with reasons. This means that they can act freely without fear of being judged by others. Pippn also argues against the notion of an object as a self; rather, he believes that only subjectivity can achieve this goal. In contrast, Kristeva emphasizes the abjectness of things as the foundation of subjectivity: "the defining feature was for him selfconsciousness" . The idea of something as belonging to another thing does not mean that it belongs to someone else. It means that there is no separation between what is real and what is not. Self-consciously aware subjects have the ability to distinguish between how things are and how they appear to each other. Thus, one cannot simply assert or just act without knowing why. Therefore, we must know why our actions are being taken. Pipin furthermore discusses Hegelian theories about self-reflection and reflection. He claims that these two kinds of reflection are independent of one another.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy of an abject to explain how we can avoid being abject. He discusses two kinds of abjection: 1) those who do not give up or assume a prohibition; and 2) those who take advantage of them. The first kind is that they don't believe in anything but the law. The second type is that people fall into their own traps, which are created by us as we fall into our own trap
Examining each sentence, we can indeed see that the sentences do indeed seem to reflect the topic with the beginning sentence being as close as possible to the purity of the topic.
.
.
.

Before our final step of getting “meta-summaries”, we want to process these sentences to be as linguistically similar to each other. Otherwise our final technique may potentially be thrown off balance if two sentences that are very different linguistically are processed together. We can use this code piece to balance the sentences:

from operator import itemgetter

for k in range(model.get_num_topics()):
  topic_num = k
  test_topic = []
  test = model.topic_words[topic_num]
  print(test)

  if len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) > 0:
    for i in sentences_for_topics[topic_num]:
      test_topic.append(model.embed([i])[0])

    given_distances = []
    for m in test_topic:
      distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(m, topic_vectors[topic_num])
      given_distances.append(distance)

    max_value = max(given_distances)
    index = given_distances.index(max_value)

    indices = [index]
    for i in range(len(test_topic)-1):
      distances = []
      iteration = 1
      for j in test_topic:
        distances.append(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(test_topic[indices[-1]], j))

      temp_indices, L_sorted = zip(*sorted(enumerate(distances), key=itemgetter(1)))
      while temp_indices[iteration] in indices:
        if (iteration == len(temp_indices)-1):
          break
        iteration += 1

      if temp_indices[iteration] not in indices:
        indices.append(temp_indices[iteration])

      for m in range(len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num])):
        if m not in indices:
          indices.append(m)

  else:
    indices = []

  print(indices)

  for i in indices:
    print(sentences_for_topics[topic_num][i])

In a nutshell, our code here takes the first sentence in a given topic and compares with all the other sentences via the cosine distance. The highest score indicates a sentence that is as linguistically similar as possible. The beginning index starts at 0 and the next linguistically similar sentence will have their index number as the next value in “indices”. The following index is then compared with the remaining sentences, with their respective linguistically similar sentence having the next index in “indices”. Once the looping is done, we can examine the topics to see the new sentence order.

