6 ms·
A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
- hmokiguess 2mo agoGreat, now do Apologize by Timbaland from the lenses of Schopenhauer
- ignoramous 2mo ago> from the lenses of Schopenhauer Ha! Analysing (deconstructing?) poems was part of primary schooling in middle eastern traditions wherein Philosophy & Cosmology were considered to be the highest form of Knowledge (informed by Avicenna's ideas on pedagogy & education): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399623059_Islamic_Educational_Values_in_Poetry_as_Pedagogical_Resources_for_Character_Education https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399623059_Islamic_E...
- xianshou 2mo ago[flagged]
- jambalaya8 2mo agoI was going to say for "What Goes Around Comes Around" by Timberlake, or maybe "F--- it, I don't want you back" by Eamonn, myself. Schopenhauer though. Great minds.
- jubilanti 2mo agoYeah yeah Schopenhauer, but Nietzsche's eternal recurrance is just sitting there!
- cyanmagenta 2mo agoJustin Bieber is a utilitarian rather than Kantian. From a UChicago economics view, he is behaving rationally.
- nmz 2mo agoIf utilitarianisms only interest is the consequence of the action and whether it resulted in a positive outlook. the consequence that we care about is "your body" and if "sorry" is uttered in time, then we can receive the reward, If in the relationship you say sorry and there is an expectation of all actions being forgiven, then, this is the ultimate get out of jail free card. it is infinite because you can always use it, therefore although there is recognition of wrongdoing (at first), there is no need for a preventative measure to take place, because the recognition only looks at the consequence of reverting the status of "wronged" to "righted", not about the causes of the status "wronged" to have happened. This leads to an infinite loop of wrongful actions. What would happen if we constantly said "sorry" unnecessarily at a set interval, which we'll call the canadian way, there would always be our desired consequence and no wrongdoing to ever take place! Without the recognition and admittance of wrongdoing, the wrong action itself will repeat forever in the relationship because its tolerable. making it an infinite get out of jail free card. If this was a system, fault tolerance would be at 100%, the error rate is probably the highest in any system that could exist, if it was code, then there wouldn't even be such a thing as bugfixes, the only recourse is "have you tried rebooting it?" method of recovery systems. Of course if the fault tolerance was not 100% then everything would be different.
- BubbleRings 2mo agoFunny. Take a simple pop song about apology and make an academic treatise on what a heartfelt apology looks like. On the other end of the spectrum would be to summarize it in the shortest form with the simplest words, instead of with many and multi-syllable words. How about this (not mine, I’ve heard this in addiction recovery rooms, where apologies and amends are often discussed): In the sentence “I’m sorry I did x, but you did y”, the word “but” means “disregard the above.”
- Waterluvian 2mo agoI agree with the sentiment. But, Whenever I catch myself reaching for “but” I recognize it is because I need to feel heard. What I did was unacceptable. But I didn’t do it in a vacuum and I need my grievances to be recognized. My belief is that omitting the “but” phrase is an act of faith. You need to trust that the other party cares about your feelings and side of the issue, too. Accepting an apology is just as delicate an act as giving one. “I’m sorry I hit you with the blue shell.” “I appreciate you saying that. I know you were in last place and that must have felt awful. I don’t want that for you either.”
- repeekad 2mo agoSo, you don’t agree with the sentiment?.. /s
- hmokiguess 2mo agoI find you can almost always replace “but” with “and” in situations like those and end up more heard by the other side. I understand the urge to feel heard AND whenever we bring something that may contrast we risk the disagreement connotation that “but” carries to trigger the recipient’s defensive reaction (even if unconsciously)
- Waterluvian 2mo agoFirst rule of relationships: adhere to the first rule of improv!
- henrydark 2mo agoSong also proves Bieber is a dualist "cause I'm missing more than just your body" What else does she have that he misses?
- andai 2mo agoDank memes. She has dank memes on her phone.
- ocodo 2mo agothis subtree suggests HN has indeed become old.old.Reddit...
- tclancy 2mo agoYou're not clocking it?
- srveale 2mo agoBieber in this case refers to body as in "corps", the subject's collective professional or military associations. He laments the loss of power he enjoyed stemming from the subject's erstwhile allegiance.
- SamBam 2mo agoIt's a heartfelt apology to the UN, but, as the article says, too late.
- Sharlin 2mo agoHer money?
- tgv 2mo agoOr it proves he's not a necrophiliac. I mean, there are more ways to read that sentence.
- shrubby 2mo agoAfter spending most of today circling around maxims I appreciate the application. Though I must state that the pic almost had me closing the tab before reading. Here's another venting out, somewhere near Categorical Imperative https://kohlbergs7.org/epm/ https://kohlbergs7.org/epm/
- KPGv2 2mo ago> After spending most of today circling around Maxims a sentence i have't heard since middle school at the local corner store with my bros hesitant about buying a lad mag
- shrubby 2mo agoYup. I have once gotten a copy when visiting somewhere abroad as a teenager, it had a blue car on the cover. We didn't have those. I have been amused by this memory occasionally while doing the middle aged version of maxim.
