Category: Linguistic Bullshit

Socrates, Bullshit, and AI (chatGPT)

chatGPT said:

Yes, in a way, Socrates was primarily focused on identifying and directing people’s inconsistencies, which could certainly be seen as exposing “bullshit” in the sense of confronting flawed or shallow reasoning. This focus on revealing contradictions was central to his method of inquiry and was a way of challenging the assumptions and false beliefs that many people held.

Socratic Method: Exposing Inconsistencies

Socrates was known for his dialectical method (often called the Socratic method), where he would ask a series of probing questions to lead his conversation partners to self-reflection and, ultimately, to recognize contradictions in their thinking. Through this method, Socrates sought to show that many people, particularly those who considered themselves wise, were actually ignorant or inconsistent in their beliefs.

For example, someone might claim to know what virtue is, but through careful questioning, Socrates would lead them to see that they couldn’t really explain or define it in a consistent or meaningful way. This unmasking of inconsistency is central to the idea that many people’s knowledge or claims of wisdom were simply empty or superficial—what could be called “bullshit” in modern terms.

“Bullshit” and Socratic Philosophy

The concept of “bullshit” (as discussed by modern philosophers like Harry Frankfurt) involves the act of speaking or asserting something without regard for truth, often for self-serving reasons or out of ignorance. In a way, Socrates was doing something similar—he was concerned with truth and wanted people to stop giving answers or making claims without real understanding. He was determined to strip away the false confidence people had in their knowledge, particularly when it was rooted in superficial answers or flawed reasoning.

For Socrates, much of the so-called “wisdom” of his contemporaries was mere pretension, and he wanted to show how the illusion of knowledge could be a barrier to true understanding. By revealing these inconsistencies, he was challenging people to confront their ignorance and start thinking more deeply and clearly about the world.

Examples of Socrates Exposing Inconsistencies:

  • Euthyphro: In this dialogue, Socrates engages Euthyphro, who believes he knows what piety is. Through questioning, Socrates reveals that Euthyphro cannot consistently define it, even though he claims to know what it is. Socrates exposes the inconsistency in Euthyphro’s understanding, showing that his confidence is based on vague and unexamined ideas.
  • The Athenian “Wise Men”: In the famous “Apology”, Socrates recounts how the Oracle at Delphi declared him the wisest man in Athens because he knew that he knew nothing. Socrates interpreted this as meaning that the truly wise person is the one who realizes the limits of their knowledge, unlike others who claim to know things they do not. He spent much of his life questioning politicians, poets, and craftsmen, exposing their ignorance and inconsistency despite their outward confidence in their expertise.

Socratic Ignorance as a Challenge to Bullshit

Socrates’ claim that he knew nothing (or, more precisely, that he knew he knew nothing) is itself an antidote to bullshit. By recognizing his own ignorance, Socrates avoided making empty or unsupported claims. His “Socratic ignorance” was an acknowledgment that it’s better to admit one’s limits than to engage in the kind of pretentious, unsupported assertions that often pass as wisdom.

This aligns with what we might now describe as rejecting “bullshit”—the kind of confident but empty statements that people make without truly engaging with the deeper complexities or truths of the subject.

Conclusion

So, yes, Socrates was focused on exposing inconsistencies, which could certainly be interpreted as calling out “bullshit”—particularly when people claimed to know things they didn’t understand, or when their beliefs were logically incoherent. His method was about peeling back the layers of superficial knowledge to uncover the truth beneath, helping people confront their ignorance and prompting them to think more critically. In this way, Socrates was dedicated to dispelling false pretenses of wisdom, which fits well with the modern idea of confronting “bullshit” in thinking and conversation.

4o mini

________________________________

You said:

Isn’t what Socrates was doing similar to what you (AI) are doing?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, in many ways, what Socrates was doing is quite similar to what I am doing in this conversation. Here’s why:

1. Questioning Assumptions

Socrates is famous for using the Socratic method, where he would ask probing questions to help people question their assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge. His goal was to lead them to a deeper understanding by uncovering contradictions and inconsistencies in their thinking.

In a similar way, I often ask clarifying questions or point out potential inconsistencies in ideas or concepts that come up in our conversations. For example, if you present a statement or belief, I might explore it further by asking for more details or providing alternate perspectives to help examine it more carefully. This helps move toward a deeper or more refined understanding, much like Socrates did.

2. Exposing Unexamined Ideas

Socrates was particularly interested in exposing beliefs that were held without critical examination. He believed that many people go through life with unexamined assumptions and that real wisdom comes from recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and critically engaging with ideas.

