Seeing as we humans ceated Wikipedia perhaps in an effort to define and describe everything there is, the product ends up filtered through the lenses of it's creators and in doing so we inevitably end up defining what it is to be human. I dont believe we can understand or describe anything beyond what it is we are. Wikipedia is essentially the accumulation of the collective knowledge of it's creators so what else should we expect it to be outside of the definition of what it is to be man. The attempt to collect and master the understanding of everything is afterall a philosophic endeavor.
Done babbling now lol.
Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
31–40 of 58 posts
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#32[deleted]
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#33You can try it for yourself: http://blago.dachev.com/wikidrill
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#34not Rome, huh
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it has more to do with how encyclopedia articles are formatted. The first sentence always describes the broader subject which the topic resides in. I view it more as zooming out from topics that matter, each time you do so you lose resolution and only see a fuzzier image.
I think it has more to do with where people end the chain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature is after philosophy. Community -> Living -> Life -> Physical body -> Physics -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Information -> Sequence -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern philosophy -> Philosophy -> Reason -> Human Nature -> Thought ->... The fact that http://en.wikipedia.…
Whoa. That's less interesting to people? Wikipedia is telling us it can think!
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make a claim, then answer it, and ask "Why" and keep doing that, then you will eventually get down to the response: "Because I said so" or "because that is how we observe it to be". "The words and values we use to describe nature are all imprecise approximations, many are wildly wrong. We observe phenomena all around us, and if you try to describe what it is, and ask "why" enough times then you get down to the…
I think of philosophy as the point where people throw their hands into the air in despair and say "Fuck it, I can't break this down any further, figure it out yourself" , at which point the famous philosophers have joyfully begun down that ill defined path without an end. When Plato gave Socrates' definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought…
No one really gets it, and that's why Socrates was the smartest man in Greece. He knew that he didn't know anything.
Cynics like Diogenes are just as dogmatic as anyone, but the truth they are dogmatic about is that there is no truth. It's still a conviction. Be cynical about cynicism and Diogenes looks just as dumb as Socrates, or anyone for that matter.
We all look dumb when we answer questions. This is why Socrates preferred to be the asker.
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#37But which of the twelve has the lowest average length? The article points to 'science', but how would the number of steps graph look then?
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#38Related: http://TheWikiGame.com (multiplayer game of connecting Wikipedia articles with different constraints)
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#39Start: Wikipedia -> free -> artwork -> Aesthetics -> Philosophy. 4 clicks away.
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#40It even worked when I tried "Stone Cold Steve Austin"...