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 βnatureβ, 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 βnaturalβ 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?
Thanks, Sayem π I think, they would generally say that all we have at any given time is our best theories about nature. As least Seneca says things to that effect in several places.
An example is letter 64.7:"Much work remains to be done, and always will: nothing prevents those born a thousand generations hence from making their contribution".
Also this made me think about how radically and fast our standards of a good life keeps changing. Today a lot of us complain that using their phones a lot and not reading enough. About two centuries ago Schopenhauer was complaining about how people are reading a lot and not thinking enough.
But is our standards actually changing? It seems to me that for thousands of years the masses have been craving for wealth and success while philosophers and priests have been trying to steer them towards a spiritual 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.
I agree entirely and it makes me very happy to hear you of all people say that :-)
Great read! I do have a query though.
When stoics talk about βnatureβ, 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 βnaturalβ 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?
Thanks, Sayem π I think, they would generally say that all we have at any given time is our best theories about nature. As least Seneca says things to that effect in several places.
An example is letter 64.7:"Much work remains to be done, and always will: nothing prevents those born a thousand generations hence from making their contribution".
Thanks! That was helpful. I will read more.
Also this made me think about how radically and fast our standards of a good life keeps changing. Today a lot of us complain that using their phones a lot and not reading enough. About two centuries ago Schopenhauer was complaining about how people are reading a lot and not thinking enough.
I'm sure that when bow and arrow were invented someone complained that it would lead to a loss of skills π
But is our standards actually changing? It seems to me that for thousands of years the masses have been craving for wealth and success while philosophers and priests have been trying to steer them towards a spiritual life.
I agree. The fundamental struggle certainly remains the same. Only the methods and tools seem to change.