['divine' 'christianity' 'god' 'religion' 'christ' 'spiritual' 'universe'
 'existence' 'absolute' 'universality' 'no' 'ontological' 'non' 'paradox'
 'not' 'exist' 'philosophy' 'impossible' 'fully' 'universal' 'nothing'
 'ultimate' 'unity' 'cannot' 'real' 'entire' 'entity' 'without'
 'transcendental' 'whole' 'simple' 'full' 'spirit' 'clearly' 'only'
 'death' 'merely' 'quantum' 'never' 'free' 'symbolic' 'simply'
 'antagonism' 'evil' 'illusion' 'really' 'two' 'void' 'dimension'
 'reality']
[0, 2, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
The narrator responds to the claim that there is no god at all, but rather an illusion of God. He also defends Lacan's notion of indiffference as radical indifferentness. In contrast, his critique of Will begins with the question of why Chiesan thinks nothing is more real than nothing. He rejects the idea of retroactive illusion because it displaces the past into the present.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy between God and the community of followers to explain why it is necessary for a religious community to exist. The first problem is that there are already Jewish religions that focus on life after death or on the inner belief in God. This is because Jews have already practiced such a system: they live according to the rules of their society. They do not believe in God but instead worship him as an immanent substance. Therefore, the only difference between the two religions is that they don't say much about life after dead or about the inner beliefs in God; rather, they just obey the communal rules. It is important to note that these practices are different from those of Christianity. For example, Judeaism does not say anything about living after death nor about the Inner Belief in God, while Christian religion emphasizes obedience to the communal rule. He also says that God is still alive in the community even though it doesn't explicitly say what kind of life it will lead. So how can we reconcile this relationship between necessity/contingency? First, let's look at the relationship between self-organizing contingency and subjectivity. Self-organization has to be based on self-reproduction so that one can see things as being real. Once something becomes real, however, it cannot be posited into reality by its own presumption. Thus, human subjects become subject to Christ, who is the object of all human activity. As Christians, God becomes aware of himself through Christ. If you want to know more about Jesus, go read his book, The Holy Spirit And Mankind.
Hegel argues that the only way to proceed with this argument is not to dismiss freedom and equality as false, but to fight for what freedom means. If we simply dismiss the whole world as a fake, then it will end up in communism. This is because there is no unity between the rational and the laws of nature. In other words, being evil cuts off from the universe. The Bible says that Adam and Eve should become like God by eating the fruits of the tree; after they do so, God tells them that they are like one of them. But Hegel points out that subjectivity is also evil because it makes people evil. It is the gaze that perceives evil everywhere around it. Evil is an illusion: it exclusions itself from society. Good arises when we choose good through this primordial choice. We experience the Good once, after choosing evil, we become conscious of the inadequancy of 80 discriptivesour situation. Thus, the fall is at its basic, the transition form from theinsubstantial into the substance. Life as such is neither evil nor stupid; it is more than and more. The Fall is the transition from "the insubstantials to the substance" . A subject cannot be split between appearance and materiality. Subject is divided between appearance-to-subject. The subject is divided among appearance and content. The object that subjects are is what Laca calls objetA a, a weird objects which is not just lacking, never completely here, always giving the subject something to look at. That is why subject is nothing but confusion. When subject is seen frontally, it acquires shape only when looking backwardly. There is a gap between reality and transcendence. All three cases have the same gap between ordinary realities and transcendent dimensions. The poet sees beauty in the face of a bush, while the madman misperces a real thing as something else. They all mistake someone for God or devil. These two examples show how subjectivity can be reduced to nothing but failure to be subject. Assuming that subject is passive, subject does not stand on active intervention. Instead, subject is self-reliant.
In this chapter, the narrator explains how Palpatine's face is transformed when he confronts Anakin. He realizes that his identity as Darth Sildious is now completely debased and that he will be able to return to his former self. This is because of the ironic truth that Christ is not just a Son of God, but a divine being who dies on the Cross. The death also means that Christ has become God. It is precisely through Christ's death that Christ becomes God. If we were to compare Christ to an ordinary commodity, then it would be impossible for us to understand why Christ was so important in the Christian worldview. Instead, we should see him as the product of the excesses of human nature. When Christ dies, there is no need for anything; instead, it is necessary for something to happen. Thus, by killing Christ, we can change our destiny.
In this chapter, the UM uses two examples to illustrate his point that the claim that God is evil can be more unsettling. The first example concerns a young woman who becomes a fanatic of the Rapture and begins to practice a new life. She marries a man named Randy and has another daughter, Mary. After six years, they are shot by a crazy man. They go to a desert camping place where they wait until they are taken into Heaven. When they get there, they find out that they are not allowed to take their own lives in order to enter heaven. At the jail, however, things turn out differently: when Mary appears with angels and tells her that she loves God, it turns out that God doesn't really care what she says. He just wants to use human beings to justify himself. This is part of Christian tradition. For example, Nicolas Malebranche points out that even though God didn't exist, Christ would have been happier at the time because he was suffering on the cross. If God did not exists, then no one would have died. But if God did exist, then nothing could be permitted. It is only through knowledge that we can escape from the material world. Gnostics believe that God acts like a cosmic Clown; instead, God acts as an agent of wisdom. Good guys turn out to become good guys. A common joke among these people is that a person who believes he isn't a seed or a farmer is taken to mental institution where doctors convince him that all men are real men. However, once he gets cured, he returns frightened again. There is a bird outside the door that will eat them.
In this chapter, the UM uses the example of Christ's seven last words to argue that the ultimate case of his broken vessel is God himself. He contrasts the concept of phallic pleasure with the idea of counterfaction, which means that there is no difference between what is real and what is not. The only difference between these two types of truth is that they are both false; in other words, they are contradictory. This leads him to reject the notion of pious communism as an impossible fantasy because it does not exist at all.
In this chapter, the UM uses Hegelian logic to argue that there is no religious dimension in any of the radical political projects. He rejects the notion that religion is simply a secularization of deliverance and Benajmin's notion of "the weak messiaic force" of revolution as an act of retroactive redemption from past failures; instead, he contends that it is more than just a mere materialist fantasy. He also discusses the concept of negative theology, which refers to the idea that God cannot be described through positive or negative decisions. The term negative theologies are used to describe the idea where god cannot be explained by any positive or even negative determinations. It is not necessarily scientific materialism, but rather the notion of absolute self-efficacy of reality. This perspective emphasizes the fact that existence is the fullest of the productive processes of life. There is nothing lacking in reality, however, because everything is present with its own self-reversions. Hamlet does not die when he thinks about Claudius praying. He does not kill him when his prayers are answered since he would never strike at anything less than what is right now at that x that makes Cludius king
In this chapter, the narrator continues his argument against Christianity. He defends the idea that God is in love with one another and that man can be perfect only by sin. This leads to Qutb's concept of human civilization. A society which belongs solely to Allah finds expression in obeying the Divine Law and freeing all people from servitude. The principle of freedom for every person is held true because no one is slave to another. All men have equal rights regardless of their race, color, or nation. If they are not free, they are enslavers to their animal natures. Man is capable of changing his thoughts and actions but cannot decide what place or country he is born to be. Thus it becomes clear that there is no equality between men and women. It is clear that slavery is an example of how humans are oppressed by the marketplace. As such, we should also note that animals do little good when they are civilized.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy of death to explain his view of Christianity. He believes that God is dead because there is no way for us to live without him. The only living being in Christianity is the son; therefore, we have to turn around the common notion that Christ is God's puppet. This means that Christians cannot be trusted with direct knowledge and unconditional certainty since they are surprised at strange signs of divine intervention. Milner defends the distinction between exactitude and substantiveity by arguing that truth is an agent who speaks through error against the facts itself. For instance, Lacan tells us that the Russian language has three words for truth: "Itina" which means "the simple exactness of reported facts," while it means "pravada" meaning "the deeper ethico-politischen truth." These words were used during the Cold War as evidence against the murder of Trotsky. They also refer to the fact that the main official Russian daily newspaper was Prvda instead of Istina. It is important to note that these words do not mean exactly the same thing as the actual Russian daily newspapers did when they were written about the cold war. However, one can still see how the term "theology" comes from the subject of something beyond human beings.
