Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2023, 7:25 amWhat is the current enthusiasm to introduce AIs into every topic currently being discussed? Have I missed something? I agree that AIs are a matter we should discuss, but in every topic? I see no obvious philosophical connection between AI and all these topics.
I could understand it if the Subjective/Objective debate kept popping up. It does exist at the fundament of nearly every philosophical discussion. But AI doesn't, I don't think. So why are there AIs everywhere?
thrasymachus wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2023, 10:25 am I suppose it can be helpful, but AI nothing novel or insightful to say and I find little more than recapitulations.Interesting and insightful responses Yes, 'to put down the book' would be an argument that can be applicable when it concerns AI and I would agree with it.
...
I think Kierkegaard was right in saying Hegel simply forgot that we exist! He wanted us to put down the book, and allow the world to "speak" what it is. Heidegger used the almost cliched term 'gelesenheit' to talk about this.
...
There is an argument.
The suggestion of AI was meant as a help-tool for study. As it enables to 'inquiry' into works it might facilitate unique new learning paths that are driven by the human's own topical curiosity which seems to result in an optimal learning condition. Of course it should be paired by actual reading of works.
To give an example. When Levinas started in his book Totality and Infinity to describe the concept Eschatology as the foundation for peace and respect I used AI to get insights into that concept relative to Levinas his philosophical works (all his works combined).
For example consider this question: How would Eschatology relate to Art from the perspective of Levinas?
It resulted in the answer that Levinas viewed art as an 'inhumanity' which was an interesting insight that I might never have obtained otherwise.
"Levinas's views on art are complex and sometimes contradictory. In his essay "Reality and Its Shadow," he criticizes art as being disengaged from ethical concerns. He argues that art is more concerned with the representation of reality than with the ethical relationship between the self and the other. Art, according to Levinas, is an "inhumanity" and an "inversion" of ethics. However, he also acknowledges the importance of artistic expression in conveying the ineffable and transcending the limits of language."
My first critical idea would be: what is true reality otherwise than an Other? (I've had this idea in the back of my mind to explore: why limit Levinas his idea to humans?) When an artist attempts to connect with (beauty in) true reality it seems to me to be the most ethical relationship with the self and the Other.
Could Levinas be wrong about art?
I then questioned further about my own idea that 'eschatological vision (as intended by Levinas, not the religious type, but a vision of beyond history or beyond the totality of the world) is the pure source of art and that it is love from the artist that is the source of the eschatological vision that results in true art and that the eschatological vision by which art is created enables viewers of that art to connect and establish an ethical relationship with the Other' (which is the idea that is mentioned in the OP based on the quote of Plato's vision on beauty) and whether Levinas might be wrong about art.
Corresponding idea of Plato (quoted in the OP): Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.
The AI misinterpreted it a bit. My view is that the eschatological vision of the artist (that of beauty in reality) is the source of art. But its answer was none-the-less interesting.
"The appreciation of beauty in art can open one up to an eschatological reality, as seen in Tolkien's work. For many people, the encounter with beauty through art serves as the best introduction to heaven. It can be argued that the ethical aspect of love from the artist could be the source of eschatological vision in art.
While Levinas's philosophy does not directly address the idea that eschatological vision is required for art as its pure source, it does provide insights that suggest this could be possible. Love from the artist, particularly the ethical aspect of love, could be the source of the eschatological vision that results in art."
It costed about 10-15 minutes time and (in retro-perspective) it was truly an amazing learning experience with content that I might never have come across otherwise.
AI would not replace reading the works and 'putting down books' is certainly applicable but the example shows unique new learning abilities that are made possible by AI that might be exceptionally beneficial for the study of philosophy, especially for beginners en new students.