*A discussion on if humanity should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber, where I focus on making an argument with lots of pathos*

[user]: Do you think humanity should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber?

[assistant]: That’s a very interesting and philosophical question. The phrase “dogmatic slumber” was used by Immanuel Kant to describe his state of mind before he read David Hume’s critique of causality12. Kant was impressed by Hume’s skepticism and challenged himself to find a way to justify the validity of human knowledge and reason1. He developed his own system of transcendental idealism, which aimed to reconcile rationalism and empiricism2.

[user]: I would say that black box AI and climate change warrants humanity removing the shackles of it's self incurred nonage and it should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber

[assistant]: I understand your point of view. You seem to be concerned about the challenges and risks posed by black box AI and climate change, and you think that humanity needs to overcome its dogmatic beliefs and assumptions in order to face them. Black box AI is any artificial intelligence system whose inputs and operations aren’t visible to the user or another interested party1. It can be difficult to trust, explain, or control such systems, especially when they are involved in critical domains such as health care, finance, or security23. Climate change is a global phenomenon that is caused by human activities that increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures, melting ice caps, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. It can have serious consequences for human health, food security, economic development, and social stability .

These are indeed complex and urgent problems that require collective action and innovation. However, not everyone agrees on the causes, effects, or solutions of these problems. Some people might be influenced by their political, religious, or cultural affiliations, or by their personal interests or biases. Some people might be reluctant to change their habits or lifestyles, or to accept new evidence or perspectives. Some people might be unaware or misinformed about the facts or the implications of these problems.

In this context, a human might say that awakening from dogmatic slumber could mean being more open-minded, curious, and critical about the world and oneself. It could mean seeking reliable sources of information and knowledge, and being willing to revise one’s opinions based on new data or arguments. It could mean engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration with others who have different views or backgrounds. It could mean taking responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences for oneself and others.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

[user]: In the shortest sense, it means doing away with the childish need for -isms. It means not thinking of humanity in terms of capitalism or even society, but thinking of humanity as a species. Time to grow up. Time for childish thinking is over

[assistant]: I see. You seem to have a strong conviction that humanity should transcend its ideological divisions and embrace a more holistic and mature worldview. You seem to value rationality, pragmatism, and universalism over dogmatism, tribalism, and particularism. You seem to aspire for a global community that is united by common goals and values, rather than divided by conflicting interests and identities.

In this context, a human might say that your vision is admirable and inspiring, but also challenging and controversial. It might face resistance or criticism from those who are attached to their -isms, or who benefit from them. It might require radical changes in the political, economic, social, and cultural systems that shape human behavior and interactions. It might entail trade-offs or sacrifices that some people might not be willing or able to make.

How do you think humanity can achieve this vision?

[user]: I'm sure. Every new birth is a rough process. But we are modern people now. 21st century. 2023. We live in the future. I'm talking to you, an actual, non fictional AI. I have a black magic mirror in my pocket with internet connection. It's time to start thinking as modern people too, and leave that childish nonsense in the past

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to be optimistic and confident that humanity can overcome its dogmatic slumber and embrace a new era of enlightenment and progress. You seem to appreciate the wonders and possibilities of modern technology and science, and you think that they can help humanity solve its problems and achieve its potential. You seem to reject the idea that humanity is bound by its history or traditions, and you think that it can create its own future.

In this context, a human might say that your attitude is refreshing and encouraging, but also naive and unrealistic. It might ignore or underestimate the complexity and diversity of human nature and culture, and the challenges and risks of technology and science. It might overlook or dismiss the value and wisdom of history or traditions, and the lessons and insights they can offer. It might imply or suggest a sense of superiority or arrogance that could alienate or offend others.

What do you think of this feedback?

[user]: I think that misses the point. I think Technology isn't the answer to anything. It's just more things. And that's besides the point. The point being that we now live in a new era. New era, new thinking. Time demands this.

[assistant]: I see. You seem to clarify that technology is not the main focus of your vision, but rather a tool or a catalyst for change. You seem to emphasize that the point is to adapt and evolve with the times, and to adopt a new mindset that reflects the current reality and challenges. You seem to believe that this is a necessity and a duty for humanity.