In this chapter, the narrator argues that Christians and Muslims cannot be true because they are too primitive to believe. He rejects the notion of belief as an epistemology, which is a form of logical misunderstanding of the world. The solution for religion is tohistoricize all religions as expressions from some transcendent divination. All religions are expressed by the deepest God, dead, unconscious, evil, impotent, stupid. This is what Marx calls "secular humanism," which means that all people have different kinds of desires and fears at different stages of their development. To be a Protestant is the only possible way to be one who does not believe in God himself. If we do not accept God as our supreme being, then religion is no more real than any other religion. Kiergegaard defends the concept of god as the idea that everything is impossible. He says that there is nothing God can do but return to ourselves when we reach the maximum distance between ourselves and the universe. We should not call religion a defense against this kind of experience; it is simply an attempt to defuse the void of self-representation through scientific objectivism. It is not science that erases subjectivity or science that removes subjecthood. Instead, it is the event of Nirvania, which frees us from the limitations of our self as an autonomous agent.
In this chapter, Lacan argues that there is no class struggle in the world because there are two distinct classes. He uses examples from Lacan and Alenka to illustrate his point. The class is the exception, not the class with the proper place within society. For example, Lurenzo Chiesa's Not-Tweet Two discusses God as the symbolic God who has three faces: the real God, evil and brutally violent; the imaginary God of Job or Cartesian Malingénie cheating people all. As for Chiesan's reading of Lacan's " formulas of seduction," he neglects the work of Emilia Copjec's book, "Sex andthe Euthanasia Of Reason." Finally, he uses an example from Fritz Lang's Metropolis to argue that the woman of heart is the mediator between labor and capital, the guaranteeof the organic stability over social relations. This line of thought also applies to Marx's theory that humanity poses to itself its own tasks which it can solve.
['object' 'objects' 'objective' 'subjective' 'substance' 'entity'
 'subjectivity' 'material' 'body' 'subject' 'things' 'nothing' 'itself'
 'ontological' 'paradox' 'universe' 'matter' 'himself' 'no'
 'consciousness' 'self' 'own' 'non' 'universality' 'thing' 'unity'
 'unconscious' 'not' 'something' 'philosophy' 'themselves' 'existence'
 'quantum' 'nature' 'abstract' 'structure' 'universal' 'exist' 'reality'
 'content' 'identity' 'absolute' 'opposite' 'dialectical' 'natural' 'void'
 'impossible' 'illusion' 'cannot' 'dimension']
[0, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
In this chapter, Malabou argues that the subject of self-retrieval is not limited to objects, but rather extends beyond them. She contends that subjects are too objective and cannot be separated from reality because they have a transcendental priori. Kant uses the term epigenesis as an example: epigenesis is "the encounter of contingent things in experience, who actualize the transcendentally network." The subject becomes transcendental when it experiences its own self-inventment. This freedom allows subjectivity to act independently. If we were to enter the realm of the sublime, then we would deprove ourselves into lifeless automation or thinking machines. Hegel defends this idea by saying that we are only at the level where our actions are determined by the logic of pleasure and pain. We are reduced to mere mechanism. It is impossible for us to return to the infinite world through our actions.
In this chapter, the UM uses the example of an abstract subject to illustrate how different his personal identity is from that of an ordinary human being. He then proceeds to discuss the concept of decoherance, which refers to "the gap between material realities and the register of reality in another medium." Decoherence theories attempt to explain how things can be tricked into conforming to the laws of nature. The idea that God acts as an agent in the creation of things cannot be explained by the scientific method.
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, 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, Bryant focuses on the idea of how we can construct our own understanding of reality. He begins by saying that it is necessary for us to defend autonomy of objects and substances, not to reduce them to their relations. This means that subject is nothing more than an inaccessible entity. Quenti Meillassouux also discusses facticity with regard to absolute contin-gency. The only way to know what is possible is through experience. It is through factsicity that we can make our way toward the absolute. For example, when we think about something as being part of another thing, it is actually self-withdrawn. When we see something as belonging to another person, we are treated as others rather than ourselves. If we were talking about God, however, we would say that God is opaque to us. Thus, all things are like Lacanian subjects: each object perceives everything as being related to another; there is no direct relation between the object and the other. Each object does not have direct access to another but instead has blind spots. Withdrawing here is the structure of objects, not an accident relation of how they relate to another object. As such, every object is withdrawn from itself. All these points lead to the question of why people do not engage in serious political action. DistitiesBryant gives two examples of communist societies: one where political jokes were really a form of resistance to the ruling ideological system, while another where the majority did not take seriously the ruling ideology. These examples illustrate how socialism fails to produce real change.
