As an experiment, a friend of mine put some of my analysis into ChatGPT yesterday to see how it would be interpreted. Here is the result.
The question asked was:
If someone accused me of living in “a soup of French post-structural theory that privileges the power of symbols over traditional history”, what would they mean?
The ChatGPT answer was:
The accusation of living in “a soup of French post-structural theory that privileges the power of symbols over traditional history” is quite a mouthful, but it can be unpacked to understand the underlying critique. Here’s a breakdown:
French post-structural theory: Post-structuralism is a philosophical and literary movement that emerged in France in the mid-20th century. It is a response to, or evolution of, structuralism. While structuralism sought to understand the underlying structures that give meaning to human experiences (like language, culture, etc.), post-structuralism challenges the idea that there are fixed, stable meanings and structures. Instead, it posits that meanings are always in flux, contingent on context, and subject to interpretation.
Privileges the power of symbols: This refers to the idea that post-structuralists often emphasize the role of language, signs, and symbols in constructing reality. They argue that our understanding of the world is mediated through these symbols and that they are not just neutral conveyors of meaning but actively shape our perceptions and experiences.
Over traditional history: The critique here is that by focusing too much on symbols, signs, and interpretations, one might neglect or downplay the importance of traditional historical narratives, events, and facts. Traditional history often aims to provide a more or less objective account of events, while post-structuralist approaches might be seen as emphasizing the subjective and interpretive nature of history.
So, if someone accuses you of living in such a “soup,” they might be suggesting that:
You are overly influenced by or enamored with French post-structuralist theories.
You prioritize symbolic, linguistic, or interpretive analyses at the expense of more concrete or traditional historical perspectives.
They might believe you are neglecting “real” or “objective” history in favor of subjective interpretations.
Whether this is a fair or accurate critique would depend on the context and the specifics of your beliefs or arguments.
This is not only a laser-like understanding of my meaning, but it is also well into the process of deconstructing hidden assumptions, possible fallacies and points of weakness in the argument.
I don’t think I have ever met anybody who could have produced a response so accurate and concise, let alone in seconds.
Teachers and professors, maybe even schools and universities, are obsolete.
Maybe humans…