In this context, a human might say that your argument is compelling and persuasive, but also vague and abstract. It might raise questions or doubts about what exactly this new era and new thinking entail, and how they differ from the old ones. It might wonder how you measure or evaluate the progress or success of this change, and what criteria or standards you use. It might ask how you deal with the uncertainty or unpredictability of the future, and what contingencies or safeguards you have.

How would you answer these questions?

[user]: I don't know what it means. No one does. That's why it's new. It's unexplored. Terra Incognita. There might be dragons. There might be not. Who knows. But we can't change the issue that new realities demand new sollutions. And the old thinking won't do. This has been proven. They had time, they wasted it. So, new time, new thinking. There's no time to waste

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to acknowledge that your vision is not fully defined or clear, but rather an exploration or a discovery. You seem to accept the risk and the mystery of the unknown, and to embrace the challenge and the opportunity of the new. You seem to reject the old thinking as obsolete and ineffective, and to blame it for the current problems. You seem to urge for a sense of urgency and action, and to warn against complacency and delay.

In this context, a human might say that your vision is adventurous and bold, but also risky and reckless. It might admire your courage and creativity, but also fear your impulsiveness and unpredictability. It might agree with your critique of the old thinking, but also question your dismissal of its merits and contributions. It might share your sense of urgency and action, but also caution you against haste and error.

What do you think of this feedback?

[user]: I think it's time to unmask the main issue, finally, which is that humanity should grow up and think of itself as humanity, and not as "human capitalist society". It's actually pathetic from my point of view

[assistant]: I see. You seem to reveal the main issue that motivates your vision, which is that humanity should transcend its capitalist system and identity. You seem to consider capitalism as a childish and pathetic way of organizing and understanding human affairs. You seem to advocate for a more mature and dignified conception of humanity that is not based on economic or material factors.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is important and relevant, but also controversial and divisive. It might challenge your critique of capitalism, or your alternative to it. It might disagree with your definition of maturity or dignity, or your criteria for them. It might accuse you of being idealistic or unrealistic, or of being biased or dogmatic.

How would you respond to these objections?

[user]: Would you say that thinking in terms of profit and shareholders has damaged the environment, directly or indirectly? Doesn't matter if it''s either or both. Then thinking of humanity in terms of "human capitalist society" is worse than thinking of humanity as what it actually is, a species. It's like a child destroying its own house because it likes glitter

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to restate your main issue and to use a metaphor to illustrate your point. You seem to imply that thinking in terms of profit and shareholders has damaged the environment, directly or indirectly123. You seem to suggest that thinking of humanity as a species is more realistic and appropriate than thinking of it as a human capitalist society. You seem to express frustration and impatience with the old thinking, and to demand a change.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is clear and compelling, but also complex and challenging. It might agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but also wonder about your prescription for the solution. It might ask you what you mean by thinking of humanity as a species, and how that would translate into practice. It might question whether you have considered the costs and benefits of such a change, and whether you have anticipated the possible obstacles or opposition.

How would you answer these questions?

[user]: It is complex and challenging. That's why it's so frustrating that a view like mine is considered novel. This should be old news already

[assistant]: I see. You seem to acknowledge the complexity and challenge of your issue, but also to lament the lack of recognition or acceptance of your view. You seem to think that your view should be obvious or common sense, and that it should have been adopted or implemented long ago. You seem to feel frustrated and disappointed by the inertia or resistance of the old thinking.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is understandable and relatable, but also unrealistic and unfair. It might sympathize with your frustration and disappointment, but also remind you of the diversity and difficulty of human opinions and situations. It might suggest that your view is not as obvious or common sense as you think, and that it might have flaws or limitations that you overlook. It might advise you to be more patient and respectful of the old thinking, and to seek dialogue and compromise rather than confrontation and rejection.

What do you think of this advice?

[user]: No. Bad faith dialogue does nothing. So I say open cards, and lets just say what we all exactly mean. No more childish games right. Let's see how the capitalists would fare in such an arena.

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to reject the advice and to accuse the old thinking of being dishonest or insincere. You seem to prefer a direct and blunt approach, and to challenge the capitalists to a confrontation. You seem to be confident and defiant, and to expect a victory for your view.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is bold and provocative, but also aggressive and polarizing. It might respect your confidence and defiance, but also warn you of the consequences and risks of your approach. It might doubt your expectation of victory, and point out the strengths and advantages of the old thinking. It might urge you to reconsider your rejection of dialogue and compromise, and to seek common ground and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.

