Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  2. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  3. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  4. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  5. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  6. Mark's avatar
  7. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

“Vain, lazy, and pompous”

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.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 responses to ““Vain, lazy, and pompous””

  1. 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.

  2. Charles Huenemann

    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?

  3. David Zimmerman

    John Rawls was none of those things….. Is he famous enough?

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress