Skip to main content

An absurd AI generated question

 


The following is from QUORA.

Why do some people believe that the concept of God preceded philosophy, even though influential philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard were atheists who believed in God before them?

Huh? 

This was an AI-generated question, and it illustrates how absurd AI can get. I'm not sure what it means to say that the "concept of God" preceded philosophy. Let us make things easier by speaking of "worship".  The worship of gods certainly preceded philosophy.  Heck, the worship of a single supreme capital-G God may be said to go back to around 1350 BCE, a long time before Thales. So it happens to be the case that our earliest record of worship of God precedes what we generally call philosophy. What sense does it make to ask why people believe such a plain truth?  

But then the AI generated question takes a  really weird turn. The evidence that shows that the "concept of God" is not so old is attributed to a trio of philosophers, the first of which was Kant, who were "atheists who believed in God".  What? 

And what is the significance of the last two words. Is it still chronological? The three 19th century "atheists" believed that God preceded the "people who believe"? Or is "before them" taking its non-chronological meaning here, as in "is this a dagger I see before me?" In neither case does it make sense out of the identification of the three of them as atheists! 

If some human had put forward this question I would be ashamed for our species.  


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more