And for every definition there are as many interpretations. Hence the problem: philosophy diverges (into infinitely many perspectives), knowledge converges into succinct and usable tools. Sufficiently so that any two humans can actually reach consensus on issues of HUMAN importance.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am It is said that there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempt to define it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
And I have reduced the essence to one word. Curiosity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am I have analyzed more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all over the world and I noted the essence of what is defined as philosophy is reducible to what I have abstracted from them.
It has no more limitations than any other publication platform/medium. The field of academia has its own set of problems:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am I have great admiration for Wiki as a convenient good starter, appertizer and gateway to further knowledge but obviously we need to understand its limitations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect
http://theconversation.com/the-peer-rev ... pair-72669
That is interesting criticism - given that every single philosophical perspective is a subjective viewVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am Wiki has come a long way since it started where all sorts of unpolished subjective views were thrown in.