Bob Dylan -> 1960s in music -> Popular music -> Music genre -> Genre -> Literature -> Art -> Senses -> Physiology -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Truth -> Reality -> Philosophy
Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
21–30 of 58 posts
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#22Community -> Living -> Life -> Physical body -> Physics -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Information -> Sequence -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern philosophy -> Philosophy It's kind of like zooming in on what it means means to be alive in this universe. The fact that it ends at Philosophy is profound glimpse into what it means to be a thinking entity in the universe. I…
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.
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 discussion of what frame of reference we use to observe the universe. We have a body of knowledge, and we tack on new observations onto that body, occasionally the body reforms and the philosophy changes. Every learner has a philosophy.
Philosophy is where the rubber meets the road in figuring out what our universe is. Is matter a particle or a wave or other, it depends on your existing perspective, your philosophy.
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#23Earlier 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.
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 it into Plato's Academy, saying,
"Behold! I've brought you a man."
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#24Community -> Living -> Life -> Physical body -> Physics -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Information -> Sequence -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern philosophy -> Philosophy It's kind of like zooming in on what it means means to be alive in this universe. The fact that it ends at Philosophy is profound glimpse into what it means to be a thinking entity in the universe. I…
> If we ever meet Aliens from another part of the galaxy, they would no doubt form similar knowledge structures that would probably end up being exactly like this.
That's a bold assumption. I think its arrogant to assume that 'knowledge structures' take one form, which is the one in our heads. Ever seen/read Solaris?
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#25Already been done 5 months ago at http://www.xefer.com/
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#26A lot of them do, but sometimes there are loops (Eg. Computer Science). If you make an exception, choosing the second link for example, then it will lead you to philosophy.
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#27Why philosophy? If you keep clicking, you actually end up in a loop: Philosophy -> Reason -> Human nature -> Thought -> Consciousness -> Mind -> Panpsychism -> Philosophy -> ...
I'd say, of the above, "mind", "thought", and "reason" are pretty basic -- you cannot have philosophy without a mind, for one (though you can probably have a mind without philosophy).
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#28Why philosophy? If you keep clicking, you actually end up in a loop: Philosophy -> Reason -> Human nature -> Thought -> Consciousness -> Mind -> Panpsychism -> Philosophy -> ... I'd say, of the above, "mind", "thought", and "reason" are pretty basic -- you cannot have philosophy without a mind, for one (though you can probably have a mind without philosophy).
[deleted]
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#29Why philosophy? If you keep clicking, you actually end up in a loop: Philosophy -> Reason -> Human nature -> Thought -> Consciousness -> Mind -> Panpsychism -> Philosophy -> ... I'd say, of the above, "mind", "thought", and "reason" are pretty basic -- you cannot have philosophy without a mind, for one (though you can probably have a mind without philosophy).
[deleted]
Re: Do all first links on Wikipedia lead to philosophy?
#30Community -> Living -> Life -> Physical body -> Physics -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Information -> Sequence -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern philosophy -> Philosophy It's kind of like zooming in on what it means means to be alive in this universe. The fact that it ends at Philosophy is profound glimpse into what it means to be a thinking entity in the universe. I…
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.org/wiki/Panpsychism tends to be the last part of the chain before it repeats is just less interesting.
PS: I suspect that most articles can be reached by every other article so you can take just about anything and say it's the "root" article for the rest of Wikipedia.