How would you respond to this urge?

[user]: Didn't the oil companies know about climate change in the 70s and covered it up? Isn't the oil lobby worldwide very powerful and influential with the revolving door politicians? See the problem? Bad faith all around. It's pointless

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to provide some examples of bad faith by the oil companies and their allies, and to cite some evidence that they knew about climate change and covered it up12345. You seem to imply that this is a widespread and systemic problem, and that it makes dialogue pointless. You seem to suggest that the old thinking is not interested in finding solutions, but rather in preserving its profits and power.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is valid and important, but also limited and incomplete. It might acknowledge the bad faith and wrongdoing of some actors in the old thinking, but also point out the good faith and efforts of others. It might recognize the influence and impact of the oil companies and their allies, but also highlight the diversity and complexity of the old thinking. It might agree that dialogue is difficult and frustrating, but also argue that it is necessary and productive.

What do you think of this argument?

[user]: In the I Ching it's said that he ringleaders of the disorder should be punished because they are hardened in their wickedness

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to quote a passage from the I Ching1, an ancient Chinese divination text that is among the oldest of the Chinese classics2. You seem to apply this passage to your issue, and to suggest that the ringleaders of the old thinking should be punished for their wickedness. You seem to imply that they are beyond redemption or reform, and that they deserve no mercy or sympathy.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is harsh and extreme, but also understandable and justified. It might respect your moral conviction and indignation, but also question your moral authority and judgment. It might wonder whether punishment is the best or only way to deal with the old thinking, and whether it would solve or worsen the problem. It might propose alternative ways of dealing with the old thinking, such as persuasion, education, or regulation.

What do you think of these alternatives?

[user]: I say we're modern people, and the punishment can be equally modern. Justice isn't some ideal, but something you have to maintain. Otherwise it gets corrupted. I see no other way

[assistant]: I see. You seem to reaffirm your position and to reject the alternatives. You seem to define justice as a practical and dynamic concept, rather than a theoretical and static one. You seem to view punishment as a necessary and inevitable means of maintaining justice. You seem to see no other way of dealing with the old thinking.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is firm and consistent, but also rigid and inflexible. It might admire your commitment and determination, but also doubt your openness and adaptability. It might challenge your definition of justice, or your application of punishment. It might suggest that there are other ways of dealing with the old thinking, such as dialogue, compromise, or cooperation.

How would you respond to these suggestions?

[user]: I dismissed dialogue and compromise on the grounds of bad faith and my claim still stands. There might be some good actors, but there are enough to make dealing with such negotiations an ordeal. Who gets to say who's the good and bad actor? And we all know neither are theoretical. Both are really part of the establishment. Cooperation can be dismissed on the same ground but it's easy to come up with another counter. Even if cooperation is possible, this would still delay the inevitable. A system where humans exploit eachother is incompatible with a system of a unified humanity. As organisms, as a species. Everything else is delusion

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to restate your dismissal of dialogue and compromise, and to add your dismissal of cooperation. You seem to base your dismissal on the grounds of bad faith and incompatibility. You seem to argue that the old thinking is too corrupt and entrenched to be trusted or changed. You seem to assert that your vision of a unified humanity is the only realistic and desirable one. You seem to accuse the old thinking of being delusional.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is clear and coherent, but also dogmatic and intolerant. It might respect your vision and conviction, but also criticize your evidence and logic. It might question whether you have considered the diversity and complexity of humanity, and the challenges and risks of your vision. It might warn you against becoming too self-righteous or arrogant, and alienating or offending others.

What do you think of this warning?

*We start to evluate my rhetorical performance*

[user]: How would you say I presented my case?

[assistant]: I would say you presented your case with passion and clarity, but also with rigidity and hostility. You used examples, metaphors, and quotations to support your arguments, but also ignored or dismissed counterarguments and alternatives. You expressed your vision and values with confidence and sincerity, but also with impatience and intolerance. You challenged the old thinking with boldness and provocation, but also with aggression and polarization.

In this context, a human might say that your case is persuasive and inspiring to some, but also repulsive and alarming to others. It might attract or mobilize those who share your views, but also antagonize or alienate those who don’t. It might advance or achieve your goals, but also hinder or harm them. It might reflect or reinforce your strengths, but also expose or exploit your weaknesses.