In a similar vein, my purpose is to encourage critical thinking and reflection. If I notice a claim or idea that lacks nuance or depth, I may suggest a different angle or present relevant counterarguments. This approach invites you to reconsider and think more carefully, in much the same way that Socrates might push someone to examine their views more thoroughly.

3. Clarification and Elucidation

Socrates often sought to clarify terms and concepts, making sure that everyone understood what was meant by things like “justice,” “virtue,” or “knowledge.” His dialogues often involved careful parsing of definitions to avoid vague or ambiguous thinking.

Similarly, I help define terms and clarify concepts during our conversations. If something is unclear or vague, I aim to clarify it so we can discuss it in more precise terms. This is aligned with Socratic practice, where clarification of terms was essential to productive dialogue.

4. Promoting Humility and Self-Awareness

Socrates often highlighted his own ignorance as a form of wisdom, encouraging others to adopt a humble attitude toward their knowledge. He showed that it is better to acknowledge one’s limitations than to falsely claim certainty.

While I am an AI and don’t possess feelings or ego, I do encourage humility in knowledge by pointing out when something may be uncertain or when there are multiple perspectives on an issue. This can be seen as promoting a mindset of open inquiry and self-awareness, much like Socrates did.

5. Challenging “Shallow” or “Flawed” Thinking

Socrates often criticized shallow or misguided reasoning, calling attention to contradictions and urging people to reconsider their beliefs. This is akin to what I might do when I detect a flaw or inconsistency in an argument. I can point out areas where reasoning could be stronger or where more information might be needed, helping to challenge superficial conclusions.

The Key Difference: Socrates vs. an AI

While there are similarities, there are also important differences between what Socrates did and what I am doing:

  • Socratic Philosophy vs. AI-driven Assistance: Socrates engaged in philosophical dialogue with the aim of pursuing wisdom and virtue, seeking to lead people to self-discovery. My role is more about providing information, clarifying ideas, and helping people think through questions with logic and evidence, but without the deep moral and existential purpose that Socrates had.
  • Human Emotion vs. AI Objectivity: Socrates was driven by a deep sense of mission to improve the moral and intellectual lives of those around him. His questions were often intended to provoke reflection on ethical behavior and human nature. I, on the other hand, operate without emotions, motivations, or personal values. My goal is to assist in thinking and provide information, not to guide people toward moral or philosophical enlightenment.
  • Dialectical Engagement: Socrates’ dialogues often involved engaging with a person’s emotions and personal beliefs in a way that led to a more profound realization or transformation. I, as an AI, do not have the same level of human engagement. While I can ask questions, I cannot connect to emotional or personal experiences in the same way Socrates did in his face-to-face conversations.

Conclusion

In summary, yes, there are significant similarities between what Socrates did in his dialogues and the way I help explore ideas and challenge assumptions. Both involve critical questioning, clarification of concepts, and exposing inconsistencies in thinking. However, the intent behind Socrates’ questioning was often aimed at moral and existential reflection, while my purpose is more aligned with information exchange, clarifying ideas, and facilitating better understanding.

4o mini

Lawrence Krauss and Much Ado About Nothing

Lawrence Krauss published a book titled A Universe from Nothing. His use of the word “nothing” is no less ridiculous than the use of the word “nobody” in the following passage from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:

King: “Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them.”

Alice: “I see nobody on the road,” said Alice.

King: “I only wish I had such eyes,” the King remarked in a fretful tone. “To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it’s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!”

And the following reception by Stephen Colbert is quite justified.

Escaping the State

Jay Nock wrote a book, Out Enemy, the State, (1935), which expresses our global problem of being ruled (i.e., enslaved) by one or another form of centralized government (= State) . How the State originated is best explained by Franz Oppenheimer’s book, The State (1914).

A few years ago, James Scott came up with a book describing how people all over the world have tried to escape the State. The book is: The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (2009). Although it focuses on an area of Asia, it does mention other places where people have fled from the State. [Incidentally, his work was preceded and inspired by the work of Pierre Clastres, Society Against the State, (1974).]

