Philosophy Now Forum

data = raw measurement
information = data + perspective context (how it was collected, epistemic)
knowledge = information + intent context (sufficiency, from what intent, for what purpose)
understanding = knowledge + practical context (pragmatism, necessity, restraints)
wisdom = understanding + accurate prediction

So that's what a sematic taxonomy looks like, huh?
The grandiose title suggests something a bit less shit

I stand with Derrida in that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point.

Thus F.D. Pants aporetic critique is invalid in light of our FSK.

I'm automatically suspicious of any French philosophical text, given the intellectual dishonesty of Descartes, and the smug intellectual elitism of Sartre and de Beauvoir; but there is a point here. Is a scientific or philosophical hypothesis valuable chiefly to the extent that it FAILS to explain all of the data? Creationism and "intelligent design theory" claim to explain everything by saying "that is how it was designed", by God, or the ID. Which, of course, explains nothing...

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 8:26 pm I stand with Derrida in that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point.

Thus F.D. Pants aporetic critique is invalid in light of our FSK.

are you certain you understood Jacques' text?

-Imp

I'm afraid my interpretative reading of your post cannot go beyond a certain point, Imp. I can discern that u are aksing me a question, yes, but the text as a discreet whole is inextricably bound to a reductive irreconcilability of conflicting meanings.

What does he mean by 'understand', and who or what is a 'Jacques'? What is he aksing of me when he akses if I'm 'certain'?

the best inextricably bound holes are in donuts, with or without sprinkles- stand if you like, or sit and be comfortable- Derrida is entombed in Paris

-Imp