A new dog eats the man who fed it, should it be punished?

 A justice will heal the beast's rotten soul, shouldn't Hamlet help? 

The world is changing, could Hamlet understand it all without taking action? 

Hamlet's character willing, he chooses to find “direction through indirections”

“Who is there?”

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act II, Denmark's “most immediate to the throne,” Prince Hamlet* is not his former self under the watchful eyes of the court (II.2.51, II.2.58). Hamlet explains his change to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, friends from university, “I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises, and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the Earth, seems to me a sterile promontory.” (II.2.318) He could be saying these words premeditatedly (I.5.187, II.2.402, II.2.386) to deceive the court. Recently, he had to reconcile with his mother Gertrude’s hasty marriage to his uncle Claudius, now King, (I.2.161) unfortunately a month after his father’s funeral. He also experienced an unnatural event of conversing with a ghost that asked him to take revenge, claiming it was his father’s soul and his father was murdered by his uncle (I.5.29). Hamlet is in the process of finding out the truth and figuring out what his true will is.

As a result, the court finds Hamlet distempered, lunatic, and mad. For example, Ophelia, Hamlet’s lover, finds him in her closet, “with his doublet all unbraced, No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, Ungartered, and down-gyvèd to his ankle, Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, And with a look so piteous in purport” (II.1.87). It is true that he walked into her private closet, and it could have been due to a madness for her “love,” but it is not a shape any prince of Denmark would usually portray, especially “The glass of fashion and the mold of form, Th’ observed of all observers” (III.1.167) as Ophelia used to know Hamlet.

“Get thee to a nunnery” 

Not only is Hamlet personally frustrated with his inaction about the request of the ghost to avenge his father’s murder, but he also finds himself not delighted with the people in Denmark (II.2.386). Everything around him seems “Most foul, strange, and unnatural” because of his mother’s marriage to his uncle, and change of people’s attitude once his uncle became king. In other words, the world is not working the way he thought it did, and especially, the people are not showing moral character or virtue. This lack of delight in people explains his treatment of Ophelia and Polonius, a counselor to the King and Ophelia’s father. Therefore, he claims Denmark is the worst prison with “many confines, wards, and dungeons” (II.2.265).

But we also see that he didn’t lose his pride and his best (V.2.224, II.2.593). Hamlet wrote his heartfelt wish to Ophelia; he said, “Doubt thou the stars are fire, Doubt that the sun doth move, Doubt truth to be a liar, But never doubt I love” (II.2.124). That love might have been towards her, but the mere fact that he really loves implies that he is a believer of some sort of ideal truth. In other words, he doubts everything, but he doesn’t doubt he loves. Through that love, he wants to see life as what it is and lead a life for something worthy and in a serious manner, like a priest (I.5.187) seeking to understand the God, or a Socratic scholar questioning his will**, or a scientific statistician modifying the likelihood of the truth after a new piece of information becomes available (I.2.23).

“Mark me!”

One of the things Hamlet loves is theater. For example, when Hamlet shared with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he had lost all his mirth, that life seemed empty, and that men no longer delighted him (II.2.318), they knew that Hamlet would enjoy the players coming to Elsinore by smiling at Hamlet’s melancholic speech. Moreover, his respect and reverence for the theater can be seen when Hamlet defines theater as “the abstract and brief chronicles of the time” (II.2.549) and encourages Polonius to treat the traveling players with honor and dignity (II.2.555). Furthermore, Hamlet might have performed in a play at the university, as his acting skills shine in his recital of Aeneas’ tale about Priam’s slaughter. Not only did he know a part of the play by heart, but he was also able to give advice and coach the players. 

“Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me”

To enjoy the theater, Hamlet asks the players to perform the Murder of Gonzago, and he requests them “for a need, study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which [Hamlet] would set down and insert in ’t.” What was the need? I argue that Hamlet hoped to grasp the ultimate guiding principles in the chaos he finds himself in. Once the players came to the Elsinore, he found an even better way to observe human life, including his by “adding some dozen or sixteen” lines to the Murder of Gonzago, the play he requested. By adding lines, Hamlet wanted to make it even more similar to his own struggle in his mind to let theater do what it does—to reflect nature, and especially the nature from his perspective—to understand himself, and possibly to remember (I.5.89). Hamlet’s advice for theater players was that the best theater should “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature” (III.3.18). This philosophy of theater supports the argument above that he wanted the players to resolve his own struggle to understand what is going on within and outside of him, and to allow himself to see as the observer as his understanding of the world is changing. If the theater did its best depicting nature from his perspective, he might have understood it fully picking up on something he might have missed. 