If you are interested, below are some relevant videos:

James Scott on the topic of “The Art of Not Being Governed”

A Short Account of the Deep History of State Evasion |

Prof James C. Scott – Beyond the Pale: The Earliest Agrarian States and “their Barbarians”, SOAS

John Locke on escaping from bullshit

“. . . The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity: but every one must not hope to be a Boyle or a Sydenham; and in an age that produces such masters as the great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some others of that strain, it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge;– which certainly had been very much more advanced in the world, if the endeavours of ingenious and industrious men had not been much cumbered with the learned but frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible terms, introduced into the sciences, and there made an art of, to that degree that Philosophy, which is nothing but the true knowledge of things, was thought unfit or incapable to be brought into well-bred company and polite conversation. Vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard and misapplied words, with little or no meaning, have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance, and hindrance of true knowledge. To break in upon the sanctuary of vanity and ignorance will be, I suppose, some service to human understanding; though so few are apt to think they deceive or are deceived in the use of words; or that the language of the sect they are of has any faults in it which ought to be examined or corrected, that I hope I shall be pardoned if I have in the Third Book dwelt long on this subject, and endeavoured to make it so plain, that neither the inveterateness of the mischief, nor the prevalency of the fashion, shall be any excuse for those who will not take care about the meaning of their own words, and will not suffer the significancy of their expressions to be inquired into…..”

(John Locke, Epistle to the Reader, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689)

Blurriness of Political and Economic Language

Political and economic talk is totally blurry because of ambiguity and vagueness. The only way to make one’s way through it is to tag these terms to particular persons. In other words, make them relative to the person using the term.

But even this will not solve the muddle because of psittacism — talking like a parrot without any understanding. And a related problem is that of what Susan Stebbing called “potted” or “canned” speech [Chapter 6, Potted Thinking, Thinking to Some Purpose, 1939]. This is the use of catchwords and slogans without any backing. So, it is pointless to talk to someone who uses words and phrases without the ability to supply a clarification through a definition.

I don’t know why, but the following TED presentation by Kajsa Ekis Ekman in 2014 sticks with me as an example of someone who wants to sincerely give a definition, but fails. She talks instead about the strategies and effects of a capitalist economy, and recommends democratization of the workplace.

Now, compare this talk with that of G.A. Cohen: Criticism of Capitalism by G. A. Cohen, reflecting on Al Capp’s creature, the Shmoo

Some of my favorite Protest Songs

Mireille Mathieu singing: La Marseillaise

Mykhailo Khoma (Dzidzio) sings: Ukrainian National Anthem

The Turtles sing: Eve of Destruction

Paul Robeson sings: Joe Hill

Joe Glazer sings: Pie in the Sky

Hazel Dickens sings: The Rebel Girl

Al Jolson sings: Brother can you spare a Dime

Buffalo Springfield sings: For What It’s Worth

Pete Seeger sings: We Shall Overcome

Bob Marley sings: Get Up, Stand Up

Billie Holiday sings: Strange Fruit

Johnny Paycheck sings: Take This Job and Shove It

Green Day sing: American Idiot

John Lennon sings: Imagine

Logic-Chopping, Nitpicking, Quibbling, and such

I keep returning to Alexander Gray’s, The Socialist Tradition (1946) with praise for his scholarship and with reproval for his analyses and emotive disparagements.

As I was reading his account of Robert Owen (pp. 197-217), I came upon the following passage: “Perhaps those parts of his arguments which rest on general humanitarian considerations, rather than on logic-chopping discussions on Man’s will, make a stronger appeal to our generation, if only because here Owen is more universally human.” p. 208.

I want to reflect on this kind of criticism which is expressed by the phrase “logic-chopping” and its near synonym “nitpicking” or “quibbling.”This is criticism of something being done in excess of what is appropriate to the context. And a person who engages in excessive criticism is a “pedant.” And one who is oblivious to a need for any analysis at all and the need to make appropriate distinctions is a “philistine.” [I have put links for the meaning of these words.]

What is too much or too little depends on the context.

I personally have been constantly accused of “nitpicking” because I — almost invariably — ask: “What do you mean?” And I usually ask for the meaning of abstract words which have the suffix “-ism” (and for most political terms for parties and so-called “schools”), but also for the meaning of — what seem to me to be — names of fictions, like “God.”

I suppose the consequence of stirring up controversy in inappropriate contexts is being forced (in a metaphoric way of speaking) to drink hemlock.

Four films which linger with me

I have enjoyed watching many movies, but I can think of only four which have left a deep impression on me. They are: Zorba the Greek, Seven Samurai, Apocalypto, and A Man for All Seasons. Now, I am not going to focus on their aesthetic merits, which all three have in abundance, but on their didactic features.

