Scholarlink

<p>This paper explores a counterfactual scenario (CW) in which large language models (LLMs) produce philosophical texts that are epistemically indistinguishable from those authored by humans. Building from this scenario, I develop three interconnected arguments about the institutional, rhetorical, and conceptual implications of such a world: (1) a paradox of obsolescence, in which the same indistinguishability that motivates the use of LLMs undermines the evaluative structures that make their use meaningful; (2) a paradox of rhetorical saturation, in which the formal capacity to justify any claim by accepted standards reveals the limits of justification as a normative concept; and (3) a paradox of dialogical return, in which the loss of meaningfully authored philosophical texts drives a renewed emphasis on dialogical understanding over argumentative finality. The conclusion suggests that CW is less a speculative fiction than a diagnostic mirror, reflecting unacknowledged tensions in the current philosophical paradigm.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Philosophy in the age of rhetorical machines: three paradoxes of epistemic automation

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月8日

查看全文
  • Leonhard Schütz-Bauer

摘要

This paper explores a counterfactual scenario (CW) in which large language models (LLMs) produce philosophical texts that are epistemically indistinguishable from those authored by humans. Building from this scenario, I develop three interconnected arguments about the institutional, rhetorical, and conceptual implications of such a world: (1) a paradox of obsolescence, in which the same indistinguishability that motivates the use of LLMs undermines the evaluative structures that make their use meaningful; (2) a paradox of rhetorical saturation, in which the formal capacity to justify any claim by accepted standards reveals the limits of justification as a normative concept; and (3) a paradox of dialogical return, in which the loss of meaningfully authored philosophical texts drives a renewed emphasis on dialogical understanding over argumentative finality. The conclusion suggests that CW is less a speculative fiction than a diagnostic mirror, reflecting unacknowledged tensions in the current philosophical paradigm.