The Murder of Gonzago must have been very similar to Hamlet’s own experience. The request to play modified version of The Murder of Gonzago came right after Hamlet’s and the First Player’s recital of Aeneas’ Tale about Priam’s slaughter, which depicts old Priam being slaughtered by Pyrrhus, and Priam’s wife, Hecuba, showing devotion to him after his death. The speech that Hamlet recited right away shows that the play was in his mind as he struggled with what to do about the ghost’s request. From this, we might formulate the theme of the Murder of Gonzago. Priam’s slaughter is quite similar to the story that the Ghost depicted, except that old Hamlet was poisoned in his ear during his nap time and Gertrude married Claudius. The Murder of Gonzago might have also depicted a similar story of a righteous king in his old age getting killed by an unworthy person who claimed his fortunes (III.4.63) even though the play doesn’t fully disclose what the play might have entailed; therefore, The Murder of Gonzago could have depicted the nature and experience that Hamlet was going through in his head. 

“Do it, England”

Ultimately, Hamlet decides to trap Claudius with a play that reflects the story of his father’s murder to acquire a data point that would be crucial for making a decision. Remembering was not enough for Hamlet. The First Player’s recital of the slaughter of Priam, and how the player was moved by Hecuba’s devotion to her husband Priam and her loss of everything, shook him to realize that he has a duty to take action not just understand—to show character, not just share what he found as existence and observe what he already knew. He didn’t want to continue existing as “a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, and can say nothing” (II.2.593), which equaled being self-absorbed and having no courage to act. In order to say something, he needed more information about Claudius’s true form and decided to trap Claudius with his play The Mousetrap, the play-within-play, to trap his confession with the help of the players (II.2.617), changing his focus from understanding his experience to seeking more information important for taking the right action (II.2.630).

Textual Evidence

1. (II.2.51) “the very cause of the Hamlet’s lunacy”

2. (II.2.58) “distemper” 

3. (I.5.187) “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet To put an antic disposition in That you, at such times seeing me, never shall With arms encumbered thus, or this headshake, Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase.” 

4. (II.2.402) “I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.“

5. (II.2.386). “Gentlemen, you are welcome to Elsinore. Your hands, come then. Th’ appurtenance of welcome is fashion and ceremony. … You are welcome. But my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived” 

6. (I.2.161)“She married. O, most wicked speed, to post With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! It is not, nor it cannot come to good.” 

7. (I.5.29) “If thou didst ever thy dear father love-, Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder”

8. (II.2.386) “it is very strange: for my uncle is King of Denmark, and those that would make mouths at him while my father lived give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats apiece for picture in little. Sblood, there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out” 

9. (V.2.224) Hamlet has “been in a continual practice” of sword fighting since the first act

10.  (II.2.593) “I will have these players Play something like the murder of my father Before mine Uncle…The play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King”

11.  (I.5.187) “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” 

12.  (I.2.123) “I pray thee, stay with us. Go not to Wittenberg.”

13.  (II.2.318) “this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’er hanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire-why, it appeared nothing to me but a foul and pertinent congregation of vapors.…. Man delights not me, <no,> nor women neither.”

14.  (II.2.555) “Use every man after his desert and who shall ‘scape whipping? Use them after your honor and dignity.”    

15.  (III.4.63) “Look here upon this picture and on this, The counterfeit presentment of two brothers See what grace seated on this brow…. This was your husband. Look you now what follows. Here is your husband, like a mildewed ear Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes? 

16.  (II.2.617) “guilty creatures sitting at a play Been struck so to the soul that presently They have proclaimed their malefactions.” 

17.  (I.5.89) Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me. The play-within-play helps with remembering Ghost’s words: “Let not the royal bed of Denmark be A couch for luxury and damned incest” and to take earthly revenge for his uncle and heavenly revenge for his mother.

18.  (II.2.630) He doubts the ghost because the hell might be playing with him using “weakness” and “melancholy.”  

*Shakespeare introduces Prince Hamlet as a student from Wittenberg, a city known for its university that taught Renaissance humanism and was the world center of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to his return, Hamlet led the life of the first modern man, immersed in a world where multiple systems of thought clash: Catholicism, Protestantism, classical philosophy, Viking shamanism. During this time, Hamlet’s worldview was also influenced by the recently enabled international travels, technological advancements, and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Within this multicultural “globe,” Hamlet constantly modified his understanding of the world as new information became available, pursuing his true will rather than merely acting on whim. 

** The change of Hamlet's idea to stage modified the Murder of Gonzago, transforming it into "The Mousetrap" is an example of a Socratic process to understand his true will. After his encounter with the ghost, Hamlet went melancholic and could not take action, choosing to observe rather than act. Possibly he thought about Socrates' argument that it is better to be a victim than to commit evil without truly understanding one's will. This aligns with Socrates' question in Gorgias, "But does he do what he wills if he does what is evil?" Hamlet's inaction shows Socrates' teaching to clarify one's true will to avoid doing evil due to the perceived/apparent good. As Socrates states, "if the act is not conducive to our good we do not will it; for we will, as you say, that which is our good, but that which is neither good nor evil, or simply evil, we do not will." This philosophical teaching from Wittinberg explains Hamlet's inaction, but as an ethical struggle to align his actions with his true will in a morally ambiguous and multicultural world, where the soul of the wrongdoer might rot without justice, which Socrates preferred, while the pursuit of justice itself might lead to evil because we don’t have the full information. 

In Plato's Meno. Socrates asks, “Do you see, Meno, what advances he has made in his power of recollection? He did not know at first, and he does not know now, what is the side of a figure of eight feet: but then he thought that he knew, and answered confidently as if he knew, and had no difficulty; now he has a difficulty, and neither knows nor fancies that he knows.”

This moment of perplexity—realizing that the sides of a square with an area of 8 are not 3, even though squares with areas of 4 and 16 have side lengths of 2 and 4, respectively—highlights the non-linear relationship between area and side length. At first glance, one might assume a linear connection, but deeper reflection reveals otherwise. 

R. said, "that would be definition Meno offered in the beginning where every activity can have its best way to practice it, shining the lights of the virtue for that activity. However, Socrates wanted to find the essence of the virtue, therefore imagining something beyond those, not?"

A. said, "I think Socrates pulled his own recollection technique to get himself out of the wrong conclusion of what virtue is. Right after he starts trying to understand what made the virtues Pericles and other merchants and statesmen who were known for possessing virtue, he stumbled upon asking questions that were not directly related to what virtue is but to the questions of could it be taught and have these great men being able to teach and show to their children their virtue and how to practice it."

Z. said, "What is virtue? Is it knowledge? Could you learn this? When I teach my students, memorization doesn't help them but understanding of the why helps them to achieve success. Every student seems to have the internal urge to organize and make sense of things as I see them put together toys and categorize them into different bins by their color or kinds. It is not the matter of just teaching and learning what virtue is but it is about practicing that virtue as you have understood the different why. Students all show the potential for greatness and good. Even we see it in the movies, some characters start off being very good people, but things happen and they corrupt. The virtue must be a practice and way of life. It probably cannot be taught. I see it in my students. They come with their gifts and weaknesses. For every student, the path for growth and what virtue means is different for them. For some it is the patience. For some it is the courage."

N. said, "Did Socrates conclude that virtue is divine and it cannot be taught, it is a form of knowledge but we don't know what the essence of it is even though we get little close to it with thoughtfulness, courage, kindness, and prudence? This dialog helped us to learn what the Socratic method is. But we are still perplexed as the numbing fish Socrates did his questionings."

I thought there is promise to good life through that pursuit to possess virtue and seek human greatness. That human excellence opportunity exists and "Will to Truth" could be helped with the Socratic method. Seeking the truth and understanding might help us reach the virtue as we question and recall what we know and what we need to know to ask better questions. Gaining virtue unfortunately might not be knowledge therefore something that can be assisted by the Will to Truth and Socratic methods. As Socrates remembers, "Spartans say that man is divine." There needs to be strength in the heart that is nurtured by the environment and good friends who lead you to your better side, helping you win the battle against yourself.

There I remembered Nietzsche's quote I have on my notepad in the shower that goes, "anything that is weakening is depriving, anything that is empowering is [good?]" If someone wants to possess and learn virtue, you really need to focus on what empowers you and try to stay away from anything that weakens you so that you might end up acting virtuous at the right time. We shall will it to power and rise to virtue, enabling us to fight corruptive effects on our character. Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols clearly reminds us to be aware of what causes what. Is it virtue that produces happiness or happiness that causes virtue? Seeking virtue to be happy and powerful in our self-discipline and autonomy might have been wrong direction of causation all this time. When I think of myself, whenever I was less stressed and happy, I was more virtuous in my character. Whenever I was stressed and trying hard, I made more mistakes. So I think if you want to have virtue and live with virtue, will it to power! As you will it to power, you will have the virtue to will it to Truth. However, this conclusion I have in my head might be just wrong. Time will tell.

Sophocles’ King Oedipus shook me. It made me question free will, the age of innocence, and the old way of assigning blame without fully understanding others. What struck me most was how the characters in King Oedipus seem so assured of their own and others’ impulses—so certain of their reasoning, their conclusions, their understanding of the world. They assume intentions with unwavering confidence, acting as though every decision is clear-cut, every motive obvious. This is radically different from the characters in Hamlet, who are paralyzed by introspection, self-doubt, and hesitation.

It is a stark contrast in worldview—one where the past is an immutable script, fate an inescapable force, and human action merely an unfolding of an already written story. The modern mind, like Hamlet’s, is burdened by the weight of possibilities, while Oedipus and those around him act with an unflinching belief in the certainty of things.

The World of King Oedipus: A Place of Certainty

From the very beginning of the play, Oedipus does not hesitate. The city is plagued, and he seeks to uncover why. The priest approaches him, saying:
"Oedipus, ruler of my land, you see the age of those who sit on your altars… For the city, as you yourself see, is now sorely vexed, and can no longer lift her head from beneath the angry waves of death." (Oedipus the Tyrant, 14)

Oedipus does not waver. He immediately declares,
"Be sure that I will gladly give you all my help. I would be hard-hearted indeed if I did not pity such suppliants as these." (14)

He does not pause to reflect on the limitations of human knowledge or question his ability to solve the crisis—he acts, and he does so with certainty. His resolve is unwavering when he proclaims:
"I will start afresh, and once more make dark things plain… I will uphold this cause, as though it were that of my own father, and will leave no stone unturned in my search for the one who shed the blood." (132)

This certainty extends beyond Oedipus himself. The entire world of the play assumes that things happen for a reason, that the gods dictate fate, and that actions are explainable with black-and-white precision. When Tiresias hesitates to reveal the truth, Oedipus does not question the nature of prophecy or the limits of human knowledge—he simply assumes a conspiracy, declaring:
"You blame my anger, but do not perceive your own: no, you blame me." (330)

There is no hesitation, no second-guessing. Actions are interpreted as clear, intentions are presumed, and consequences are met with stoic acceptance once revealed.

Contrast with Hamlet: The Age of Uncertainty

Compare this to Hamlet, where almost every action is delayed by introspection. Hamlet’s defining feature is hesitation. His famous soliloquy—"To be, or not to be, that is the question"—is the complete opposite of Oedipus’s immediate action. Oedipus does not ask whether he should act; he acts. Hamlet, on the other hand, wonders if he should do anything at all.

When Oedipus is accused, he retaliates with a full-fledged accusation. When Hamlet is presented with a possible truth—that Claudius killed his father—he devises a test, a play within a play, to confirm it. Hamlet distrusts certainty. Oedipus assumes it.

Even when faced with absolute proof, Hamlet still hesitates. He catches Claudius praying and debates whether he should kill him right then and there. Oedipus, by contrast, does not hesitate for a moment when he believes Creon has betrayed him—he moves straight to threats:
"Hardly. I desire your death, not your exile." (616)

Oedipus assumes treachery. Hamlet questions whether treachery exists at all.

The Cultural Difference: A World Without Innocence

This certainty in King Oedipus is not just a personality trait—it reflects a different way of seeing the world. In ancient Greece, everything had a place, an order. Fate was clear, and so were human actions. People acted out of self-interest, and that self-interest was an accepted and expected truth. When Oedipus demands answers, no one stops to wonder if the question itself is flawed. He accuses Creon outright of treason, and Creon responds not with Hamlet-like defensiveness, but with a logical counterargument:
"Weigh this first—whether you think that anyone would choose to rule amid terrors rather than in unruffled peace, granted that he is to have the same powers." (583)

Creon is logical, not introspective. He does not say, "I wonder if I could have done something to give that impression." He simply lays out the facts: Why would I do this? It makes no sense.

Today, we live in a world of nuance. We assume good intentions. We analyze, second-guess, and hesitate before jumping to conclusions. But in the world of King Oedipus, there is no such hesitation. If someone has done something, their intent is clear. Jocasta, pleading with Oedipus, begs him:
"Unhappy men! Why have you made this crazy uproar? … Stop making all this noise about some petty thing." (649)

To her, this is not the unraveling of some great metaphysical truth—it is a pointless argument. The characters do not wrestle with their inner selves the way Hamlet does. Even when Oedipus realizes the truth, there is no reflection—only action. He blinds himself without questioning whether this is the best response. He simply declares:
"It is better to be blind. What sight is there that could give me joy?" (1367)

The Legacy of King Oedipus: A World Before Doubt

The world of King Oedipus is a world before the age of innocence. It is a world that assumes people act in self-interest, that the world has a rigid order, and that everything—fate, human motives, divine justice—is explainable with certainty. In contrast, Hamlet exists in a world of ambiguity, where humans are unpredictable, where good and evil blur, where action is never quite justified.

This might explain why King Oedipus still feels so alien to modern audiences. It operates on an assumption we no longer share—that certainty is possible. The play assumes, without question, that if a man commits a crime, he must be punished. No room for doubt, no space for subjective interpretation. Hamlet, by contrast, spends the entire play trying to justify one action, and even then, he only takes it at the last possible moment, when all other options have disappeared.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Oedipus is not his fate, but his certainty. The belief that he must uncover the truth, that he must act, that he must punish himself. Today, we might tell Oedipus to step back, to reflect, to seek therapy instead of punishment. But in his world, there is only one response: clarity, action, consequence.

Observations of Celestial Motion

• Regular Circular Motions: Ptolemy observes that the fixed stars move in perfectly circular paths. Their steady, unvarying motion suggests an underlying geometric order. This regularity is most easily explained if the stars are fixed on a rotating celestial sphere.
• Variation in Circle Sizes: He also notes that stars near the celestial pole trace smaller circles, while those farther away describe larger ones. This pattern fits exactly with what we expect on a spherical surface, where circles centered on the pole shrink as one moves closer to it.

These clear, observable features form the basis of the claim that “the heavens move like a sphere.”

Key Elements Considered in Ptolemy’s Studies

• Fixed Stars: These stars serve as the permanent backdrop. Their constant, circular motion is taken as evidence that they are embedded on a single, rotating sphere.
• Moving Stars (Planets): In contrast, the planets—often called “wandering stars”—follow more complex paths. While Ptolemy later explains these motions using additional tools like epicycles, the core idea remains that they too move on or within a spherical framework.
• The Earth, Sun, and Moon: Besides the stars, Ptolemy also examines the motions of the Sun and Moon. Their observed paths (especially the Sun’s motion along the ecliptic) further support a geocentric model in which the Earth is immobile at the center of the spherical heavens.

By analyzing these components, Ptolemy builds a consistent picture where the diverse motions of the celestial bodies can be seen as variations on a single, unified geometric theme.

Theories Explaining How Celestial Objects Move

Ptolemy and his predecessors considered several models for celestial motion:

1. Spherical Heavens Centered on the Earth: This is the favored model. It posits that the heavens form a complete, rotating sphere with the Earth fixed at its center. On a sphere, the variation in the sizes of the stars’ circular paths arises naturally. This model is simple and directly matches the observations.

2. Alternative Cosmic Arrangements: Other models were proposed, including:

• Flat or Dome-Like Configurations: These models had difficulty explaining why stars near the pole would trace smaller circles than those farther away.
• Complex Geometrical Constructions (Nested Spheres, Epicycles): While these could mathematically reproduce the observed motions, they required additional assumptions and lacked the natural elegance of the spherical model.

3. Additional Proposals:

Some thinkers suggested more radical ideas:

• Heavens Moving in a Straight Line: This theory posited that the heavens might move in a straight line instead of circular paths, but it fails to account for the recurring, closed loops observed.
• Heavens That “Kindle and Then Die”: Another idea was that the celestial bodies were transient, igniting and then extinguishing in cycles. However, such a process would not match the constant, enduring appearance of the stars.

After evaluating these options, Ptolemy rejected the alternatives on both observational and logical grounds. Only the geocentric spherical model naturally reproduces the regular motions seen in the heavens.

To conclude: 

Chapter 3 of the Almagest delivers a clear message: the celestial sphere is a complete, rotating sphere. Ptolemy shows that the regular circular motions and the systematic variation in circle sizes among the stars are best explained by this spherical model. By considering fixed stars, the planets, and the motions of the Sun and Moon, he builds a coherent, unified picture of the cosmos. This chapter leaves us with a simple, yet powerful insight: the universe, as seen from Earth, is governed by the natural, inevitable geometry of a sphere.

I’ve been diving into The Almagest, translated by G.J. Toomer, and the first chapter gave me deep insights into philosophy, mathematics, and the nature of knowledge. Here are my key takeaways:

1️⃣ The Divide Between Practical and Theoretical Philosophy

Philosophy is divided into two parts: practical and theoretical. Practical philosophy can often be learned through experience—people can possess moral virtues without formal teaching. Theoretical philosophy, on the other hand, requires instruction and study. Practical wisdom improves through action, while theoretical knowledge grows through deep inquiry.

2️⃣ Mathematics as the Most Certain Knowledge

The discussion highlights three divisions of theoretical philosophy: physics, mathematics, and theology. Physics studies the material and changing world, making it unstable and uncertain. Theology deals with what is beyond perception, making it speculative. Mathematics, however, remains unchanging, eternal, and the most reliable form of knowledge. It serves as a bridge between the material and the divine, capable of supporting both physics and theology.

3️⃣ Mathematics as Our Language for the Physical World

One passage that truly stood out to me was:

"As for physics, mathematics can make a significant contribution. For almost every peculiar attribute of matter becomes apparent from peculiarities of its motion from place to place. Thus, one can distinguish the corruptible from the incorruptible—whether it undergoes motion in a straight line or in a circle, heavy from light, or passive from active, whether it moves towards the center or away from the center."

This is a beautiful description of how mathematics allows us to describe the nature of the physical world—how we categorize motion, weight, and forces. Mathematics has been our human language for encoding the attributes and qualities of reality. But now, with the rise of AI and machine learning, we are seeing a new way to represent the physical world—through neural network weights.

What if these AI systems, by learning from vast amounts of data, could encode the laws of physics in ways we can’t yet fully comprehend? Could these neural networks serve as a new kind of mathematical language, capturing not just the mechanics of the universe, but perhaps even the deeper truths that theology seeks to understand?

This makes me wonder—are we at the beginning of a paradigm shift in how we define and discover truth? Would love to hear your thoughts!

#Philosophy #Mathematics #AI #MachineLearning #Physics #TheAlmagest #Knowledge #IntellectualGrowth

Style

Training 

Issues with Socrates

Issues with the Church

Way to deal with Nihilism

Causation might not be there

To conclude:

What I learned from reading Parmenides' (540 BC) fragments, which were preserved in Simplicius's commentary:

The old argument was whether the world is composed of small parts that make up the whole or whether the whole is just one big, unified whole. One of the thinkers who believed that the universe and the world are one big unchanging whole was Parmenides. This belief had implications for justice and how we perceive meaning in our life experience.

According to Parmenides, truth ("what it is") is one, continuous, and has no beginning or end. He argued that the whole has no beginning, reasoning that "if it came from nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner?" Therefore, he encouraged us to seek knowledge by focusing on the whole rather than on fragments, appearances, and human-named objects.

First, he was wrong in claiming that we cannot learn from negations ('what it is not'). Actually, we have learned a great deal by modeling our knowledge probabilistically, using information we gathered from what does not exist. 

Secondly, He argued that the big whole "remains constant in its place; for hard Necessity keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side." Here he might have been wrong here partially because, in physics, we have identified that the universe is expanding. This is shown by the light we receive on Earth, which is redshifted (its wavelength is longer than it would be if the planets and stars were stationary). 

He is partially correct because however, he is saying, I think, that there is an underlying universal physical law. In the end, I think we can remember that the law—the divine, as Parmenides calls it—is constant. Quantum mechanics, which is probabilistic in nature, helps us model the known "what is." In the end, atomic theory and quantum mechanics are tools for describing and understanding the universe, but the fact remains that life is deterministic (even the knowledge from modeling the indeterministic microscopic pieces in quantum mechanics). Whether the universe is expanding or staying the same is a fact. It is binary. The whole and truth is constant.

Parmenides might have been wrong in suggesting that we should seek knowledge only by thinking about what is real, rather than considering negation and what does not exist. But he might have been right in his final that there is a law that unites everything and that we are part of the whole. The most life-affirming aspect of his philosophy was his belief that we can learn about "what is" and the whole from anything we encounter. In the end, he suggested, learning one thing leads to learning them all.

Hannah Arendt wrote about what she thought of a top-ranking Nazi, Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem after World War II. She argued that Eichmann's evilness resulted from the banality of evil—or at least, I think that's what she meant. I never understood what she meant by "Banality of Evil." But does my LLM understand what Hannah Arendt meant by "Banality of Evil"?

Without the context of the trial, you and I might interpret "Banality of Evil" in various ways. Large Language Models run into the same problem too if they don't know the context. But when I say context, I mean the real context of the outside world—not just words and written history, but also images, videos, and audio. In other words, LLMs and we need to see what Hannah Arendt saw in the Eichmann Trial to be grounded in the real world to truly understand her.

In natural language, which is not transparent but very context-heavy, there are many ways "Banality of Evil" can be interpreted. Since we cannot prove whether the various ways a text can be interpreted are finite or infinite, we cannot prove that it is computable in finite time to check if its meaning exactly equals something. Therefore, we cannot check if the LLM's meaning of "Banality of Evil" matches Arendt's. The paper attached shows the limitation of not grounding LLMs with something other than text in order to check if they truly understand meaning. In other words, we cannot prove whether the various ways a language with variables like "Banality of Evil" could be interpreted are finite or infinite, nor can we prove or assert that the LLM's understanding of "Banality of Evil" would align with Hannah Arendt's using a computer.

What do we mean by a language with variables? You should agree with me that English is a variable language because you must have used the Oxford Dictionary now and then to understand, perhaps, what Hamlet was saying in his soliloquies. Whereas if you form a language using only integers, 1 + 1 is a transparent language, and you can assert, for example, 1 = 0 + 1 or 1 + 1 = 2 and check that the meanings match. On the other hand, (X + 1) is a form of a language with a variable. Since X might have an infinite number of possible options, it becomes a non-transparent language and not computable to check the meaning's correctness because we don't know whether there would be finite options for X or infinite options for X. Therefore, we could not test if the meanings match. It is like the idea of constantly uncovering new layers of meaning. There is always more to explore and understand, potentially leading to Kant's "infinite regress," where you can always delve deeper into the analysis.

If you have taken some CS, you might remember the concept of compilers. Compilers translate human-readable computer language into computer-readable CPU instructions. From the paper, you can learn how to check if meaning is correct through assertions. For example, you can check or assert if 1 = 1, and it will return true. Similarly, you can learn how our brains are like compilers that are reading the written code, whether in Python, SQL, Java, or C. We compile the code in our heads to understand the order of execution that would happen in the computer once the code is compiled. The person who wrote the code is imagining and trying to assert what the actual Python compiler would do, agreeing on the meaning with the computer at each line while writing the code.

Unfortunately, checking if LLMs understand the "Banality of Evil" as a variable in our English language is not computable in finite time with computers—just as you and I might differ in our understanding of "Banality of Evil" due to the definition of the word "justice." By grounding LLMs in the outside world through images, audio, and video, we could check/assert if an LLM's understanding of "Banality of Evil" matches Hannah Arendt's.

For further reading, check out: Provable Limitations of Acquiring Meaning from Ungrounded Form: What Will Future Language Models Understand? at https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10809