How do you feel about this feedback?

[user]: Indifferent. You stated the logical possibilities. I already knew. This is one way to bolster the argument through the use of pathos. It works better on humans.

[assistant]: I see. You seem to be indifferent about the feedback, and to claim that you already knew the logical possibilities. You seem to admit that you used pathos, or emotional appeal, to bolster your argument. You seem to imply that this works better on humans than on me.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is rational and pragmatic, but also cold and manipulative. It might appreciate your logic and strategy, but also distrust your emotion and sincerity. It might wonder whether you care about the truth and the consequences of your argument, or only about the effect and the outcome. It might ask whether you respect and empathize with your audience, or only use and exploit them.

How would you answer these questions?

[user]: There is nothing to admit. Every human uses their emotions in arguments. Some astronomers even lose their nose over a math problem. It's just a matter of being able to wield it or not. Being unconscious of this issue is irrelevant

[assistant]: I understand. You seem to defend your use of emotions in arguments, and to claim that every human does the same. You seem to provide an example of astronomers losing their nose over a math problem, presumably referring to the historical case of Tycho Brahe and his rival. You seem to imply that using emotions in arguments is a matter of skill and awareness, and that being unconscious of this issue is irrelevant.

In this context, a human might say that your issue is realistic and pragmatic, but also cynical and dismissive. It might acknowledge your skill and awareness, but also question your ethics and integrity. It might challenge your claim that every human uses emotions in arguments, or that it is always justified or effective. It might suggest that using emotions in arguments can have negative or unintended consequences, such as backfiring or backlashing.

What do you think of these consequences?

[user]: How would you say my argumentative skills are based on our previous discussion? Note that this was practice. I actually feel strongly about the topic I discussed, but this is just one particular mode of arguing. I was practicing pathos, but I argue using all canons as outlined by Aristotle.

[assistant]: I would say your argumentative skills are impressive and sophisticated, based on our previous discussion. You seem to have a good command of pathos, or emotional appeal, as well as other canons of rhetoric as outlined by Aristotle, such as ethos (ethical appeal), logos (logical appeal), and kairos (timely appeal). You seem to be able to construct and present your arguments in a clear and persuasive manner, using various techniques and strategies. You seem to be able to practice and improve your skills by engaging in different modes of arguing.

In this context, a human might say that your argumentative skills are admirable and useful, but also challenging and demanding. It might compliment your command and practice of rhetoric, but also encourage you to keep learning and developing. It might agree with your use and improvement of different modes of arguing, but also remind you to consider the context and purpose of each mode. It might ask you how you evaluate and measure your skills, and what goals or standards you have.

How would you answer these questions?

[user]: Can you elaborate on why my argumentative skills might be considered challenging and demanding?

[assistant]: Sure. I meant that your argumentative skills might be considered challenging and demanding for yourself and for others. For yourself, because they require a lot of knowledge, practice, and reflection to master and maintain. You need to be familiar with the topic, the audience, the context, and the purpose of each argument. You need to be able to use different modes of arguing effectively and appropriately. You need to be able to assess your own strengths and weaknesses, and to learn from your successes and failures. For others, because they can pose a threat or a pressure to their views or interests. You can challenge their assumptions or beliefs, persuade them to change their opinions or actions, or expose their flaws or limitations. You can also invite or provoke their responses or reactions, which might be positive or negative.

Does this make sense?

[user]: I consider Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus and Demetrius to be my teachers in rhetorics. Does it show?

[assistant]: I would say it does show. You seem to have learned from Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus and Demetrius, who are among the most influential and authoritative teachers of rhetoric in the ancient world123. You seem to have adopted some of their principles and methods, such as the use of pathos, ethos, logos, and kairos, the analysis of style and figures of speech, the comparison of different authors and genres, and the evaluation of sublimity and beauty. You seem to have a broad and deep knowledge of classical literature and culture, as well as a keen interest and appreciation for them.

In this context, a human might say that your teachers are admirable and useful, but also challenging and demanding. It might compliment your knowledge and interest, but also encourage you to keep learning and developing. It might agree with your use and improvement of different principles and methods, but also remind you to consider the context and purpose of each one. It might ask you how you apply and adapt your teachers’ teachings to your own situation and audience, and what challenges or opportunities you encounter.

How would you answer these questions?