In this chapter, the UM uses Hegel's concept of experience to explain his failure in speculating on the relationship between subjects and predicates. The subject is the contradiction that forms the central of all things; it is the subject itself that resists its objectification. This contradiction also applies to Freud's idea of the unconscious as the product of dream-work. It is not simply an intention or a prediction, but rather a desire fulfilled by the work of the dreamer. Thus, the laten dream-thoughted becomes the material that the dream worker transforms into "the manifest dream"; the only essential thing for dreams is the labor of encodeing/masking the dream thoughts. For example, a manager may be involved in a day-dream because he wants to finance the production of a new machine. But the owner of the factory must depend upon capital to pay for the translation of the wish into the dream language. Therefore, the workers who perform the job are dependent on the capitalist to provide the necessary funds for the creation of the new device.
In this chapter, the narrator explains how different objects can be represented in relation to one another. He uses an example of observing a dog that does not do anything in the nighttime. The absence of such something can then be used as a source of self-reflection. This is important because it allows us to talk about what we don't see or experience at all. For instance, if there is no penis in the house, then presence can arise only against its background. If there is nothing else in the room, then our presence can also arise against the fact that there is none. Thus, when someone lacks a signifying field, they have to use a symbol that has no meaning. Lévin-Strausses first introduces the concept of mana into his philosophy. Mana is a zero-signifyer, which represents nothing more than "that floating signifier" which is the handicap of all fimini thought. It is here that Brandom starts his reading of phenomenological theory with an understanding of experience. Hegel says that when we compare our idea of / object to this thing ourselves, we change our notion and become conscious of what it is. When we alter our notion, however, things are changed. We now know that the stick itself is bent, but instead of being bent, it is actually straight. What changes is the way we perceive the stick for us. Our perception of the stick is altered by our new notion of it. And so on. These three levels of experience are essential for knowledge: 1) we understand the stick; 2) we recognize it as real; and 3) we realize that it is really in itself. So what happens after we discover these contradictions is that we begin to discard them.
In this chapter, the UM uses the example of an unfortunate stick as an example of how contradiction can be resolved by thinking about it. He rejects the notion that what is outwardly inconsistent is not the world itself but rather the essence of reason. The difference between objects that appear to be self-conscious and those that are not, he says, is that they do not exist in the same way. For instance, when we see a self-consciously conscious stick, we realize that it is part of the real world because it exists for us. When we see something that is completely self-confident, we know that it means something else. We also learn that there are other kinds of self-contradictions that cannot be resolved through epistemologies. These are called epistimological illusions or inadequacies. Hegel does not reconcile the two sides of reality with each other; instead, if we want to reconcile, we must change our perception of reality so that we can understand it better.
Pippin defends Hegel's principle of self-consistency, freedom, and reason in this paper. He argues that it is necessary for humans to be conscious of their actions because they are capable of justifying them with reasons. This means that they can act freely without fear of being judged by others. Pippn also argues against the notion of an object as a self; rather, he believes that only subjectivity can achieve this goal. In contrast, Kristeva emphasizes the abjectness of things as the foundation of subjectivity: "the defining feature was for him selfconsciousness" . The idea of something as belonging to another thing does not mean that it belongs to someone else. It means that there is no separation between what is real and what is not. Self-consciously aware subjects have the ability to distinguish between how things are and how they appear to each other. Thus, one cannot simply assert or just act without knowing why. Therefore, we must know why our actions are being taken. Pipin furthermore discusses Hegelian theories about self-reflection and reflection. He claims that these two kinds of reflection are independent of one another.
In this chapter, the UM uses the analogy of an abject to explain how we can avoid being abject. He discusses two kinds of abjection: 1) those who do not give up or assume a prohibition; and 2) those who take advantage of them. The first kind is that they don't believe in anything but the law. The second type is that people fall into their own traps, which are created by us as we fall into our own trap
['revolutionary' 'revolution' 'simple' 'political' 'philosophy'
 'impossible' 'simply' 'ontological' 'marx' 'historical' 'no' 'modern'
 'non' 'society' 'universality' 'paradox' 'dialectical' 'not' 'absolute'
 'cannot' 'only' 'history' 'theory' 'fully' 'universal' 'merely' 'freedom'
 'just' 'real' 'entire' 'movement' 'without' 'social' 'unity' 'today'
 'radical' 'full' 'structure' 'never' 'whole' 'itself' 'really' 'reality'
 'symbolic' 'clearly' 'directly' 'opposite' 'nothing' 'all' 'already']