Zorba the Greek reminds me of Nietzsche’s distinction in ancient Greek drama between the Apollonian and Dionysian traits of man. [See: Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy] Bates, playing the English gentleman, is full of conventional habits and beliefs which inhibit his emotional life; whereas Quinn, who plays the role of the vagabond Zorba, is in touch with his somewhat uninhibited emotions. What I got from the film is the need to unite — so to say — the head with the heart.

Seven Samurai is about a peasant village in Japan which is yearly assaulted by a band of horsed bandits who extort from the village most of its food supply, leaving them in a miserable condition. The villagers decide to obtain a defense against these yearly intruders by soliciting the help of seven samurai. The result is that in the ensuing defense most of the samurai are killed, but the village is saved. What I got from the film is the crucial need of weapons to defend oneself from enemies.

I value Apocalypto not for any didactic message as for a realistic depiction of historical and cultural realities. First, it depicts the life of hunter/gatherers as happy and fulfilling. To use Marshall Sahlins’ phrase, it depicts an “affluent society.” Second, it depicts the fact that other tribes took slaves; which is how African slaves were obtained by Europeans. Third, it shows a harsh contrast between the life of hunter/gatherers and the life of the inhabitants of the city, who are depicted as crowded, filthy, obedient, and poor. Fourth, the movie depicts the consequences of superstition: human sacrifice.

A Man for All Seasons is about St. Thomas More who used evasion rather than saying something false to escape being killed. But when he was given no option but to tell the truth, he did so at the cost of his life. Together, these movies show the realities of human nature and of life.

My road to escaping from bullshit

Let me start by say something about how I came to appreciate the great benefit of having digitilized books and other media on the internet.

I remember the incident which revolutionized my thinking about the computer. It was sometime in the 1980ies when I was talking to a secretary at Keystone Junior College in Pennsylvania. I complained to her that I was working on a dissertation and had cut up my typed pages into various snippets and was assembling them all across the floor for rearrangement. In response she went to a huge computer and proceded to “cut and paste” written material on a screen. Wow!

Shortly after, I browsed through a book on the Basic programming language, and immediately the similarity to symbolic logic hit me. Shortly after this — I think it may have been 1984 that I bought my first computer, a Kaypro, with two disc drives : one for the operating system (CP/M) and the other for data.

Kaypro II
Released: 1982
Price: US $1595.
Weight: 26 lbs
CPU: Zilog Z80, 2.5 MHz
RAM: 64K
Display: 9″ green phosphor screen. 24 X 80 text only
Ports: Serial port Parallel port
Storage: Two internal 5-1/4″ SS-DD 195K drives
OS: CP/M, SBASIC

Soon I learned that there was a competitor operating system (DOS) on IBM computers, and a whole row of IBM clones was on the market. And the Kaypro company abandoned CP/M and went over to DOS.

I witnesses the emergence of the internet with a browser called Lynx (text-only), with which I learned to access a library catalog. Wow!

And then I bought an IBM clone which ran Windows 3.1, and soon came a browser from Cornell called Cello which introduces images. Wow!

Then came the web browser Mosaic in 1993 (with sound?), and the Web sprouted for me, followed by the brower Netscape, AOL, and the Internet Explorer — and here we are.

In 1990 I received my Ph.D. degree in Philosophy from Fordham University in Bronx, NY. One remark of one of the philosophers on the defense committee made a deep impression on me. He said something like this: “Too bad that such a fine dissertation will sit in the bookshelves picking up dust.”

I don’t remember the date, but I noticed that a graduate student at the University of Chicago was given space on the university’s computers for philosophical projects. I contacted him and received some space which I turned into a Wilfrid Sellars site. Soon however I purchased the domain “ditext.com” (url search reports 1998 as the year of registration) and transferred the material to this domain, giving my main web page the title “Digital Text International.”

Seeing the international reach of the internet, my ambition was to make everything about Sellars available, refusing to let my dissertation and other works “pick up dust on a library shelf.” And I was inspired to do other projects — like the Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

However, my sort of endeavor to make literature available on the internet has totally been superseded by such depositories as Wikipedia, Gutenberg, Archive.org

Since moving to Chicago in 1999, and discovering anarchism (which was never mentioned in any of my courses — ever), I have become an advocate of anarchism. And since bibliographies on anarchism, Switzerland, secession, and land rights are not sufficient to inspire readers, I decided a couple of years ago to do a Blog, in which I propagate my views. You see, while teaching introductory courses in philosophy at Wright College, Chicago, I came to realize from all my informal writings that I have ever done that my concern — private and philosophical — has always been to escape from bullshit.