- wj 2mo agoThat brought to mind this examination of Taylor Swift's Shake it Off: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/taylor-swift-a-socratic-dialogue https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/taylor-swift-a-socratic-...
- stillpointlab 2mo agoThe irony is, as I read the OP I thought it was very much in the style of McSweeneys and then there is this. It is a pretty obvious humor device so I assume the ideas are independent. And the Socratic dialog framing adds another layer of humor since this is closer to a juxtaposition, lampooning both Swift's vapidity and Plato's writing style.
- m-hodges 2mo agoI would thoroughly enjoy an entire podcast of this genre. ... A Cartesian Critique of "Fireflies" by Owl City ... A Humean Critique of "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas
- matherial 2mo agoThen ask an LLM. I'm serious, if you like the style. This article, despite the disclaimer, is almost certainly LLM-written. It's one of many ephemeral blogs that have been cropping up on HN lately and that post single-theme content with striking regularity.
- kundi 2mo agoGood. We can move to Bruno Mars now
- m-hodges 2mo agoAn Aristotelian Critique of “The Lazy Song”
- tgv 2mo agoSokrates: being lazy has no virtue. Plato: being lazy has no virtue. Aristotle: perhaps it's funny?
- jesperwe 2mo agoBoth Aristotle and Sokrates would grant the song one point: The demand to be productive every waking hour is not a moral truth. The boss and the father do not own the day. The problem is what the song puts in the space gained. It clears out the obligations, then it stops short of asking what the free day is for.
- stcg 2mo agoFun read! I love the depth in seemingly superficial texts. Sometimes I similarly ponder claims or questions in advertisements.
- num42 2mo agoGood article! Off topic, It reminds me of this: https://www.bensparks.co.uk/talk/the-sacred-geometry-of-chance/ https://www.bensparks.co.uk/talk/the-sacred-geometry-of-chan...
- therealjason 2mo agoAside from the other links in comments, any where to read more of this? I need more.
- keane 2mo ago[dead]
- pipeline_peak 2mo agoNeil Hagerty (Royal Trux, Pussy Galore) Talks Justin Bieber’s Purpose https://talkhouse.com/neil-hagerty-royal-trux-pussy-galore-talks-justin-biebers-purpose https://talkhouse.com/neil-hagerty-royal-trux-pussy-galore-t...
- mwillis 2mo agoThis 3 minute song creates a fleeting portrait of a man, not necessarily Bieber, who we cannot know. The song captures the mindset of a character who, one might infer, cynically knows what he’s trying to do. It’s possible he has no interest in a heartfelt, meaningful apology. In fact, this character - who lives only within the song and the liminal world it creates - may be operating exactly to his own moral preference. We don’t know enough to say more. It’s like asking if a singer of “happy birthday” truly wishes their subject to be happy. In short, you Kant analyze pop music with confidence.
- mc32 2mo agoOf course one cannot in all sincerity know. Today, and even yesteryear, are composed to entertain others, not oneself. They are seldom personal or about the singer, with exceptions like the well known songs by Carly Simon and others. In any event songs today are often written by others, passed around till they find a “home.”
- layer8 2mo ago> you Kant analyze pop music with confidence Fun fact: The correct German pronunciation of “Kant” isn’t like “can’t”, but like “cunt”.
- tgv 2mo agoIn American pronunciation. In British, "can't" sounds close to Kant in German, but with a longer a.
- layer8 2mo agoThe length of the “a” is what I was alluding to. The British pronunciation still wouldn’t be mistaken for the German one.
- beAbU 2mo agoEven more fun anecdote, barely related. In a recent South Africa vs England rugby match, an accusation of racism was levied against an SA player because he directed the phrase "white cunt" to one of the English players. If Afrikaans, the word "kant" (pronounced 'cunt') means "side". "Wit" is "white". So when he said "wit kant" he really meant "white side". England traditionally wears white livery, South Africa wears green. So it was the "wit kant" vs the "groen kant". Hilarity and much confusion ensued for a while after that accusation!
- hliyan 2mo agoSurprised this article didn't explain the categorical imperative before appealing to it. Here's my interpretation of it, although some would say that (4) is a utilitarian interpretation(even though it's globally utilitarian) and therefore it is not truly categorical. (1) We all know that doing what's best for oneself does not count as doing something "good" or "right". Even the worst psychopath or monster will do what is best for themselves. "What benefits me" is not a principle on which to decide how to act morally. (2) The most basic moral principle might be "do no harm", i.e. you are free to do whatever you want as long as you do not cause others harm. This is something that most normal human beings instinctively recognize as a valid way to decide between good and bad actions. This is the absolute minimum moral compass you must possess in order to participate in civilized society. (3) One level up is the golden rule, or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or treating others the same way you would want to be treated. This is generally recognized by many religions as the gold standard for what it means to be a good human being. (4) Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is a very basic formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative.
- daymanstep 2mo ago> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.
- hliyan 2mo agoHence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.
