MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…
The discussion here assumes an institutional context where returning to supervised in-person assessment is at least theoretically feasible, a reasonable…
Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…
Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.
I see this question as a bit naïve. There is metadata on every document created by a modern word processor…
There’s a simple way to test. Open a pre-2022 essay and copy-and-paste it into a new file.
At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…
MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
Fun discovery! But will it really revolutionize our understanding of Locke? I was under the impression that the general view of scholars was that OF COURSE Locke had read Hobbes. When I was a freshman in college (back when Lyndon Johnson was president) my tutor(*) in "History and Politics 1" said that Hobbes was in such disfavour that Locke felt he had to CLAIM not to have read him, but that at least one of his political works, having Filmer's "Patriarcha" as its ostensible topic, was really a response to "Leviathan".
(*) a Straussian, so maybe predisposed to see hidden subtexts.
I agree with Allen Hazen that I doubt many scholars have thought Locke didn't read Hobbes (or Spinoza, for that matter). By the way, are there a lot of famous philosophers who weren't vain, lazy, and pompous?
John Rawls was none of those things….. Is he famous enough?
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply