Dr. Montás began his lecture with the pointed observation that our political culture is changing in a way that reveals existential destabilization; the very instability that I’ve underscored to this point. The turmoil we see in our politics, he continues, is a symptom of this fundamental shift, a shift likewise seen in the ongoing penetration of AI. Dr. Montás paused here to note his concern with AI in that it “allows students who can merely recognize sophisticated writing to replicate it,” a fear I lamented as a consequence of the regressive mindset of many students. He wrapped his introduction by pointing out, as a similar third concern, that there are people progressively attempting to tap into the genetic underpinnings of molecular life, something that, alongside AI and the current political state, must prompt us to question “what it really means to be human, what it means to be a part of the natural world, and what about humanity stays the same throughout all these changes.”
Dr. Montás posited that, by reading the great books, human beings are able to grapple with existential questions such as these, particularly students. In this way, perhaps, we can ‘examine’ ourselves, as Socrates suggests we must, and reconcile the damage done by this popular student mindset. Dr. Montás continued, then, that it is only through the observance of a world that no longer exists, through the investigation of archaic minds such as Homer and Plato and Dante, that something fundamental about the human condition can be genuinely revealed to us. Through this contact with “alien minds,” as Dr. Montás termed them, an individual is able to think the thoughts of Plato through his literature and see his or her own humanity illuminated and deepened.
As an important aside, Dr. Montás described how Dante’s Divine Comedy has been, multiple times, deemed “unfit” for him by progressive arguments on behalf of the marginalized. These individuals attempt to defend him by limiting his consumption of literature to that which specifically concerns his status as a minority. These attempts at empowering him, though, he asserted, actually end up denying him an expansive set of tools for development on the limiting basis of his religion, culture, and ethnicity. The reason why Dante is important is not because he represents the marginalized in some way; instead, Dante is important because he is capable of illuminating human nature. In this way, books like these ground us in something about being human that extends across individuality. In this way, the great books are most consequential to any given person’s development in life, particularly of mindset, regardless of culture, religion, ethnicity, political opinion, or status.
The categorization that Dr. Montás suggested by the indicated progressives (and I, like him, mean this term apolitically) is a reflection of the total separation of value that is occurring in our educational system.
By this I mean, the separation of his status as a minority from his status as a human being with a shared nature reflects exactly the separation of self-value from academics encouraged by AI that propagates a degenerative mindset in students.
Here, I pause to note that, though I have used Dr. Montás’s lecture as supplemental to the position I front in this article, and the concerns expressed in his lecture suggest that he may agree with me in some ways, I do not wish to claim that he aligns entirely or would support my observations and analyses.
Regardless, his lecture contextualizes a lot of the claims I’ve submitted thus far and suggests that there is something sorely lacking in our current understanding of where we derive value from.
I suggest here that human self expression is the mode most adequate to contain truth. It is completely unique to human beings—it is a unity of language and meaning: of the universals that qualify meaning and the matter with which humans cognize that meaning.
Language, therefore, is a radical attempt to access that unity in a way that only human beings are able to interact with meaning. Our written creation, then, embodies that connection, that access.
Why are we so determined to do away with that?
When we submit ourselves to AI in this way, we are ridding ourselves of an irreplicable capacity of communication that only we as humans have, and it is a regression of immeasurable consequence to the "examination of life" our education should prompt us in.
This concern of authenticity and value has been expressed by many before, particularly with the dramatic influx of social media platforms and participation over the recent two decades.
Now, I am not suggesting the total abolition of social media. That would be entirely hypocritical of me, given that I use such platforms.
I enjoy them, even…right up until I get scathingly jealous at a particularly flawless photo. Even still, these perfectly curated pictures, though largely inauthentic, still contain a small glimpse of the person who posts them, however small it may be. I grant that that small glimpse of reality saves it from total destitution, and allows for human connection and the expression of self-value, if minimally.
AI, on the other hand, has no such saving grace.
It is empty, with a total absence of humanity and corporeal consideration, and, thus, is the antithesis of what it means to actually learn, to actually experience and "examine" life.
In this way, AI is not an advancement; it is a regression of the highest degree.
Even still, I would be likewise remiss to suggest an abolition of all AI use, as it is simply not achievable in our current state.
I merely wish to illustrate the problem, front a potential solution, and invite the reader to carefully consider where they place the value in their education. The answer matters. If it does not to you, I hope that you find Dante, Plato, and Homer (just to note a few) as thrilling as I have.
Now, what if I interrupted here, at the very conclusion of my work, to admit to you that I wrote this with AI or that I allowed ChatGPT to edit my piece?
Would you feel betrayed?
I certainly would.
I hope, all things considered, that you would feel so too.