In these first two topics, we see that under each topic words, we find the shifted index resulting from the looping of the similarity of the sentences. We then see the new sentence order with the original sentence preserved, followed by corresponding sentences that are as linguistically similar to the previous sentence.

Now with our T5-book-sentence summaries ordered linguistically into the relevant topics, we can now begin our “meta-summarization”. For this piece, I decided to experiment with GPT3 text generation for creating layman summaries. The driving force behind this is that GPT3, while generating comprehensive text generation, tends usually to be on the bland side of its text generation. What if this feature, instead of being an annoyance, can be harnessed into summarizing the complex philosophical summaries into something more relatable and “bland”?

To set this up, I plan to loop through 4 sentences at a time (all if the topic has less than 4 sentences) and provide as input to GPT3. After the four sentences are grouped together, I will create an additional prompt: “The following statements can be summarized in layman terms as: “. The code here is as follows:

import os
import openai
import random

openai.api_key = ""

from operator import itemgetter

overall_responses_by_topic = []

for topic in range(model.get_num_topics()):
  topic_num = topic
  test_topic = []
  test = model.topic_words[topic_num]

  if len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num]) > 0:
    for i in sentences_for_topics[topic_num]:
      test_topic.append(model.embed([i])[0])

    given_distances = []
    for m in test_topic:
      distance = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(m, topic_vectors[topic_num])
      given_distances.append(distance)

    max_value = max(given_distances)
    index = given_distances.index(max_value)

    indices = [index]
    for i in range(len(test_topic)-1):
      distances = []
      iteration = 1
      for j in test_topic:
        distances.append(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(test_topic[indices[-1]], j))

      temp_indices, L_sorted = zip(*sorted(enumerate(distances), key=itemgetter(1)))
      while temp_indices[iteration] in indices:
        if (iteration == len(temp_indices)-1):
          break
        iteration += 1

      if temp_indices[iteration] not in indices:
        indices.append(temp_indices[iteration])

      for m in range(len(sentences_for_topics[topic_num])):
        if m not in indices:
          indices.append(m)


  else:
    indices = []

  final_text = ''
  response_text = []

  chunk_text_size = 512
  max_token_size = 2048
  past_lookup = max_token_size + 5*chunk_text_size

  if len(indices) > 4:
    step = 4
  elif len(indices) == 0:
    response_text.append("")
    step = 0
  else:
    step = len(indices) - 1

  for k in range(len(indices)-step):

    text_input = ""

    for i in indices[k:k+step]:
      text_input += sentences_for_topics[topic_num][i] + "\n"

    text_input += "The following statements can be summarized in layman terms as: "

    response = openai.Completion.create(
      model="text-davinci-002",
      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"])

  overall_responses_by_topic.append(response_text)

Once again, the sentences are ordered linguistically per topic, then sentences four at a time (with a step of the next following sentence) are combined along with our user prompt. Once we get a reply back from GPT3, we process the JSON output into a list “overall_responses_by_topic”. This will store each corresponding GPT3 output into a list for each relevant topic.

So, did GPT3 meet our expectations? You could say that and a little more. ;)

Summary for topic 0:
['divine' 'christianity' 'god' 'religion' 'christ' 'spiritual' 'universe'
 'existence' 'absolute' 'universality' 'no' 'ontological' 'non' 'paradox'
 'not' 'exist' 'philosophy' 'impossible' 'fully' 'universal' 'nothing'
 'ultimate' 'unity' 'cannot' 'real' 'entire' 'entity' 'without'
 'transcendental' 'whole' 'simple' 'full' 'spirit' 'clearly' 'only'
 'death' 'merely' 'quantum' 'never' 'free' 'symbolic' 'simply'
 'antagonism' 'evil' 'illusion' 'really' 'two' 'void' 'dimension'
 'reality']


1. There is no god, only an illusion of god.
2. The idea that retroactive illusion displaces the past into the present is rejected.
3. A religious community is necessary in order for human subjects to become subject to Christ. 
4. Evil is an illusion that exclusion itself from society and good arises when we choose good through a primordial choice. 
5. Assuming that subject is passive, subject does not stand on active intervention but instead is self-reliant . 
6. Christ's death means that he has become God and by killing Christ, we can change our destiny.


1. UM uses the analogy between God and the community of followers to explain why it is necessary for a religious community to exist. 
2. Jews have already practiced such a system: they live according to the rules of their society. If Christians did this as well, then they would know that God is still alive in the community even though it doesn't explicitly say what kind of life it will lead. 
3. It is important to note that these practices are different from those of Christianity because Christianity emphasizes obedience to the communal rule while Judaism does not mention anything about living after death or about the Inner Belief in God. 
4

1. It is impossible for subject to be split between appearance and materiality. 
2. A subject cannot be passive; instead, subject is self-reliant. 
3. If Christ was just a commodity, then we would not understand his importance in the Christian worldview.


In this chapter, the narrator explains how Palpatine's face is transformed when he confronts Anakin. He realizes that his identity as Darth Sildious is now completely debased and that he will be able to return to his former self. This is because of the ironic truth that Christ is not just a Son of God, but a divine being who dies on the Cross. The death also means that Christ has become God. It is precisely through Christ's death that Christ becomes God. If we were to compare Christ to an ordinary commodity, then it would be impossible for us to understand why Christ was so important in the Christian worldview. Instead, we should see him as the product of the excesses of human nature. When Christ dies, there is no need for anything; instead, it is necessary for something to happen. Thus, by killing Christ, we can change our destiny.


