Chat GPT

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Martin van Creveld

Years ago when I was still at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, I used to teach a course named Early Modern Political Thought. Judging by the feedback mechanism’s results, it was the most successful course I ever gave—it regularly got 19 out of 20 possible point. So I repeated it many times. Focusing on original sources, we read parts of the works of Desiderius Erasmus, Nicolò Machiavelli, Emperor Charles V (the 1543 testament), Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Filmer, John Locke, and, when there were still some meetings left, Charles de Montesquieu.

Like most freshmen in most countries the students, most of them 21-22 years old and fresh out of the military, did not know anything about anything. To help them along while at the same time avoiding a waste of time, I made them do two things. First, prior to each meeting they were to read the assigned chapters. Second, each time we finished with one author and moved to the next one they were to present me with a short essay—about 1,000 words—explaining who he was, what he had written, and so on. I did not ask them for footnotes, but I did ask that they list the books or articles they had consulted. It worked; week by week, I would collect their essays, read them quite carefully, and annotate them; week by week, I saw their work improving. They in turn were very grateful, even to the point of telling me that my course was the best of the lot.

Since then much has changed. Probably the most important change has been the rise of political correctness, a monster if ever one there was which has made teaching literature, history and social science almost impossible. That, however, is not the development I want to talk about here. What I do want to talk about is the following text. It was composed, not by a human being but by an AI mechanism and available at ChatGPT. Having duly checked in, I asked it to provide me with a short essay about Machiavelli’s life and work. Soon it came up with the following text:

Niccolò Machiavelli is considered one of the most influential political philosophers in history, with his ideas and theories influencing political leaders for centuries. Born in Florence, Italy in 1469, Machiavelli was a diplomat, political philosopher, and writer during the Renaissance period.

One of Machiavelli’s most well-known works is “The Prince”, a political treatise that explores the concept of power and how leaders can maintain it. In this work, Machiavelli argues that rulers should be willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain their power, even if it means acting in ways that are considered immoral or unethical. This idea became known as “the ends justify the means”, and it has been widely debated and discussed by political philosophers and leaders throughout history.

One of the key themes in “The Prince” is the idea of “raison d’etat”, or the belief that the needs and interests of the state should always come before the needs and interests of the individual. According to Machiavelli, a leader should prioritize the well-being and stability of the state above all else, even if it means disregarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens. This idea is reflected in Machiavelli’s famous quote, “The first rule of a prince is to be able to be not good, if that is required to maintain his rule.”

Another key concept in “The Prince” is the idea of “fortuna”, or the role that luck and chance play in the success of a leader. According to Machiavelli, a leader should be aware of the role that luck and chance play in their success, and should be prepared to adapt to changing circumstances. However, he also believed that a leader could influence their own luck by being proactive and making decisive actions.

In addition to “The Prince”, Machiavelli also wrote a number of other influential works, including “The Art of War” and “The Discourses”. In these works, he explored themes such as the importance of military strategy and the role of citizenship in a republic.

One of the main criticisms of Machiavelli’s ideas is that they promote immoral and unethical behavior. Some have argued that his emphasis on the needs of the state and the willingness to use any means necessary to achieve power can justify authoritarianism and the suppression of individual rights. Others have argued that his ideas are necessary in order to maintain stability and protect the state.

Despite these criticisms, Machiavelli’s ideas continue to be widely studied and debated by political philosophers and leaders today. His work has had a significant influence on the development of modern political thought and continues to be a major influence on political leaders around the world.

In conclusion, Niccolò Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose ideas continue to be widely studied and debated today. His most famous work, “The Prince”, explores the concept of power and how leaders can maintain it, and his ideas have had a significant influence on the development of modern political thought. While some have criticized his ideas for promoting unethical and immoral behavior, others argue that his ideas are necessary in order to maintain stability and protect the state. Regardless of one’s perspective, it is clear that Machiavelli’s work has had a lasting impact on political thought and leadership.

Not half bad, don’t you agree? A bit pompous, yes. A bit bland. As if someone had decided to leave out anything a little bit interesting, let alone provocative or innovative; which, judging by what has been published about the way the program was created, is just what “someone” had done. But presumably good enough to pass the Turing test. Logically put together, without many of the things I used to warn my student against for years on end; such as leaps of thought, repetitions, or obvious semantic and grammatical errors. Better stuff than many students can produce on their own. Certainly not without having devoted some thought to what to put in (and in what order), what to leave out, why, and how; and so on, and so on.

Which, after all, is precisely what the exercise I made them do was all about and why they enjoyed doing it as much as they did.

Give Me Machiavelli Any Time

Posted on May 21, 2020 by Martin van Creveld

To anyone at all familiar with Indian history and philosophy, the Arthashatra needs no introduction. I myself was introduced to it over a decade ago by a German-American friend, Dr. Michael Liebig, who now teaches Indian cultural history at the University of Heidelberg. He told me that the author was widely considered the Indian Machiavelli, only much more cynical and much more callous. Later I discovered that one of his admirers is former U.S Secretary of State and Chief of the National Security Council Henry Kissinger, himself no small follower of the famous Florentine. It was, however, only during these corona-infested days that I finally got around to actually reading him. And writing down some comments on him, for my own benefit and, hopefully, my readers too.

First, the author. He has been the subject, not just of a single tradition but of at least half a dozen. Each associated with one of India’s subcultures, religions, and regions. As a result, there is very little about him that can be firmly established. Apparently his period of activity started about 330 and ended around 280 BCE. For part of that period he served as chief minister to at least two Mauri Emperors. As such he was involved in every aspect of contemporary statecraft—royal succession, intrigue (including the kind of intrigue that originates in harems), politics, economics, war (both internal, to put down insurrections, and external, against every kind of king, big and small), and what not. Many of the details appear fantastic. For example, that he once took a royal baby from his dying mother’s womb and placed it inside a goat, keeping it alive. And that, at one point in his career when he was living as an ascetic in a forest, he used a secret formula to manufacture no fewer than 800 million gold coins.

Next, the text. Long considered lost, it was known only from references in other works. Including a Greek-language one, Megasthenes’ Indika, which dates to the years around Kautilya’s death. In 1905 a copy, written on palm leaves, was discovered by a librarian in the Oriental Research Institute at Mysore. Internal evidence suggests that it was not, in fact, composed by a single person. Rather, in the form we have it, it is a compilation written, expanded and explained by various people at various times. The title, Arthashastra, is often translated as Politics. In fact, however, it refers to the acquisition and maintenance of material, or perhaps one should say worldly, gain—mainly wealth on the one hand and power on the other. As such it is on a par with two other traditions: Dharma (ethics, religious duty) on one hand and Kama (pleasure, desire) on the other. Joined together, these three are seen as the sum of human life. If not in all incarnations, at any rate in the kind in which not just Indians but all of us live to the present day.

To me the most intriguing aspect of the work, rarely noted by other commentators I have looked at, is the profound contradiction it seems to contain. At peak, the Mauri Empire comprised some two million square miles. More than the present-day state of India and including, in addition to today’s Central and Northern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Its population, which modern scholars have estimated at 50-60 million, was comparable to that of Rome at its height. To administer such a vast realm a sophisticated bureaucracy was needed; such as is, in fact, described by Kautilya. The top layer of the bureaucracy in question was formed by a royal council which was supported by a secretariat or chancellery. There were specialist departments responsible for, among other things, defense, intelligence (including espionage, a field that seems to have fascinated the author and on which he has much advice to offer), the treasury, commerce, auditing, weights and measures, the measurement of space and time, agriculture, mining, forestry (specifically including elephant-forestry), fisheries, and public works, weaving, liquor, and the supervision of prostitutes. Much business was transacted in writing, including secret writing. Rulers were surrounded by elaborate ritual and kept, or were supposed to keep, regular hours devoted to work, worship and leisure. Order and regularity seem to have been the watchwords; albeit that unexpected events on one hand and the peculiarities of individual rulers on the other might cause them to be disrupted.

There is, however, another side to this coin. From beginning to end, the emperor about and for whom Kautilya is writing is referred to as a “king.” That is OK—I do not claim to be a Sanskrit linguist. What I find surprising is that the king’s realm, a huge one by any standard, is said to be surrounded by those of other “kings.” So much so that they form first, second, and even third, four, fifth and sixth degree neighbors. Though not of equal strength, all are addressed by the same title. All are independent of each other, constantly negotiating with each other, stabbing each other in the back, and often fighting each other tooth and nail. Not to mention any number of “wild” peoples who keep rising against the kings and must be kept in check. In other words, what the text really describes is not an empire at all. It is, rather, an international system—a quilt made up of separate realms, many of them as small as they are diverse.

Those who are taking this are more likely to cialis generic tabs have a hemorrhagic stroke. This leads to a widening of blood vessels which supports in adequate blood supply to the sexual organs of the body. cialis 5mg price Complication of dysfunction problem There are a lot of complications of diabetes, which include impotence, neuropathy (loss of sensation or abnormal sensation). viagra brand No doubt, it sildenafil generic viagra is one of the known troubles and is faced by men at one pointof time or the other. However that may be, the text is meandering and, in its attempts to take the reader by the hand and lead him, often truly picayune. In this respect it is as unlike Machiavelli, who was a brilliant writer and stylist, as unlike can be. The following passage is typical:

When a friend does not come to terms, intrigue should be frequently resorted to. Through the agency of spies, the friend should be won over after separating him from the enemy. Or attempts may be made to win him over who is the last among combined friends; for when he who is the last among combined friends is secured, those who occupy the middle rank will be separated from each other; or attempts may be made to win over a friend who occupies middle rank; for when a friend occupying middle rank among combined kings is secured, friends, occupying the extreme ranks cannot keep the union.

This kind of text is about as exciting and as transparent as mud. Personally I find it hard to believe that even a Dr. Kissinger, however brainy he may be, can make himself read it without falling asleep. Consider the following:

A virtuous king may be conciliated by praising his birth, family, learning and character, and by pointing out the relationship which his ancestors had (with the proposer of peace), or by describing the benefits and absence of enmity shown to him. Or a king who is of good intentions, or who has lost his enthusiastic spirits, or whose strategic mean are all exhausted and thwarted in a number of wars, or who has lost his men and wealth, or who has suffered from sojourning abroad, or who is desirous of gaining a friend in good faith, or who is apprehensive of danger from another, or who cares more for friendship than anything else, many be won over by conciliation. Or a king who is greedy, or who has lost his men may be won over by giving gifts through the medium of ascetics and chiefs who have been previously kept with him for the purpose.

Or, or, or, or. The number of possibilities is endless. Each one is divided into branches, and each branch, having been further subdivided, must be explored in some depth. Here as in a great many other traditional Indian philosophical texts, the Kama Sutra specifically included, what we see is the author’s wish to be as systematic and as comprehensive as possible. No set of circumstances, no combination, and no eventuality must be left out. Even at the expense of clarity and readability.

I am reminded of what Clausewitz, in his introduction to On War, has to say about this kind of writing:

It is, perhaps, not impossible to write a systematic theory of war full of spirit and substance, but ours, hitherto, have been very much the reverse. To say nothing of their unscientific spirit, in their striving after coherence and completeness of system, they overflow with commonplaces, truisms, and twaddle of every kind. If we want a striking picture of them we have only to read Lichtenberg’s extract from a code of regulations in case of fire. “If a house takes fire,” he writes, “we must seek, above all things, to protect the right side of the house standing on the left, and, on the other hand, the left side of the house on the right; for if we, for example, should protect the left side of the house on the left, then the right side of the house lies to the right of the left, and consequently as the fire lies to the right of this side, and of the right side (for we have assumed that the house is situated to the left of the fire), therefore the right side is situated nearer to the fire than the left, and the right side of the house might catch fire if it was not protected before it came to the left, which is protected. Consequently, something might be burnt that is not protected, and that sooner than something else would be burnt, even if it was not protected; consequently we must let alone the latter and protect the former. In order to impress the thing on one’s mind, we have only to note if the house is situated to the right of the fire, then it is the left side, and if the house is to the left it is the right side.”

To return to the Arthashastra, give me Machiavelli any time.

Just Published! A Biography of Conscience

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Martin van Creveld

M. van Creveld, A Biography of Conscience, London, Reaktion, 2015.

Many would consider conscience to be one of the most important, if not the most important, quality that distinguished humans from animals on one hand and machines on the other. However, what is conscience? Is it a product of our biological roots, as Darwin thought, or is it a purely human invention? If so, how did it come into the world? Who invented it, where, when, and against what social background? What did the ancient philosophers have to say about it? How does it relate to religion, Judaism and Christianity in particular? How did conscience survive the secularization of the Western world after 1600 or so, and where is it today? Are there any societies that, not recognizing the idea of conscience, have developed and used other methods for internalizing social control? If so, what are those mechanism like?

Patients having surgery or radiation therapy for the pediatric population helps children from birth through to eighteen years of age. online ordering viagra Using condoms can also cialis generic price help because it will reduce the effectiveness of this medicine. A sample pack will consist of 14 pills. 12 pills will be generic versions of buy tadalafil mastercard while 2 will be of the super force version of cialis. You’ll notice that your cat is losing weight drastically even though she eats more than usual, And this is actually cialis pill not a good idea, You should never try extended haircut whenever you’re not extra large a sufficient quantity of.

The present volume, the only one of its kind, attempts to provide answers to these and other questions. Well-documented but written in simple, jargon-free language, it starts in ancient Egypt. From there it leads all the way to present day campaigns aimed at hammering issues such as human rights, health and environmental into our consciences. Readers will learn about the Old Testament which, erroneously as it turns out, is normally seen as the fountainhead from which the Western idea of conscience has sprung. They will also meet Antigone, the first person on record ever to explicitly speak of conscience, syneidēsis in Greek, as a basis for action.

Next they will encounter the philosophers Zeno, Cicero, Lucretius, and Seneca; outstanding Christian thinkers such as Saint Paul, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and, above all, Luther with his famous saying, “here I stand, I cannot otherwise;” as well as modern intellectual giants. The list opens with Machiavelli, the man who, drawing a sharp line between private and public behavior, admitting conscience into the former but not into the latter. Next come Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and Burton Skinner.

Separate chapters are devoted to Japan and China. Both are societies that, rather than relying on conscience as a method of social control, put their trust in shame and reverence instead. There are chapters dealing with the Nazis—starting with Hitler and proceeding downward, did the Nazis have any kind of conscience at all?—as well as the most recent discoveries in robotics and brain science. On the way readers will follow the evolution of conscience in many of its numerous, occasionally strange and even surprising, permutations.

The book concludes by arguing that, the claims of workers in artificial intelligence and brain science notwithstanding, we today are no closer to understanding the nature of conscience than we have ever been. In the words of one contemporary computer expert cum psychotherapist, probably we shall be able to build machines able to mimic conscience before we ever know what conscience really is.