A: They are not enough, they only list the propositions, while the goal is to organize and evaluate them.
A: As modernist as Lully's project is, it can easily combat postmodernist attacks, simply by listing belief in (some particular variant of ‘logic and reason’) as one of the propositions; the postmodernist approach will be alongside others. ,
A: Yes. The eventual result will be islands of consistency of defensible positions. That will form around essentially contested concepts Right now many people are in between and are swayed one way or another by the media. Making this explicit will allow these people with common interstts to cooperate for-themselves.
A: So is steam engine - its efficienct limited by the Carnot cycle, but it's a handy invention. We can still have decent stuff without perfection.
A: Yes, these limits are recognized by the project.
A: It's just a steelman for logomachy.
A: Lully is designed with popular use in mind. Pop philosophy is mostly self help and social issues, analytic stuff gets less coverage. Because of that, the philosophical 99% (with 1% being philosophy academics and some amateurs) are not up to date with the linguistic developments. Rebellious teenagers read Nietzsche, not Wittgenstein.
A: First of all, reality checks happen and there is eventually a moment in one’s life when one needs to rethink one’s beliefs; Lullyis a tool to help in that. Secondly, our beliefs are not about free choice, the media makes life a constant war on beliefs, so one’s beliefs will always be shifting unless firmly thought throughout and repeated to oneself.
A: Some did not succeed, but the need for such a project is still relevant. Moreover, this one was a normative, not a descriptive one. AI still will have biases - yes, it will be undeniably biased, but less than for any human it is possible to be.
A: No one has read all of philosophy, it is easy to get the grasp of the key points of dispute, a bit harder to pick sides. Another thing is familiarising oneself with argument against one’s beliefs and knowing responses to them - not being easily convinced by the opponents of one’s view. Lullyis supposed to work like a vaccine - a safe dose of criticism, making one ready to a serious dispute.
A: When thinking about the maintenance of such an undertaking, one notices that such a vessel of power would be under pressure from different agents: government officials, corporations, international organizations, etc. Decentralized systems in principle are still vulnerable to 51% attacks or memetic invasions - the blockchain technology is state of the art and the human element vulnerability needs to be accounted for in building the community, not the tech itself.
A: The answer might lie in making Lully popular - it will be easy to proclaim; ‘if you reject our best tool for reasonable dispute, we don't talk with you seriously’.
A:
Logic is loose at both ends
~John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent This argument does not rest on any particular conception of meaning in terms of X, Y, Z statements. Lully is a variant of the language game of debate, so like there, you get what you bring with youtself.
A: That is correct, but would they be popular had it not been for their social engagement with people and teaching, establishing more or less formal schools of thought - which are institutions. Apart from that, these 3 examples are ancient and here the timeframe is very short.
A: Not less than other platforms
A:
“Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else.' Objections have never contributed anything.”
― Gilles Deleuze