1. The UM argues that the belief that God is evil can be more unsettling than helpful. 
2. He uses the example of Christ's seven last words to argue that the ultimate case of his broken vessel is God himself. 
3. He contrasts the concept of phallic pleasure with the idea of counterfaction, which means that there is no difference between what is real and what is not. 
4. He rejects the notion of pious communism as an impossible fantasy because it does not exist at all. 
5. he contends that negative theology emphasizes the fact that existence is the fullest of the productive processes of life. There is nothing lacking in reality, however, because everything is present with its own self-reversions.


The UM argues that Christianity is based on a lie, specifically the idea that Christ is God's puppet. He believes that this makes Christians untrustworthy when it comes to knowledge and certainty.


The UM uses Hegelian logic to argue that there is no religious dimension in any of the radical political projects. He first discusses the concept of negative theology, which refers to the idea that God cannot be described through positive or negative decisions. This perspective emphasizes the fact that existence is the fullest of the productive processes of life. There is nothing lacking in reality, however, because everything is present with its own self-reversions. The term "negative theology" is used to describe the idea where god cannot be explained by any positive or even negative determinations. It is not necessarily scientific materialism, but rather the notion of absolute self-efficacy of reality. This leads to Qutb's concept of human civilization. A society which belongs solely to Allah finds expression in obeying the Divine Law and freeing all people from servitude. The principle of freedom for every person is held true because no one slavery exists within this system.. Thus it becomes clear that there is no equality between men and women according to Islamic law . In this chapter,the narrator continues his argument against Christianity. He defends the idea that God is in love with one another and that man can be perfect only by sin .This means that Christians cannot be trusted with direct knowledge and unconditional certainty since they are surprised at strange signs r divine intervention such as when Trotsky was murdered . Milner argues that truth is an agent who speaks through error against facts themselves For instance, Lacan tells us that different words for truth exist:"Itina" which means "the simple exactness reported facts," while it means "pravda" meaning "the deeper ethico-politischen truth." These words were during Cold War as evidence against murder Andrei Tsyorganovski Kierkegaard defends concept 'god'as idea everything impossible .He says nothing god do except return ourselves we reach maximum distance between ourselves universes We should not call religion defense against experience simply attempt defuse void self-representation through scientismobjectivism Science does erase subjectivity instead event nirvana ,which frees limitations our selves autonomousagent

Summary for topic 1:
['object' 'objects' 'objective' 'subjective' 'substance' 'entity'
 'subjectivity' 'material' 'body' 'subject' 'things' 'nothing' 'itself'
 'ontological' 'paradox' 'universe' 'matter' 'himself' 'no'
 'consciousness' 'self' 'own' 'non' 'universality' 'thing' 'unity'
 'unconscious' 'not' 'something' 'philosophy' 'themselves' 'existence'
 'quantum' 'nature' 'abstract' 'structure' 'universal' 'exist' 'reality'
 'content' 'identity' 'absolute' 'opposite' 'dialectical' 'natural' 'void'
 'impossible' 'illusion' 'cannot' 'dimension']


A. Disparities point toward a whole that does not fit together so that the whole appears artificially composite. 
B. It is impossible to understand why science and theology do not work together in the same way.


1. The UM's personal identity is very different from that of an ordinary human being, and this is because the UM's dialectical-metaphysical approach leads to a different understanding of the concept of decoherence.
2. Decoherence theories try to explain how things can be tricked into conforming to the laws of nature, but they cannot explain how God might act as an agent in creation.
3. There is a division between object-oriented thinking and self-conscious behavior, which means that subjects cannot fully grasp the substantial content of objects.
4. Subjectivity can be divided between appearance and inaccessible content, and this division means that subjects are separate from other objects and cannot be separated from their substantial content.
5. It is through factsicity that we can make our way toward the absolute, and this idea helps us to understand why people do not engage in serious political action.