- stonyrubbish 2mo agoFrom a Hegelian perspective, the concept of the apology inherently is contradictory: for an apology before the act of harm has occurred is always "too early," yet an apology after the act has occurred is always, in some sense, "too late," ie, the harm has already been caused. We can see from this point that the apology is therefore never-on-time, always a spectre in the realm of human temporality. Also, I've never read Hegel (not that this disqualifies me from being a Hegelian.)
- keane 2mo agoAccidentally read this in Zizek’s voice, can imagine him delivering this in a recreated neon lit motel room set
- godwinson__4-8 2mo agoI can hear the sniffing now
- exceptione 2mo ago'Justin Bieber? God forbid! <snif> No! <snif> No-no-no-no!'
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jedimastert 2mo ago> Iz it too late now tsh to say sorry? I think tsk the id-eology of time described here....
- senshan 2mo agoWe can not attribute the moral image of the protagonist to Bieber himself. He is an artist, so he is describing an experience of life, perhaps stemming from the receiving end of a fake apology. Otherwise, it is a very good and thought-provoking article.
- syndacks 2mo agosmells of tokens
- rotringlvr 2mo ago[dead]
- TRiG_Ireland 2mo ago> We cannot attribute any moral judgment to Bieber as a human being; we can only answer the moral question as posed in the song. As a semi-off-topic little rant, why do we always assume that pop singers are singing about themselves and their own experiences? Can a song, as a work of art, not have an independent existence, much as a novel may? Pop, rap, and maybe country songs are all now assumed to be about the artist themselves.
- seba_dos1 2mo agoLast time at a karaoke I sang a song that translates to "we're hitchhiking". Little did the audience know that I wasn't hitchhiking at all and neither were they. I was just standing there, singing.
- jedimastert 2mo agoThe question might be asked "why would we assume the singer isn't singing about themself?" In modern pop music it's become it's become standard that the "character" an artist "plays" when they're performing or writing is themself; there's no suspension of disbelief like with a play where there's an entire context around knowing that what you're seeing is a portrayal. Same with a book or movie or other works of fiction, and with those forms of media it's clear when you're seeing or reading fiction or non-fiction. In a sense, some artists write novels and some write memoirs.
- ksbd-pls-finish 2mo agoAt least in metal music we usually doesn't assume the artist sings about themselves. Fortunately most artists are neither fighting dragons nor worshiping satan.
- IshKebab 2mo ago> “Is it too late to say sorry?” is actually not a moral question at all when viewed through a Kantian lens. The question in itself contains the answer: yes, it is too late to say sorry, not in the sense that has anything to do with the nature of time, but rather the form of the question itself shows that the song fundamentally misunderstands what an apology is. Further cementing my view that philosophy is 95% bullshit. The author really cannot imagine times when it might or might not be too late to say sorry? I think they fundamentally misunderstand what an apology is.
- ksbd-pls-finish 2mo ago>I think they fundamentally misunderstand what an apology is Did they, or do you? The point of view presented in the blog post is: "If you wronged someone you ought to apologize. The fact that this person will not forgive you (it's too late for that) does not influence wherever you should or should not apologize" Which, as someone who is definitely not into philosophy, kinda makes sense?
- dang 2mo ago[stub for offtopicness]
- aeve890 2mo ago>No AI was used to generate the text for this article Damn. Please never stop writing
- andai 2mo agoThe slop art gave me the wrong impression. I did enjoy the read even thinking it was AI though.
- neogodless 2mo agoI'm sorry we're getting so off topic here but... I suppose it helps to focus on the core of someone's strength, and the core of the content they are sharing. You could be a great engineer and a great blogger, but have no skill in making graphics. If you made the artistic choice to add AI-generated art to an excellent engineering blog post, I would forgive it -- assuming it wasn't detracting in some important way. Overall, the human skill of editing - particularly excluding that which is not additive - does remain key though. I will say in this case, I don't know the pop song well enough to know if the AI-generated image is super relevant, or just random. EDIT: I'm guessing it's "Kant"[0] in the image, listening to modern music. Ah... at first I thought it was like, George Washington. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
- aeve890 2mo agoYou're absolutely right! jk. I hate this situation of "everything is slop until proven otherwise" and the author doesn't have to be good at writing and drawing just to share their thoughts. But generally you don't expect a Michelin star level meal after having a turd sandwich entrée. It's just a natural pavlovian response at this point to see slop and expect slop. Totally unfair, I agree, but really hard to get rid of it.
- jstrebel 2mo agoAlthough I read that this web site was made using AI, I still feel entertained by it. The topic requires precise language and that's something that an LLM is surely excelling at. Yet I feel that the concepts in the text are a bit repetitive; the write-up could have been shortened a bit.
- captainzidgel 2mo agoFrom the bottom of the article: > No AI was used to generate the text for this article. The cover image and the voiceover in the audio version of the article is AI-generated. The cover image is made using Google Gemini’s latest image model while the voiceover uses OpenAI’s tts models.
- archagon 2mo agoSlop.
- nati0n 2mo agoI kant understand
- reverendjames 2mo agoThis should be a PhD thesis.