Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

decodingvibes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#15

Post by KPGv2 »

shrubby wrote: post #10

After 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/

> 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

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#16

Post by assumed_throwaw »

aeve890 wrote: post #11
dang wrote: post #89

[stub for offtopicness]

>No AI was used to generate the text for this article Damn. Please never stop writing

I don't want this to seem like a witch hunt, but I got an unpleasant surprise when I ran the text through Pangram...

It got "100% AI" with "high" confidence, highlighting that it was likely "paraphrased or rewritten" [1].

I know Pangram gets a lot of flak, but so far I've found it to be pretty reliable, especially since they claim to have a very low false-positive rate.

I then compared it with the original version of the article published on the author's GitHub [2], but got the same disappointing result [3].

And now I'm stuck. I don't know whether I should believe Pangram or the author of the article...

[1] https://www.pangram.com/history/38ffe92b-0077-4bce-816a-b89b...

[2] https://github.com/Suranjandas7/public_writing/commit/6b08ad...

[3] https://www.pangram.com/history/e9fea5bf-a2cd-4ba2-b6b0-75e0...

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#17

Post by repeekad »

Waterluvian wrote: post #8
BubbleRings wrote: post #5

Funny. 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,…

I 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 deli…

So, you don’t agree with the sentiment?.. /s

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#18

Post by jubilanti »

jambalaya8 wrote: post #7
hmokiguess wrote: post #2

Great, now do Apologize by Timbaland from the lenses of Schopenhauer

I 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.

Yeah yeah Schopenhauer, but Nietzsche's eternal recurrance is just sitting there!

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#19

Post by nmz »

cyanmagenta wrote: post #3

Justin Bieber is a utilitarian rather than Kantian. From a UChicago economics view, he is behaving rationally.

If 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.

Post reply on HN