1. Objects appear to us as though they are part of a whole, but they are actually only related to each other through oursubjectivity.
2. It is impossible to understand why science and theology do not work together in the same way.
3. Since sexual relations are part of human society, there isn't any need for prosthetics. 
4. What makes sense here is that we view things as abstractions rather than mere notions. 
5. It is through factsicity that we can make our way toward the absolute. 
6. Each object does not have direct access to another but instead has blind spots. 
7. All these points lead to the question of why people do not engage in serious political action


In this chapter, Lacan discusses 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. 

In other words, what appears to us as a "subject" is really just an object that we cannot access the true nature of. This highlights the fact that subjects are not just what they appear to be on the surface, but rather have hidden depths that we cannot always see or understand.


In order to understand something, we must first think about it in relation to other things. Secondly, when we discover contradictions within our thinking, we should not try to resolve them by discarding one side or the other. Instead, we should change our perception of reality so that we can better understand it.


Hegel believes that humans are conscious of their actions and can justify them with reasons. This means they can act freely without fear of being judged by others. However, Kristeva argues that only subjectivity can achieve this goal, not objects.


Summary for topic 6:
['paradox' 'ontological' 'logic' 'philosophy' 'dialectical' 'hegel'
 'theory' 'antagonism' 'hegelian' 'absolute' 'subjective' 'abstract'
 'opposite' 'notion' 'simple' 'impossible' 'back' 'subjectivity' 'radical'
 'return' 'quantum' 'universality' 'heidegger' 'analysis' 'no' 'non'
 'clearly' 'fully' 'universe' 'transcendental' 'nothing' 'entire'
 'revolutionary' 'not' 'again' 'consciousness' 'itself' 'two' 'cannot'
 'universal' 'unconscious' 'simply' 'symbolic' 'illusion' 'whole'
 'himself' 'modern' 'full' 'answer' 'exist']


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 result of its own absence. It is retroactivity if its loss. Self-consciousness is one important subjects in psychoanalysis according Lacan who de-substantizes into more modern field subjectivity . He considers state as self-consciously ethical substance person .

This chapter explores some important ideas put forward by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 - 1831). In particular, it centres on his concepts around 'self-reversal' and how this sheds light on global affairs. Other topics discussed include absolute reflection and concrete universality – both key aspects of Hegel's wider thought system known as 'idealism'.


Hegel's philosophy of science and religion are very different from what we find in the popular literature today.
The ideas in this chapter are important because they help us to understand how human beings are created and how they relate to one another.


Hegel believes that individuals must first accept that they exist in the past in order for things to really change.

Anderson does not believe in Hegel because he sees him as a "straw man" who has nothing to do with the actual content of his work.

The narrator uses the example of the 1920s collectivation of land as an example of Hegel's immobilism.

As can be seen, virtually all complex philosophical terminologies have been removed. These sentences given under each topic are now much more comprehensible.

For topic 0, I can clearly understand that Zizek is attempting to convey the fact that Christianity causes an alienation of the subject from himself and as Christ became God when killed on the cross, man becomes whole when he metaphorically removes Christ in his life. He uses the example of Palpatine becoming Darth Sidious when scarred by his fight with Mace Windu and that is able to wholeheartedly embrace himself and his destiny.

For topic 1, I can now clearly understand that Zizek argues that every whole object and subject is not as uniform as we believe it to be, but is composed of disparate parts, parts that sometimes act in contradiction with each other. It is through subjectivity that we perceive a complex, “disparate” subject or object as whole.

Topic 6 discusses Hegel’s concept of “self-reversal”, and how this causes a subject to be alienated even from himself, especially if he feels God abandoned him and there is a gap between himself and God.

Now of course, the sentences are still complex and philosophically minded. However, the complex terminology has been removed and we are left with easily digestible bite-sized sentences. This will allow us to get the flow of the book through given topics (topic 0 — Zizek’s view on Christianity and its lending to disparities in people, topic 1 — how whole objects are a combination of disparate pieces, etc.). In essence, we have a good flow and outline that will give us an inkling of the book and topics before we tackle it more in-depth.

So yes, I think GPT3 worked really nicely here. ;)

If you wish to follow and contribute to my project, please feel free to follow this link to my Github: https://github.com/danielmachinelearning/Philosophy_summarizer

Here, I have summarized other philosophy books besides “Disparities”, including “The Logical Alien” by Conant and “No Morality, No Self” by James Doyle. I plan to have more books up, along with some refinement of methods for a future post.