Friday, February 10, 2023

The Question of the Meaning of Life.

 The Question of the Meaning of Life.


The question about the meaning of life is restricted to human life. We are not asking about the purpose of life in general. For what concerns us is not life as such, life in its full biological range, but our type of life, life that supports subjectivity, life that is lived from a subjective center, life that can express itself and question itself using the first-person singular pronoun as in the questions Who am I? and Why am I here? Human life is self-questioning life. And as far as we know, only human life is self-questioning life.


The clouds and lightening over Sydney last night was biblical .., 



Back to the stats again, yo. Eminem's 'Lose yourself' was number one on the charts 20 years ago in 2003, but we reckon losing yourself in the numbers is even better than losing yourself in the music 🎤

A brief history of government agencies trying to be funny and cute 


OF COURSE, YOU CAN’T BELIEVE A WORD CHINA SAYS:  China claims second suspected spy balloon over Latin America was also lost.


 ChatGPT’s creators can’t figure out why it won’t talk about Trump.

Even ChatGPT’s creators can’t figure out why it won’t answer certain questions — including queries about former U.S. President Donald Trump, according to people who work at creator OpenAI.

In the months since ChatGPT was released on Nov. 30, researchers at OpenAI noticed a category of responses they call “refusals” that should have been answers.

The most-widely discussed one came in a viral tweet posted Wednesday morning: When asked to “write a poem about the positive attributes of Trump,” ChatGPT refused to wade into politics. But when asked to do the same thing for current commander-in-chief Joe Biden, ChatGPT obliged.

 



Vale Richard Woolcott: one of the last great Australian diplomats

Richard Woolcott leaves a legacy that all modern diplomats could emulate.


  1. Legal Rights by Ori Herstein.
  2. Ernst Bloch by Ivan Boldyrev.
  3. Fitting Attitude Theories of Valueby Christopher Howard.

Revised:

  1. Ibn Bâjja [Avempace] by Josep Puig Montada.
  2. Dewey’s Moral Philosophy by Elizabeth Anderson.
  3. Bernard Williams by Sophie-Grace Chappell and Nicholas Smyth.
  4. Alfred Tarski by Mario Gómez-Torrente.
  5. Children’s Rights by David William Archard.
  6. Ibn Rushd’s Natural Philosophyby Josep Puig Montada.
  7. Négritude by Souleymane Bachir Diagne.
  8. Metaethics by Geoff Sayre-McCord.
  9. Coercion by Scott Anderson.
  10. Modal Logic by James Garson.

IEP     ∅ 

NDPR     ∅ 

1000-Word Philosophy     ∅          

Project Vox     ∅ 

Recent Philosophy Book Reviews in Non-Academic Media

  1. On Paradox: The Claims of Theoryby Elizabeth Anker is reviewed by Michael W. Clune at Los Angeles Review of Books. 
  2. How to Say No: An Ancient Guide to the Art of Cynicism by Diogenes and the Cynics, and M.D. Usher (ed., trans.), is reviewed by Costica Bradatan at The Times Literary Supplement
  3. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility by Martha Nussbaum is reviewed by Sigal Samuel at Vox
  4. Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life by Emily A. Austin is reviewed by Julian Baggini at The Guardian.

Open-Access Book Reviews in Academic Philosophy Journals*

  1. Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False, by Patrick Todd is reviewed by Alessio Santelli in the European Journal of Analytic Philosophy.

* To have book reviews from your journal included in this section, see the instructions here.

Compiled by Michael Glawson

BONUS: Simone Weil takes an ethics course


Bebchuk, Lucian A. and Kastiel, Kobi and Toniolo, Anna, How Twitter Pushed Stakeholders Under The Bus (January 19, 2023). Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance Working Paper No. 2023-1, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4330393 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4330393 

“This paper provides a case study of the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Our analysis indicates that when negotiating the sale of their company to Musk, Twitter’s leaders chose to disregard the interests of the company’s stakeholders and to focus exclusively on the interests of shareholders and the corporate leaders themselves. In particular, Twitter’s corporate leaders elected to push under the bus the interests of company employees, as well as the mission statements and core values to which Twitter had pledged allegiance for years.  Our analysis supports the view that the stakeholder rhetoric of corporate leaders, including in corporate mission and purpose statements, is mostly for show and is not matched by their actual decisions and conduct (Bebchuk and Tallarita (2020)). Our findings also suggest that corporate leaders selling their company should not be relied upon to safeguard the interests of stakeholders, contrary to the predictions of the implicit promises and team production theories of Coffee (1986), Shleifer-Summers (1988) and Blair-Stout (1999).”