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.
I don’t think it’s that the philosophical debates will become irrelevant in your example, so much that your example demonstrates…
I agree with what you’re saying, but I want to bring up a possible non-sequitor: I’m confused by why the…
Exactly! The question is not whether AI is conscious or forms human-like intentions. The question is whether AI–in carrying out…
Unfortunately, this piece seems quite out of date now that the Hugging Fact incident has been exposed. I’m not sure…
This is a very strange comment. Searle’s Chinese Room, and his general position on intentionality, were controversial, and criticized (correctly,…
Hey Paul, thanks for giving this a shot! If want to send me your transcript or the broad outlines of…
Something that gives me pause is the very idea that the relevant issues (AI consciousness, welfare, etc.) could be resolved…
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