4 ms·

If this line of thinking is new to you, I recommend David Foster Wallace's excellent (if somewhat long) essay, "Consider the Lobster". http://www.columbia.edu/

If this line of thinking is new to you, I recommend David Foster Wallace's excellent (if somewhat long) essay, "Consider the Lobster". http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf

eatbitseveryday 3y ago
Wrong URL? Gives 404.
LeifCarrotson 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230325034108/http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20230325034108/http://www.columb...
nervousvarun 3y ago
Also "Lobsters" by Charles Stross. https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/acceler...
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Dave Arnold's essay on killing lobsters is a good practical complement to Wallace's theory: https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood-anesthesiologist-and-kill-your-4th-of-july-lobster/ https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood...
the_doctah 3y ago
The great philosopher Kurt Cobain once said "It's OK to eat fish because they don't have any feelings"
NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
Consider the Lobster is pretty sophomoric from the philosopher's point of view. I'm a big DFW fan otherwise, but he's out of his depth here.
- davidthewatson 3y ago
  You should make the point clearer on the sophomoric philosopher's point of view that you refer to. I've read the DFW essay in question, and found it amusing though I'm out of my depth as a philosopher. With this in mind, I asked bard for clarification and it said: "The consensus among eminent philosophers with respect to David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" is that it is a thought-provoking and challenging essay that raises important questions about the ethics of eating animals. The essay has been praised for its intelligence, wit, and originality, and it has been cited as an important contribution to the debate about animal rights. Some philosophers have argued that Wallace's essay provides a strong case for vegetarianism or veganism. They argue that lobsters are sentient creatures who can experience pain and suffering, and that it is therefore wrong to kill them for food. Others have argued that Wallace's essay does not go far enough, and that we should also consider the ethics of eating other animals, such as cows, pigs, and chickens. Still others have argued that Wallace's essay is not primarily about animal rights, but is instead about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life. They argue that Wallace's essay raises important questions about what it means to be a conscious being, and about the relationship between humans and other animals. Whatever one's views on the ethics of eating animals, "Consider the Lobster" is a powerful and thought-provoking essay that deserves to be read and discussed. Here are some specific examples of how eminent philosophers have responded to "Consider the Lobster": Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, has praised the essay for its "beautiful and moving" exploration of the "moral status of nonhuman animals." Peter Singer, a philosopher at Princeton University, has called the essay a "powerful and important" contribution to the debate about animal rights. Cora Diamond, a philosopher at the University of Virginia, has argued that the essay "challenges us to think more deeply about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life." Overall, the consensus among eminent philosophers is that "Consider the Lobster" is a valuable and important work that deserves to be read and discussed." So if the AI thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on DFW's lobster points, who is it that you are referring to with respect to your phenomenological comment without any empirical evidence? I can't say that bard is perfect empirically but my speculative intuition is that the quoted references are correct without taking time to verify them.
  - 3y ago

eatbitseveryday 3y ago

Wrong URL? Gives 404.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230325034108/http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20230325034108/http://www.columb...

nervousvarun 3y ago

Also "Lobsters" by Charles Stross. https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/acceler...

kevinmchugh 3y ago

Dave Arnold's essay on killing lobsters is a good practical complement to Wallace's theory: https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood-anesthesiologist-and-kill-your-4th-of-july-lobster/ https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood...

the_doctah 3y ago

The great philosopher Kurt Cobain once said "It's OK to eat fish because they don't have any feelings"

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago

Consider the Lobster is pretty sophomoric from the philosopher's point of view. I'm a big DFW fan otherwise, but he's out of his depth here.

davidthewatson 3y ago
You should make the point clearer on the sophomoric philosopher's point of view that you refer to. I've read the DFW essay in question, and found it amusing though I'm out of my depth as a philosopher. With this in mind, I asked bard for clarification and it said: "The consensus among eminent philosophers with respect to David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" is that it is a thought-provoking and challenging essay that raises important questions about the ethics of eating animals. The essay has been praised for its intelligence, wit, and originality, and it has been cited as an important contribution to the debate about animal rights. Some philosophers have argued that Wallace's essay provides a strong case for vegetarianism or veganism. They argue that lobsters are sentient creatures who can experience pain and suffering, and that it is therefore wrong to kill them for food. Others have argued that Wallace's essay does not go far enough, and that we should also consider the ethics of eating other animals, such as cows, pigs, and chickens. Still others have argued that Wallace's essay is not primarily about animal rights, but is instead about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life. They argue that Wallace's essay raises important questions about what it means to be a conscious being, and about the relationship between humans and other animals. Whatever one's views on the ethics of eating animals, "Consider the Lobster" is a powerful and thought-provoking essay that deserves to be read and discussed. Here are some specific examples of how eminent philosophers have responded to "Consider the Lobster": Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, has praised the essay for its "beautiful and moving" exploration of the "moral status of nonhuman animals." Peter Singer, a philosopher at Princeton University, has called the essay a "powerful and important" contribution to the debate about animal rights. Cora Diamond, a philosopher at the University of Virginia, has argued that the essay "challenges us to think more deeply about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life." Overall, the consensus among eminent philosophers is that "Consider the Lobster" is a valuable and important work that deserves to be read and discussed." So if the AI thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on DFW's lobster points, who is it that you are referring to with respect to your phenomenological comment without any empirical evidence? I can't say that bard is perfect empirically but my speculative intuition is that the quoted references are correct without taking time to verify them.
- 3y ago