I have read the most of your dialogues with ChatGPT. You are the best of the two interlocutors, in the sense of asking the right questions (and also of having the entire insight on an issue).
It is wonderful to notice that this machine, considered as the doorstep to a new era of human intelligence, is based on dialogue. I think this could be the real revolution. Our return to dialogue.
When stoics talk about “nature”, do they assume it to be a static entity? In my understanding nature and humans exist in a kind of relationship that keeps changing both of them. My idea is inspired from Marxist conception of nature that there can be no transhistorical notion of what is “natural” but only relevant to specific historical circumstances. Or is there a part of nature that is static and immutable, which should form the basis of an ethical life?
I enjoyed that.
I have read the most of your dialogues with ChatGPT. You are the best of the two interlocutors, in the sense of asking the right questions (and also of having the entire insight on an issue).
It is wonderful to notice that this machine, considered as the doorstep to a new era of human intelligence, is based on dialogue. I think this could be the real revolution. Our return to dialogue.
Great read! I do have a query though.
When stoics talk about “nature”, do they assume it to be a static entity? In my understanding nature and humans exist in a kind of relationship that keeps changing both of them. My idea is inspired from Marxist conception of nature that there can be no transhistorical notion of what is “natural” but only relevant to specific historical circumstances. Or is there a part of nature that is static and immutable, which should form the basis of an ethical life?